(1) Any contract or agreement that a person makes while a member of any combination, conspiracy, trust, or pool prohibited under this article 4 that is founded upon, is the result of, grows out of, or is connected with any violation of this article 4, either directly or indirectly, is void, and the person may not recover based on or benefit from the contract or agreement.
(2) Any payments made upon, under, or pursuant to a contract or agreement for the benefit of a person that is a member of any combination, conspiracy, trust, or pool prohibited under this article 4 may be recovered in an action brought by the party making the payments or by the party's heirs, personal representatives, or assigns.
Source: L. 2023: Entire article R&RE, (HB 23-1192), ch. 427, p. 2518, § 2, effective June 7.
Editor's note: This section is similar to former § 6-4-121 as it existed prior to 2023.
Notes of Decisions
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC, 280 P.3d 1256 (Colo. 2012).
· cites it 5× “The court of appeals then relied on section 6-4-121, C.R.S. (2011), 9 to reverse the quiet title decree, but declined to void the foreclosure sale.”
Amos v. Aspen Alps 123, LLC, 298 P.3d 940 (Colo. Ct. App. 2010).
· cites it 7× “Yet, Amos argues that we must do so under section 6-4-121, C.R.S.2009, which provides in relevant part: All contracts or agreements made by any person while a member of any combination, conspiracy, trust, or pool prohibited under this article which are founded upon, or are the…”
Pomerantz v. Microsoft Corp., 50 P.3d 929 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “Void Contract Provision Pomerantz contends that, notwithstanding the above, he has standing to seek relief on his claim that the licensing agreement between him and Microsoft is void pursuant to § 6-4-121 and that the trial court erred by not expressly addressing this claim.”
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 223 F.R.D. 335 (E.D. Pa. 2004).
“See Colo.Rev.Stat. Ann. § 6-4-121. Thus, for all of the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the Supreme Court of Colorado would adopt cross-jurisdictional class action tolling for antitrust class actions filed in federal courts.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.