of America or any State thereof relating to magnesite or magnesite products brokered by Possehl, and subsequently delivered to Resco during the period from 2000 through the present. Possehl, as Assignor, will make avail- . able for copying at the sole expense of Resco, as Assignee, records documenting the producing seller to Resco of products covered by this Assignment. Id. There is nothing wrong with the abstract legal basis of Resco’s theory of standing. It is well settled in the Third Circuit that “express assignments of antitrust claims from a direct purchaser to an indirect purchaser are permissible and do not run afoul of Illinois Brick’s standing requirements.” In re K-Dur Antitrust Litig., 338 F.Supp.2d at 539 (citing Gulf-stream, III Associates, Inc., 995 F.2d at 438-440 (<HOLDING>)); see also In re Wellbutrin Sr Direct
holding in non 17200 case that common law claims duplicative of the flsa are preempted holding that any assignment of antitrust claims as a matter of federal common law must be an express assignment  because an express assignment  entirely eliminates any problems of split recoveries or duplicative liability holding that article 4a of the ucc preempts common law claims where they are inconsistent or duplicative holding that the determination of whether an individual is an independent contractor lies in the common law and not under an express provision of the act holding that ownership of vehicle later involved in accident passed to buyer even though assignment of title not completed