Antitrust

Subscribe to Antitrust via RSS

In an opinion yesterday, Judge Forrest denied (for the most part) various motions to dismiss the collection of cases alleging an antitrust conspiracy among commodity trading firms and their affiliated warehouse operators relating to the price of aluminum.  She had dismissed an earlier version of the case because it alleged only parallel (not conspiratorial) conduct (see here), but the updated pleadings, she ruled, are now sufficient:
Continue Reading Judge Forrest Allows Aluminum Warehouse Antitrust Case (As Amended) to Proceed

In an opinion yesterday, Judge Schofield denied various banks’ motion to dismiss a price fixing case concerning a foreign exchange benchmark called the “Fix.” Notably, Judge Schofield distinguished her ruling from Judge Buchwald’s ruling dismissing a similar case concerning the LIBOR benchmark (covered here).  Judge Buchwald had ruled there could be no “antitrust injury” because LIBOR is set by banks acting “cooperative[ly]” (as opposed to acting as competitors) to estimate their borrowing costs, whereas, as Judge Schofield pointed out, banks establish the Fix by actual transactions. Judge Schofield went on to disagree with the LIBOR ruling, to the extent it could be read to require a showing, at the pleading stage, that the injury alleged could not have resulted from unilateral (as opposed to collusive) conduct:
Continue Reading In Allowing Foreign Exchange Price-Fixing Case to Proceed, Judge Schofield Disagrees With Judge Buchwald’s LIBOR Ruling

In a 135-page opinion issued Thursday, but made public for the first time Friday in redacted form, Judge Sweet granted the New York Attorney General’s motion to enjoin drug maker Activis from dropping a twice-a-day Alzheimer’s drug called Namenda IR, whose patent protection is about to expire, in favor of a once-a-day version called Namenda XR. The switch was allegedly motivated to prevent triggering state laws requiring pharmacists to substitute generics that are “AB-rated” to the brand name drug — i.e., have the same active ingredient, “form, dosage, strength, and safety and efficacy profile.”  These laws can cause a sharp decline in revenue when a patent expires (referred to as the “patent cliff”). As Judge Sweet explained, companies may try to avoid the “patent cliff” through a practice called “product hopping”:
Continue Reading Judge Sweet Blocks Activis From “Product Hopping” Alzheimer’s Drug To Avoid Triggering Laws Requiring Substitution of Generics

In a motion yesterday, various banks involved in the multidistrict litigation relating to alleged LIBOR manipulation moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.  They argue that LIBOR is set in set in London by foreign banks or foreign employees and, thus, the allegations lack a sufficient connection to the United States:
Continue Reading Banks Challenge Jurisdiction in LIBOR Suits; Emphasize That LIBOR Is Set In London

In an opinion today, Judge Cote largely denied motions to dismiss from various banks and others accused of colluding to maintain control of the market for credit default swaps. According to the complaint, a joint venture led by Citadel tried to establish a clearinghouse called CMDX that would potentially threaten the defendants’ market dominance, and the defendants responded by conspiring to block critical market participants, ISDA and Markit, from granting licenses that would be necessary for the clearinghouse to function. Judge Cote rejected the defendants’ arguments that the pleadings were not detailed enough to suggest a conspiracy:
Continue Reading Judge Cote Allows Credit Default Swap Antitrust Action to Proceed

In an 85-page ruling today, Judge Forrest dismissed a group of cases alleging that trading firms and warehouse operators conspired to increase the price of aluminum. The opinion states that the motion consisted of more than 2,600 pages of material, and refers to the fact that the parties delivered a tutorial to Judge Forrest on the workings of the aluminum trading market. The ruling was primarily based on the fact that the allegations amounted to parallel, rational market behavior, not a conspiracy:
Continue Reading Judge Forrest Dismisses Aluminum Antitrust Case; Rules Price Increase “Unintended Consequence” of Parallel Conduct

In an opinion issued on Friday, Judge Scheindlin denied the summary judgment motion of MLB, the NHL, Comcast and DirectTV on antitrust claims rising out of the territorial distribution of television rights the sports leagues have arranged with regional sports networks.  Under the current system, fans are able only to watch a team’s games if it is available from their specific regional network, or if they are willing to pay for the right to watch every team’s games league-wide. Judge Scheindlin, after recounting the nearly century-long history of the “so-called ‘baseball exemption'” to the antitrust laws, formulated by the Supreme Court in Federal Baseball Club of Baltimore v. National League of Professional Baseball Clubs in 1922 and revisited several times by the Court and Congress, ruled that the exemption does not apply to territorial broadcasting restrictions.
Continue Reading Judge Scheindlin: MLB, NHL Television Deals Not Exempt from Antitrust Laws

In a pair of consolidated cases alleging that it is anticompetitive for Major League Baseball and the National Hockey League to divide the market for games into various territories exclusive to the local teams, while allowing the broadcast of out-of-market games only as part of all-or-nothing packages like MLB Extra Innings or NHL Center Ice (see our prior posts here and here), the MLB and NHL moved (see here [MLB] and here [NHL]), in papers filed online last night, for summary judgment. MLB’s motion argues:
Continue Reading MLB and NHL Move for Summary Judgment in Antitrust Cases Over “Territorial” Broadcast Structure

In opinion today announcing findings from a bench trial, Judge Pauley rejected claims that American Express, Citi and Discover colluded to add arbitration clauses barring class actions to their standard card agreements. He found that the defendants acted individually, not collusively:
Continue Reading In Bench Trial, Judge Pauley Finds That Credit Card Issuers Did Not Collude to Adopt Class Action Waivers in Card Agreements