Antitrust
 Antitrust Immunity and IPO Offerings
Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al. v. Billing, et al.No. 05-1157 Supreme Court of the United States NCLC urged the Supreme Court to imply antitrust immunity for conduct related to Initial Public Offerings (IPO). In this case, plaintiffs filed class actions against the leading investment banks for allegedly engaging in anticompetitive conduct while recruiting customers for IPOs. In its brief, NCLC explained that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) pervasively regulates the IPO process and that SEC's regulatory regime not only encourages competition but also capital formation, a goal undermined by the court permitting antitrust class actions to proceed. Amicus brief filed 1/22/07. Oral argument to be held 3/27/07. Decision 6/18/07.  View brief
....................................................................................................
Class Actions and Indirect Purchaser Claims under New York Law
Sperry v. Crompton Corp., et al.
No. 2004-06517
New York Court of Appeals
NCLC urges the New York Court of Appeals to leave in place the New York legislature's determination that indirect purchasers advancing an antitrust claim should not be permitted to do so via the class action vehicle. In its brief, NCLC explains that indirect purchaser class action claims are unworkable, that even meritless class actions place a special burden on defendants and that there are other methods of ensuring that companies who violate the antitrust laws are held culpable for their behavior. In addition, NCLC noted that the plaintiff attempted to make an end run around the class action bar by filing an unjust enrichment claim and that the Court of Appeals should reject that effort.
Amicus brief filed 12/1/06.
View brief....................................................................................................
Antitrust Allegations and Parallel Activities
Bell Atlantic Corporation, et al. v. Twombly, et al.No. 05-1126 Supreme Court of the United States
NCLC filed an amicus brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to reject lower standards for allowing antitrust lawsuits to proceed through the judicial process. In the case, the Second Circuit overturned a district court's dismissal of a complaint filed against four major telecommunication providers. The complaint alleged that the companies' failure to compete in each other's markets constituted a conspiracy sufficient to establish an agreement to restrain trade. NCLC pointed out in its brief that businesses are often engaged in parallel activities, and without having an evidentiary requirement to prove a conspiracy, any business might find itself unfairly targeted for antitrust allegations.
Amicus brief in support of cert. filed 4/6/06. Review granted 6/26/06. Amicus brief on the merits filed 8/25/06. Oral argument to be held 11/27/06. Decision 5/21/06.
View brief....................................................................................................
Antitrust Allegations and Parallel Activities
No. 05-1126
Supreme Court of the United States
NCLC has urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject lower standards for allowing antitrust lawsuits to proceed through the judicial process. In the case, the Second Circuit overturned a district court's dismissal of a complaint filed against four major telecommunication providers. The complaint alleged that the companies' failure to compete in each other's markets constituted "parallel activities" sufficient to establish an agreement to restrain trade. NCLC pointed out in its brief that businesses are often engaged in parallel activities, and without having an evidentiary requirement to prove a conspiracy, any business might find itself unfairly targeted for antitrust allegations.
Amicus brief in support of cert. filed 4/6/06. Review granted 6/26/06. Amicus brief on the merits filed 8/25/06.
View brief View brief (Supreme Court)
....................................................................................................
Standards under the Antitrust Laws Governing Predatory Buying Claims
Weyerhaeuser v. Ross Simmons Hardware Lumber Co., Inc.No. 05-381 Supreme Court of the United States
In its brief on the merits, NCLC argued the Ninth Circuit's effort to resolve predatory purchasing claims with vague, almost contentless standards like paying a price "higher than necessary" and preventing competitors from being able to buy at a "fair" price, would impede competition and cause unnecessary treble damages liability. Instead, NCLC argued the Ninth Circuit should have adopted the recoupment standard employed in analyzing predatory selling claims.
Amicus brief in support of cert. filed 10/26/2005. Review granted 6/26/06. Amicus brief on the merits filed 8/24/06. Oral argument to be held 11/28/06. Decision 2/20/07.
....................................................................................................
Standards under the Antitrust Laws Governing Predatory Buying ClaimsWeyerhaeuser Company v. Ross-Simmons Hardwood Lumber Company, Inc.No. 05-381 Supreme Court of the United States
Urging the Supreme Court to grant review, NCLC argues that the Ninth Circuit's effort to resolve predatory buying claims with vague, almost contentless standards like paying a price "higher than necessary" and preventing competitors from being able to buy at a "fair" price would impede competition and cause unnecessary treble damages liability. Instead, NCLC argues that the Ninth Circuit should have adopted the recoupment standard employed in analyzing predatory selling claims.
Amicus brief in support of cert. filed 10/26/2005. Review granted 6/26/06. Amicus brief on the merits filed 8/24/06.
View brief (Supreme Court)
....................................................................................................
Antitrust Immunity and IPO Offerings
Credit Suisse First Boston Ltd., et al. v. Glen Billing, et al.
No. 05-1157
Supreme Court of the United States
Urged to do so by NCLC, the Supreme Court has granted review to consider the scope of antitrust immunity for conduct related to initial public offerings. In this case, plaintiffs filed class actions against the leading investment banks for allegedly engaging in anticompetitive conduct while recruiting customers for the IPOs. In its brief, NCLC explained that the Securities and Exchange Commission pervasively regulates the IPO process and that SEC's regulatory regime not only encourages competition but also capital formation, a goal undermined by the court permitting antitrust class actions to proceed.
Amicus brief in support of Cert. filed 4/11/06. Call for the Views of the Solicitor General 6/19/06. Cert. granted 12/7/06.
View brief
....................................................................................................
Federal Court Jurisdiction over Antitrust Conduct in Foreign Markets
Christie's International PLC, et al. v. Kruman, et al.
No. 02-340
U. S. Supreme Court
Although this case was settled earlier this year, the class notification and approval procedure was not completed until recently, at which time the petition for cert. in the case was dismissed. In supporting cert., NCLC argued that participants in wholly foreign transactions should not be allowed to pursue antitrust claims for treble damages in federal court for injuries suffered abroad when there is no anticompetitive effect on U. S. commerce.
Amicus brief in support of petition for cert. filed 10/7/02. Petition for cert. dismissed 8/7/03.
|
Share This Page