September 8, 2014

Credit Default Swap Class Action Clears Motions To Dismiss And Proceeds To Discovery

By David Golden

On Thursday, Judge Denise Cote of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York refused to dismiss a class-action antitrust lawsuit involving the $21 trillion credit default swap (“CDS”) market, permitting the case to proceed to discovery.

The plaintiffs in In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation allege that some of the largest investment banks in the United States – including Bank of America, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan and Morgan Stanley – conspired to prevent price transparency and competition in the CDS market.  The individual plaintiffs are groups of CDS investors, including several public pension funds.

A CDS is a financial tool to hedge credit risk.  The buyer of a CDS purchases the seller’s promise to pay if a “credit event,” such as a credit default, occurs during a specified time period.  In effect, a CDS is an insurance policy.

click here for more »

Leave a comment »

Categories: Antitrust Litigation

    September 4, 2014

    MFNs Becoming A Battleground In FCC’s Review Of Comcast/Time Warner Deal

    By Allison F. Sheedy

    The biggest regulatory review of the year—the Federal Communications Commission’s examination of Comcast Corp.’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner, Inc.—has taken an interesting foray into analyzing competitive tactics, with the FCC’s invitation to media companies to confidentially raise concerns about Comcast’s use of most favored nation (“MFN”) provisions in its contracts to purchase content.

    The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the FCC has invited companies, including Discovery Communications, to offer feedback about Comcast’s MFNs to aid its evaluation of the proposed take-over.  The FCC also publicly released a request for information to Comcast that included (among many other items) details about each agreement in which Comcast has used an MFN.

    In a typical form, an MFN is a contractual promise obtained by a buyer from a seller that the seller will not give a better price to any other purchaser.  A buyer usually seeks an MFN clause as a form of protection to ensure that its competitors do not get cost or other advantages.

    click here for more »

    Leave a comment »

    Categories: Antitrust Enforcement, Antitrust Litigation, Antitrust Policy

      August 13, 2014

      NCAA’s Loss In O’Bannon Trial May Be Only A Partial Victory For Competition

      By Jeffrey Shinder and David Scupp

      Although competition scored a win on Friday in the student athletes’ antitrust suit led by former UCLA basketball player Ed O’Bannon against the NCAA, it wasn’t a complete blowout.

      Judge Claudia Wilken of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a 99-page decision that permanently enjoins the NCAA from enforcing its blanket restriction on FBS football and Division I basketball collegiate athletes receiving any portion of the licensing revenue generated from the use of the players’ names, images, and likenesses.

      The decision, rendered after trial in In re Student Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation, held that the NCAA’s restrictions violated antitrust law. The decision is significant: it marks the first time that a court has heard a challenge to the NCAA’s “amateurism” principles, it cuts through the NCAA’s rhetoric, and it rules largely in favor of the plaintiffs. But, while a significant victory for plaintiffs, the relief obtained was limited in ways that may unnecessarily restrict competition.

      click here for more »

      Leave a comment »

      Categories: Antitrust Litigation

        August 7, 2014

        Federal Court Denies Class Certification In Intel Antitrust Litigation

        By David Golden

        Plaintiffs in the long-running In re Intel Corporation Microprocessor Antitrust Litigation class action have suffered a major setback with last week’s denial of class certification by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

        The lawsuit, filed in 2005, alleges that Intel illegally excluded its major rival, Advanced Micro Devices (commonly referred to as “AMD”), from the U.S. market for x86 computer microprocessors[1] by paying computer manufacturers “loyalty payments” and “rebates” to use only Intel chips. The proposed class is compromised of indirect purchasers that bought computers that contained Intel microprocessors. The plaintiffs contend Intel’s payments to computer manufacturers reduced competition for chips, and ultimately raised the prices consumers paid for computers.

        click here for more »

        Leave a comment »

        Categories: Antitrust and Intellectual Property Law, Antitrust Litigation

          August 4, 2014

          Massachusetts Court Hosts Debate On Whether Partners HealthCare Merger Settlement Will Affect The Common Health Of The Commonwealth

          By Daniel Vitelli

          A Massachusetts state court has extended the time for a contentious debate on a proposed antitrust settlement that the Massachusetts State Attorney General says will help hold down medical expenses, and critics say will result in greater market power for the state’s largest health care system.

          Attorney General Martha Coakley is asking Suffolk Superior Court Judge Janet L. Sanders to approve a consent judgment that reflects a settlement agreement the Attorney General’s office has reached with Partners HealthCare System, Inc. The deal resolves an investigation by the Attorney General’s office into Partners’ acquisitions of South Shore Health and Educational Corp. (South Shore Hospital) and Hallmark Health Corp. (Lawrence Memorial Hospital and Melrose-Wakefield Hospital).

          The court has scheduled a hearing on the proposed antitrust settlement for Sept. 29, 2014. The court has also extended the public comment period on the settlement to Sept. 15, and given the Attorney General until Sept. 25 to respond to the comments.

          click here for more »

          Leave a comment »

          Categories: Antitrust Litigation

            « Previous Entries  






            © 2009-2014 Constantine Cannon LLP. Attorney Advertising. Disclaimer.