The Second Circuit held on Valentine's Day that cheaters shouldn't prosper.

At least when they sue their old bid-rigging friends for rigging bids so as to punish them for mending their cheating ways. The panel ruled that Gatt Communications lacked standing to sue its erstwhile co-conspirators because, among other things, the harm to Gatt didn't result from injury to competition. Gatt Communications, Inc. v. PMC Assocs., LLC, No. 11-1111-cv (2d Cir. Feb. 14, 2013).

The third judge on the panel would have upheld the killing of the erstwhile bid-rigger's antitrust claim under the doctrine of in pari delicto (equally at fault). But the U.S. Supreme Court has never applied the IPD defense in an antitrust case. That means judge no. 3 wants to create a new way to defeat Sherman Act claims.

Should that view prevail? Nah. Antitrust law boasts more than enough ways to defeat claims. We don't need any more.