We've known at least since Bell Atl. Co. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), that competitors can engage in parallel conduct — charging the same price, offering the same product features, setting identical contract terms — without running afoul of the Sherman Act. A plaintiff claiming a violation of section 1, which bars conspiracies
auction rate securities
Notice of Intent to Manipulate Bars Finding of Manipulation, Second Circuit Holds in ARS Case
By Barry Barnett on
Caveat emptor, buyers of auction rate securities! The issuer's giving of notice that it might create the illusion of liquidity in an ARS auction defeats your claim that the issuer "manipulated" the auction market. Wilson v. Merrill Lynch & Co, Inc., No. 10-1528-cv (2d Cir. Nov. 14, 2011).
First Circuit Okays Denial of Preliminary Injunction in Auction Rate Securities Case
By Barry Barnett on
You may remember that in February 2008 the "auctions" that gave "auction-rate securities" their liquidity seized up. Lots of people who'd bought ARSs thought they could sell them about as easily as they could unload shares in money market funds. The slightly higher rate of return made the ARSs more attractive. So they believed.
The auctions…