Apple settles
Apple has settled up to $841 million of antitrust claims by state attorneys-general and a nationwide class of consumers who bought e-books from Apple and its publisher co-conspirators.
The pact comes almost a year after U.S. District Judge Denise Cote in New York held Apple civilly liable for conspiracy to fix prices, a
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
The Second Circuit today came out with rulings in two big commercial cases.
The first involved a "collateralized debt obligation", the second a cartel that the plaintiffs alleged fixed prices for "publication paper". Plaintiffs won both times.
The CDO case stemmed from a $60 million purchase in December 2006 by a German bank, Bayerische
Seldom does Blawgletter get the pleasure of reading an Intriguing and Forceful Analysis of a recent and important court of appeals decision. Our dear friend Sam Simon blessed us with his views about In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., No. 07-4046 (3d Cir. Aug. 16, 2010) (post here), today. And, with his kind
The Third Circuit came out last week with a 200-page rumination on the post-Twombly plausibility of conspiracies under section 1 of the Sherman Act (and the Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act). In re Ins. Brokerage Antitrust Litig., No. 07-4046 (3d Cir. Aug. 16, 2010).
The court upheld dismissal of hub-and-spoke conspiracy claims that
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court twice took a narrow view of liability under federal law for fraudulent conduct.
In one case, the Court held that section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 doesn't apply to overseas purchases and sales of securities. That the fraud started in or affected the U.S. didn't defeat the