Justia U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Plaintiffs filed numerous antitrust suits alleging that the Banks colluded to depress LIBOR by violating the rate‐setting rules, and that the payout associated with the various financial instruments was thus below what it would have been if the rate had been unmolested. After consolidation into a multi-district litigation (MDL), the district court dismissed the litigation in its entirety based on failure to plead antitrust injury. The court vacated the judgment on the ground that: (1) horizontal price‐fixing constitutes a per se antitrust violation; (2) a plaintiff alleging a per se antitrust violation need not separately plead harm to competition; and (3) a consumer who pays a higher price on account of horizontal price‐fixing suffers antitrust injury. The court remanded for further proceedings on the question of antitrust standing. Finally, the court rejected the Bank's alternative argument that no conspiracy has been adequately alleged. View "In re: LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litig." on Justia Law

Apotex filed suit alleging that Acorda filed a sham citizen petition with the FDA to hinder approval of Apotex's competing formulation of a drug for treating spasticity, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2, and that Acorda violated the Lanham Act's, 15 U.S.C. 1125(a)(1), proscription on false advertising. The district court ruled that the simultaneous approval by the FDA of Apotex’s drug application and its denial of Acorda’s citizen petition was by itself insufficient to support a Sherman Act claim. The district court then granted summary judgment and dismissed all of Apotex’s false advertising claims on the grounds that (with the exception of one graph) no representation was literally false or likely to mislead consumers. In regard to the graph, Apotex failed to show that the false depiction would meaningfully impact consumers’ purchasing decisions. The court concluded that, although precedent supports an inference that a citizen petition is an anticompetitive weapon if it attacks a rival drug application and is denied the same day that the application is approved, that inference has been undercut by recent FDA guidance.  As to false advertising, the court agreed with the district court that no reasonable jury could have found that Acorda made literally false or misleading representations in its advertisements, with the exception of a single representation that Apotex has failed to show affected decisions to purchase. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Apotex Inc. v. Acorda Therapeutics, Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, seven entities who are collectively attempting to develop a casino-resort complex in the Catskills, filed suit under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, alleging that defendants entered into an anti-competitive scheme to obstruct plaintiffs' resort development. At issue is whether plaintiffs have alleged a plausible relevant geographic market for their casino-related products and services. In this case, plaintiffs define the relevant market as the Racing/Gaming Market in the Catskills Region. The court held that plaintiffs’ pleadings fail to define a plausible relevant geographic or product market for antitrust purposes, and that the district court properly dismissed their Sherman Act claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Concord Assoc., L.P. v. Entertainment Properties Trust" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, seven entities who are collectively attempting to develop a casino-resort complex in the Catskills, filed suit under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, 2, alleging that defendants entered into an anti-competitive scheme to obstruct plaintiffs' resort development. At issue is whether plaintiffs have alleged a plausible relevant geographic market for their casino-related products and services. In this case, plaintiffs define the relevant market as the Racing/Gaming Market in the Catskills Region. The court held that plaintiffs’ pleadings fail to define a plausible relevant geographic or product market for antitrust purposes, and that the district court properly dismissed their Sherman Act claims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Concord Assoc., L.P. v. Entertainment Properties Trust" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a group of 28 retail pharmacies, filed suit against defendants, primarily pharmaceutical manufacturers, alleging claims for money damages and injunctive relief under subsections 2(a), 2(d), and 2(f) of the Robinson‐Patman Act, 15 U.S.C.13(a), 13(d), 13(f), and sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 15, 26. Plaintiffs’ main contentions are that the lower prices offered by manufacturers violate the Robinson‐Patman Act by harming their ability to compete, and that favored purchasers violated the Act by using their drug formularies to extract the lower prices. Plaintiffs sought to prove that discounts caused them to lose customers to the favored purchasers, and that as a consequence they suffered injury under the antitrust laws. The district court concluded that plaintiffs could prove neither type of injury and granted defendants summary judgment. The court concluded that, given that an extended discovery process resulted in almost no evidence of diverted sales or other indicia of potential competitive injury, summary judgment was appropriate on the section 2(a) claims; plaintiffs failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to competitive injury and antitrust injury; injunctive relief is inappropriate where plaintiffs have offered no argument that future conditions will change in such a way as to make the injuries they claim to have suffered more pronounced than currently alleged; and since plaintiffs failed to show competitive or antitrust injury with regard to their section 2(a) claim, summary judgment is appropriate with respect to their claims under sections 2(d) and 2(f) as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Cash & Henderson Drugs v. Johnson & Johnson" on Justia Law

The Justice Department and 33 states and territories filed suit alleging that Apple, in launching the iBookstore, had conspired with the Publisher Defendants to raise prices across the nascent ebook market, in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1 et seq., and state antitrust laws. All five Publisher Defendants settled and signed consent decrees, which prohibited them, for a period, from restricting ebook retailers’ ability to set prices. The district court found that the agreement constituted a per se violation of the Sherman Act and, in the alternative, unreasonably restrained trade under the rule of reason. The district court issued an injunctive order that, inter alia, prevents Apple from entering into agreements with the Publisher Defendants that restrict its ability to set, alter, or reduce the price of ebooks, and requires Apple to apply the same terms and conditions to ebook applications sold on its devices as it does to other applications. The court concluded that the district court’s decision that Apple orchestrated a horizontal conspiracy among the Publisher Defendants to raise ebook prices is amply supported and well‐reasoned, and that the agreement unreasonably restrained trade in violation of section 1 of the Sherman Act. The court also concluded that the district court’s injunction is lawful and consistent with preventing future anticompetitive harms. The court rejected Macmillan and Simon & Schuster's argument that the portion of the injunction related to Apple’s pricing authority either unlawfully modifies their consent decrees or should be judicially estopped. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Apple, Inc." on Justia Law

The district court found Apple in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. 1, because Apple facilitated and executed a conspiracy where five of the six largest e-book publishers in the country entered into a horizontal conspiracy to eliminate retail price competition in order to raise e-book prices. The district court issued an external compliance monitor through a permanent injunction. At issue on appeal is the district court’s denial of the motion to disqualify the appointed monitor, and modifications of the injunction. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to disqualify the monitor based on the record before the district court. The court also concluded that, in light of the court's intervening interpretation of the injunction, the terms of the injunction are not currently affected by modifications (if any) made by the district court. Accordingly, the court affirmed the decisions of the district court without prejudice. The court ordered the letter at issue disclosing the fee schedule unsealed and directed the Clerk of the Court to make that letter publicly available on the docket. View "United States v. Apple Inc." on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, wholesale dealers in pharmaceutical products, filed a putative class action alleging that defendants violated the anti-monopolization provision of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 2, by breaching defendants' contracts to supply two of their competitors with an unbranded version of defendants' patented drug for resale under the competitors' own labels. The court rejected plaintiffs' claim that these contracts gave rise to a "duty to deal" enforceable by third-party customers such as themselves under the antitrust laws. The court concluded that plaintiffs failed to allege facts that would place this case within Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Corp.'s narrow exception to the long recognized right of a trader or manufacturer engaged in an entirely private business, freely to exercise his own independent discretion as to parties with whom he will deal. Plaintiffs' complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and it was properly dismissed by the district court under Rule 12(b)(6). Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Louisiana Wholesale Drug Co. v. Shire LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 1,2, alleging that defendants, a group of five competing electronics firms, have attempted to leverage their ownership of certain key patents to gain control of a new technology standard for USB connectors and, by extension, to gain monopoly power over the entire USB connector industry. The court held that, under principles articulated in a line of recent Supreme Court decisions extending from Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp. to Sebelius v. Auburn Regional Medical Center, the requirements of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act (FTAIA), 15 U.S.C. 6a, are substantive and nonjurisdictional in nature. Because Congress has not clearly stated that these requirements are jurisdictional, they go to the merits of the claim rather than the adjudicative power of the court. In so holding, the court overruled the court's prior decision in Filetech S.A. v. France Telecom S.A. The court also concluded that, although the FTAIA's requirements are nonjurisdictional and thus potentially waivable, the court rejected plaintiffs' argument that defendants somehow have waived them by contract in this case; foreign anticompetitive conduct can have a statutorily required direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on U.S. domestic or import commerce even if the effect does not follow as an immediate consequence of defendant's conduct, so long as there is a reasonably proximate causal nexus between the conduct and the effect; the court rejected the interpretation of "direct...effect" advanced by the Ninth Circuit in United States v. LSL Biotechnologies in favor of the interpretation advocated by amici curiae the United States and the FTC and adopted by the Seventh Circuit in its en banc decision in Minn-Chem, Inc. v. Agrium, Inc.; and the court need not decide, however, whether plaintiff here has plausibly alleged the requisite "direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect" under the proper standard. Accordingly, the court affirmed on alternative grounds the judgment of the district court dismissing plaintiff's claims. View "Lotes Co., Ltd. v. Hon Hai Precision Industry Co." on Justia Law

United appealed the district court's order denying United's motion to dismiss an antitrust complaint brought against it by DHL. At issue was whether DHL had sufficient notice of the availability of the claim against a Chapter 11 debtor to satisfy due process requirements and render the claim discharged. The court concluded that the district court applied an incorrect standard in accepting as true DHL's allegation that it was not aware of, or with due diligence could not have become aware of, sufficient facts to plead an antitrust claim that would survive a motion to dismiss in the context of a bankruptcy proceeding. Therefore, the court remanded for further development of the facts concerning (a) what DHL knew or reasonably should have known in time to present an antitrust claim in the bankruptcy proceeding, or to file a late proof of claim or move to amend the reorganization plan and (b) what United knew or reasonably should have known concerning DHL's claim. View "DPWN Holdings (USA), Inc. v. United Airlines, Inc." on Justia Law