The US District Court for the Southern district of New York finds that plaintiffs adequately pled a conspiracy to restrain trade because the defendants “abruptly and simultaneously” switched their positions, especially because their new position harms their own interests (Credit Default Swaps)

In re Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation: Big Banks Still Must Face Section 1 Sherman Act Claim* In a decision upholding most of the class action antitrust claims against 12 of the world’s largest financial institutions, Judge Cote of the Southern District of New York held that the plaintiffs had standing and alleged sufficient facts to satisfy their Section 1 claim under the Sherman Act. While Judge Cote denied plaintiffs’ conspiracy to monopolize claim under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, she did suggest two ways antitrust plaintiffs could bring a conspiracy to monopolize claim even where an oligopoly, not a monopoly, is present. Facts Plaintiffs in the case primarily allege they paid inflated prices for Credit Default Swaps (“CDS”) because the defendants conspired to fix

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers

Already Subscribed? Sign-in

Access to this article is restricted to subscribers.

Read one article for free

Sign-up to read this article for free and discover our services.

 

PDF Version

Authors

  • Siemens (New York)
  • Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler (New York)

Quotation

Deirdre McEvoy, Terra Hittson, The US District Court for the Southern district of New York finds that plaintiffs adequately pled a conspiracy to restrain trade because the defendants “abruptly and simultaneously” switched their positions, especially because their new position harms their own interests (Credit Default Swaps), 4 September 2014, e-Competitions Bulletin Burden of proof, Art. N° 69687

Visites 53

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues