CASE COMMENTS : UNITED STATES – PRIVATE ENFORCEMENT – CONCERTED PRACTICES – BOYCOTT

United States: The Court of Appeals for the eleventh circuit holds that collective actions by holders of convertible senior notes issued by a plaintiff do not amount to an illegal boycott under Section 1 of the Sherman Act (CompuCredit Holdings Corporation/Akanthos Capital Management)

*This article is an automatic translation of the original article, provided here for your convenience. Read the original article. Can the collective decision taken by several investment funds to refuse an offer by a credit institution to repurchase in advance securities it had issued be analysed as an agreement contrary to Section 1 of the Sherman Act? This is the question that the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had to answer in a decision dated November 10, 2011 (CompuCredit Holdings Corporation v. Akanthos Capital Management, LLC et al, No. 11-13254, U. S. Court of Appeals, 11th Cir. 2011-2 Trade Cases p. 77, 672). Beyond the interest that the meeting of antitrust law and capital markets law may generate, the case allows the court to specify the extent to which creditors

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

Author

Quotation

Jean-Christophe Roda, United States: The Court of Appeals for the eleventh circuit holds that collective actions by holders of convertible senior notes issued by a plaintiff do not amount to an illegal boycott under Section 1 of the Sherman Act (CompuCredit Holdings Corporation/Akanthos Capital Management), 16 February 2012, Concurrences N° 1-2012, Art. N° 42405, pp. 238-239

Visites 335

All reviews