Justia Antitrust & Trade Regulation Opinion Summaries

A fuel distribution company sought to acquire a competitor in Western Alaska, prompting the State to sue for anticompetitive conduct under Alaska’s consumer protection laws. To resolve the dispute, the State and the company negotiated a consent decree requiring the company to divest a portion of its fuel storage capacity in Bethel to another distributor, Delta Western, before completing the acquisition. The consent decree specified that it would expire in 30 years or could be dissolved by court order for good cause. Delta Western was not a party to the consent decree, but entered into a separate fuel storage contract with the acquiring company as required by the decree. The contract’s term extended beyond the initial five years at Delta Western’s option.Years later, the Superior Court for the State of Alaska, Second Judicial District, Nome, dissolved the consent decree at the acquiring company’s request. The company then notified Delta Western that it considered the fuel storage contract terminated as a result. Delta Western filed a breach of contract action in Anchorage Superior Court, seeking to enforce the contract and arguing that its terms were independent of the consent decree. The contract case was transferred to Nome Superior Court, which issued a preliminary ruling that the contract remained valid despite the dissolution of the consent decree. The court also vacated its initial order dissolving the consent decree to allow Delta Western to intervene and present its position.The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska reviewed whether dissolution of the consent decree automatically terminated the fuel storage contract and whether the superior court abused its discretion by permitting Delta Western to intervene. The court held that dissolution of the consent decree did not automatically void the contract between the parties, and that the superior court did not abuse its discretion in allowing Delta Western to intervene. The Supreme Court affirmed the superior court’s decisions and lifted the stay on the contract case. View "Crowley Marine Services, Inc. v. State of Alaska" on Justia Law

Diego Pavia, a college football player, sought to play for Vanderbilt University during the 2025 season. After a successful 2024 season, Pavia faced ineligibility under National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) rules, which limit athletes to four seasons of intercollegiate competition, including seasons played at junior colleges. Pavia’s path included time at a junior college, New Mexico State University, and Vanderbilt. The NCAA counted his 2021 junior college season toward his eligibility, effectively barring him from playing in 2025. Pavia argued that this rule violated the Sherman Act and sought injunctive relief to allow him to play in the 2025 and 2026 seasons.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee granted Pavia a preliminary injunction, preventing the NCAA from enforcing the rule against him for the 2025 season and from applying its restitution rule to Vanderbilt or Pavia based on his participation. The NCAA appealed this decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.While the appeal was pending, the NCAA issued a waiver allowing all similarly situated athletes, including Pavia, to play in the 2025 season. The NCAA confirmed that this waiver would remain in effect regardless of the outcome of the appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit determined that, because Pavia had already received the relief he sought at the preliminary injunction stage, the appeal was moot. The court held that it could not grant any further effectual relief and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court also declined to vacate the preliminary injunction, finding that the NCAA’s own actions had caused the case to become moot. View "Pavia v. NCAA" on Justia Law

Several plaintiffs, including an individual, an investment fund, and a limited partnership, engaged in trading derivatives tied to the Sterling London Interbank Offered Rate (Sterling LIBOR). They alleged that a group of major banks conspired to manipulate Sterling LIBOR for their own trading advantage. The plaintiffs claimed that the banks coordinated false submissions to the rate-setting process, sometimes inflating and sometimes deflating the benchmark, which in turn affected the value of Sterling LIBOR-based derivatives. The plaintiffs asserted that this manipulation was orchestrated through internal and external communications among banks and with the help of inter-dealer brokers.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York reviewed the case and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims under the Sherman Act and the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA). The district court found that two plaintiffs lacked antitrust standing because they were not “efficient enforcers” and had not transacted directly with the defendants, resulting in only indirect and remote damages. The court also determined that the third plaintiff, a limited partnership, lacked the capacity to sue and had not properly assigned its claims to a substitute entity. Additionally, the court found that one plaintiff failed to adequately plead specific intent for the CEA claims.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal, but on a narrower ground. The Second Circuit held that none of the plaintiffs plausibly alleged actual injury under either the Sherman Act or the CEA. The court explained that because the alleged manipulation was multidirectional—sometimes raising and sometimes lowering Sterling LIBOR—the plaintiffs did not show that they suffered net harm as a result of the defendants’ conduct. Without specific allegations of transactions where they were harmed by the manipulation, the plaintiffs’ claims could not proceed. The judgment of dismissal was affirmed, and the cross-appeal was dismissed as moot. View "Sonterra Cap. Master Fund, Ltd. v. UBS AG" on Justia Law

A trading company and a base oil manufacturer entered into a sales agreement in 2016, under which the manufacturer would serve as the exclusive North American sales representative for a high-quality base oil product distributed by the trading company. The agreement included noncompete provisions and was set to expire at the end of 2021. In late 2020, suspicions arose between the parties regarding potential breaches of the agreement, leading to a series of letters in which the trading company accused the manufacturer of selling a competing product and threatened termination if the alleged breach was not cured. The manufacturer responded by denying any breach and, after further correspondence, declared the agreement terminated. The trading company agreed that the agreement was terminated, and both parties ceased their business relationship.The trading company then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, alleging antitrust violations, breach of contract, business disparagement, and misappropriation of trade secrets. The manufacturer counterclaimed for breach of contract and tortious interference. After a bench trial, the district court found in favor of the manufacturer on the breach of contract and trade secret claims, awarding over $1.3 million in damages. However, the court determined that the agreement was mutually terminated, not due to anticipatory repudiation by the trading company, and denied the manufacturer’s request for attorneys’ fees and prevailing party costs.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s finding that the trading company did not commit anticipatory repudiation and that the agreement was mutually terminated. The Fifth Circuit also affirmed the denial of prevailing party costs under Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. However, the appellate court vacated the denial of attorneys’ fees under the agreement’s fee-shifting provision and remanded for further proceedings on that issue. View "Penthol v. Vertex Energy" on Justia Law

A stockholder of Amazon.com, Inc. sent a letter to the company demanding to inspect its books and records under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. The stockholder aimed to investigate potential wrongdoing and mismanagement by Amazon, believing the company engaged in anticompetitive activities in the U.S. and Europe. When the stockholder and Amazon could not agree on certain conditions for producing the records, the stockholder filed an action in the Court of Chancery.A Magistrate in Chancery conducted a one-day trial and concluded that the stockholder did not meet its burden to prove a "credible basis" for inferring possible wrongdoing by Amazon. The stockholder took exceptions to the final report. A Vice Chancellor adopted the final report's conclusion but did not reach its credible basis analysis, instead finding the scope of the stockholder's stated purpose to be "facially improper" and not "lucid."On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware found that the Vice Chancellor erred in interpreting the scope of the stockholder's purpose and was required to engage with the evidence presented. The court determined that the evidence, including a complaint filed by the Federal Trade Commission against Amazon for alleged antitrust violations that largely survived a motion to dismiss, established a credible basis from which a court could infer possible wrongdoing by Amazon. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Chancery and remanded for further proceedings to determine the scope and conditions of production consistent with its decision. View "Roberta Ann K.W. Wong Leung Revocable Trust v. Amazon.com, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute between the former owner-operator of a professional baseball franchise in Puerto Rico and the league, its president, and other franchise owners. The plaintiffs allege that the defendants conspired to force the former owner to relinquish control of the franchise, violating the Sherman Act, a federal civil rights statute, and various Puerto Rico laws. The plaintiffs claim that the defendants' actions were in retaliation for the former owner's public criticism of the conditions at the team's stadium and his proposal to move the team to another municipality.The United States District Court for the District of Puerto Rico dismissed the plaintiffs' Sherman Act claims, citing the "business of baseball" exemption. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs' claims under Puerto Rico's antitrust and fair competition laws were preempted by federal law. Additionally, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' federal civil rights claim on res judicata grounds, based on a prior judgment from the Superior Court of San Juan. The court then declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Puerto Rico law claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the Sherman Act claims, agreeing that the "business of baseball" exemption applied to the Puerto Rico professional baseball league. However, the court vacated the District Court's dismissal of the Puerto Rico antitrust and fair competition claims, finding that the District Court had incorrectly applied the Supremacy Clause. The court also reversed the dismissal of the federal civil rights claim, concluding that the District Court had misapplied the doctrine of res judicata. Consequently, the court reversed the dismissal of the remaining Puerto Rico law claim, as a federal claim remained in the case. View "Cangrejeros de Santurce Baseball Club, LLC v. Liga de Beisbol Profesional de Puerto Rico, Inc." on Justia Law

East Gate-Logistics Park Chicago, LLC and NorthPoint Development, LLC (the East Gate parties) are involved in a dispute with CenterPoint Properties Trust and its affiliates (the CenterPoint parties) over development projects in the Joliet Intermodal Zone in Illinois. CenterPoint entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with local authorities to build a toll bridge, while East Gate later secured an agreement allowing heavy trucks to bypass this toll bridge, which CenterPoint claims violates the MOU.The CenterPoint parties sued in Will County Court to enjoin the East Gate agreement, initially losing but later securing a preliminary injunction on remand from the Illinois Appellate Court. The state court has yet to rule on the merits. Subsequently, the East Gate parties filed a federal antitrust lawsuit, claiming the MOU unlawfully restricted competition. The CenterPoint parties argued the federal court lacked jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, should abstain under the Colorado River doctrine, and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine shielded them from antitrust liability.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois rejected the Rooker-Feldman argument, dismissed the Noerr-Pennington motion without addressing the merits, but stayed the federal proceedings under Colorado River. The East Gate parties appealed the stay, while the CenterPoint parties cross-appealed the rejection of their motions.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, determining that the stay did not effectively end the federal case and was merely a case management decision. The court also found no basis for immediate appeal of the interlocutory orders denying the motions to dismiss, as these could be reviewed after a final decision. View "East Gate-Logistics Park Chicago, LLC v. CenterPoint Properties Trust" on Justia Law

CoStar Group, Inc. and CoStar Realty Information, Inc. (collectively, “CoStar”) and Commercial Real Estate Exchange, Inc. (“CREXi”) are online platforms competing in the commercial real estate listing, information, and auction markets. CoStar sued CREXi for copyright infringement, alleging that CREXi listed images and information hosted by CoStar without permission. CREXi counterclaimed on antitrust grounds, asserting that CoStar engaged in monopolistic practices to exclude competition.The United States District Court for the Central District of California dismissed CREXi’s antitrust counterclaims and directed entry of final judgment on those claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The district court held that CREXi failed to show CoStar had monopoly power and that the agreements at issue were not exclusive. CREXi appealed the dismissal of its antitrust counterclaims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal of the antitrust counterclaims. The Ninth Circuit held that CREXi successfully stated claims under §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, California’s Cartwright Act, and the Unfair Competition Law. The court found that CREXi plausibly alleged CoStar had monopoly power in the relevant markets and engaged in anticompetitive conduct by entering into de facto exclusive deals with brokers and imposing technological barriers to entry. The court concluded that a monopolist using its power to exclude competitors and maintain monopoly power violates § 2 of the Sherman Act, and using exclusive deals to do so violates § 1 of the Sherman Act and the Cartwright Act. The court also held that CREXi stated claims under the “unfair” and “unlawful” prongs of the Unfair Competition Law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal of CREXi’s tortious interference claims as they were improperly raised. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "COSTAR GROUP, INC. V. COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE EXCHANGE, INC." on Justia Law

Junius Joyner, III, an African-American male, was hired by a legal staffing agency, Mestel & Company (Hire Counsel), and assigned to work at Morrison & Foerster LLP in Washington, D.C. He worked on the merger of Sprint Corporation with T-Mobile U.S., Inc. from July to December 2019. Joyner alleged several incidents of racial discrimination and a hostile work environment, including delayed work assignments, derogatory comments, and harassment by coworkers. He also claimed wrongful discharge under D.C. law, asserting he was terminated after reporting potential antitrust violations.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Joyner’s complaint for failure to state a claim. The court found that Joyner did not provide sufficient facts to support his claims of racial discrimination and a hostile work environment under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and Title VII. The court also dismissed his wrongful discharge claim under D.C. law, concluding that it lacked supplemental jurisdiction over this state law claim.The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the case de novo. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of Joyner’s federal claims, agreeing that Joyner failed to plausibly allege that his treatment was racially motivated or that the work environment was sufficiently hostile. The court found that Joyner’s allegations did not meet the necessary standard to infer racial discrimination or a hostile work environment. However, the appellate court vacated the district court’s judgment on the wrongful discharge claim, holding that the district court lacked jurisdiction over this claim and remanded it with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. View "Joyner v. Morrison and Foerster LLP" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs Anthony D’Armiento and Susan Scharpf filed a class action lawsuit against several major shipbuilders and naval-engineering consultancies, alleging a "no-poach" conspiracy to suppress wages by agreeing not to recruit each other’s employees. The plaintiffs, who had not worked for any defendant since 2013, claimed that this conspiracy was concealed through a "non-ink-to-paper" agreement, which they only discovered in April 2023 through an investigation.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia dismissed the case, ruling that it was barred by the Sherman Act’s four-year statute of limitations. The court found that the alleged "non-ink-to-paper" agreement did not constitute an affirmative act of fraudulent concealment that would toll the limitations period.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision. The appellate court held that an agreement deliberately kept unwritten to avoid detection could qualify as an affirmative act of concealment. The court emphasized that fraudulent concealment can include acts of omission, such as avoiding the creation of written evidence. The court found that the plaintiffs had adequately alleged that the defendants engaged in affirmative acts of concealment by maintaining a secret, unwritten no-poach agreement.The Fourth Circuit concluded that the plaintiffs’ allegations met the relaxed Rule 9(b) standard for pleading fraudulent concealment with particularity. The court also determined that the plaintiffs had sufficiently alleged due diligence, as they were not on inquiry notice of the conspiracy until the investigation in 2023. The case was reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Scharpf v. General Dynamics Corporation" on Justia Law