Source: cases/15usc1/f-supp-3d-351-698-in-re-interest-rate-swaps.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_351/0698_01/index.html
The claimed Dealer behavior towards trueEX thus must be evaluated, not myopically as the Dealers' brief largely proceeds, but against the backdrop of a contemporaneous Dealer plot against entities that posed a similar threat to the Dealers' business model and profitability.
To be plausibly pled, a conspiracy to marginalize a looming competitive threat does not require that allegations that each conspirator acted at every turn maximally to ice that threat,
On its review, the Court holds, trueEX has plausibly pled a § 1 boycott conspiracy aimed at harming, marginalizing, and/or destroying-along with the other two platforms-its platform.
Do the facts pled plausibly support that the individual Dealer, already implicated in a conspiracy against two like platforms, was aware of the conspiracy's third and parallel object (as to trueEX's platform)?
the Court's assessment is that the inferences urged by trueEX are plausible enough to preclude granting a motion to dismiss its AC as to any one Defendant Dealer
The Court therefore denies the motion to dismiss this portion of trueEX's claims as time-barred, without prejudice to defendants' right to renew such a motion after discovery closes.
In an MDL proceeding, each lawsuit consolidated within the MDL must independently state a claim.
The Court therefore evaluates trueEX's complaint de novo , unconstrained by the law of the case doctrine.
casedsl 1
case /f-supp-3d/351/0698-01
name In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig.
cite 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018)
# IR court field says: United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
date 2018-11-20
url catalog/cases/f-supp-3d/volume_351/0698_01/index.html
source ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl sha1=a9bef2c938f2cdc61a68579f4ea785b3699716ab chars=35985
law 15usc1
role applied
posture civil; MDL; later-filed group-boycott complaint by a third trading platform (trueEX) against swap-dealer banks; defendants' 12(b)(6) motion denied as to the Sherman Act claim
result claimant-won
element agreement : satisfied [pleaded]
variant group-boycott-conspiracy/partial-dealing-in-context-of-well-pled-parallel-boycott
theory existence of a Dealer conspiracy whose objects included trueEX's platform
fact @16924..17148 [supports] | The Dealers provided only limited liquidity to multiple trueEX's platforms-both its CLOB and RFQ platforms-with the effect of denying it enough volume in IRS transactions in general to eat into the Dealers' IRS market share.
fact @17172..17283 [supports] | The Dealers created unreasonable delays and erected artificial barriers to the progress of the trueEX platform.
fact @17718..17844 [supports] | The Dealers conditioned their provision of liquidity to all-to-all trading platforms upon the platforms use of "name give up."
fact @18457..18590 [supports] | The Dealers attempted to placate trueEX with minor business opportunities designed to create the illusion of cooperation or progress.
fact @15382..15567 [supports] | It has held that the original plaintiffs (Javelin, Tera, and the putative class) have convincingly pled a boycott by the same Dealers of Javelin and Tera's all-to-all trading platforms.
rule @15778..16052 | The claimed Dealer behavior towards trueEX thus must be evaluated, not myopically as the Dealers' brief largely proceeds, but against the backdrop of a contemporaneous Dealer plot against entities that posed a similar threat to the Dealers' business model and profitability.
rule @22047..22231 | To be plausibly pled, a conspiracy to marginalize a looming competitive threat does not require that allegations that each conspirator acted at every turn maximally to ice that threat,
held @23222..23404 | On its review, the Court holds, trueEX has plausibly pled a § 1 boycott conspiracy aimed at harming, marginalizing, and/or destroying-along with the other two platforms-its platform.
gloss Dealers cleared trades for, on-boarded with and quoted on the plaintiff's platform, and it survived; standing alone these allegations would raise "a substantial question", but partial or grudging dealing is consistent with a boycott aimed at denying critical mass, and plausibility is borrowed from the already-sustained conspiracy against two peer platforms.
element agreement : satisfied [pleaded]
variant joinder-in-conspiracy/scope-extends-to-additional-target-thin-individual-allegations
party each individual Dealer defendant (ruled on collectively)
theory joinder in the conspiracy's third object (trueEX's platform)
fact @25418..25549 [cuts-against] | Defendants argue that as to a number of Dealers, the affirmative acts of obstruction towards trueEX that are pled are "razor thin."
fact @26077..26280 [supports] | But trueEX pleads that checking its platform's advance was but one object of a broader Dealer conspiracy, in which, as IRS I held , each of the surviving Dealer Defendants have been plausibly implicated.
rule @24595..24804 | Do the facts pled plausibly support that the individual Dealer, already implicated in a conspiracy against two like platforms, was aware of the conspiracy's third and parallel object (as to trueEX's platform)?
held @26497..26658 | the Court's assessment is that the inferences urged by trueEX are plausible enough to preclude granting a motion to dismiss its AC as to any one Defendant Dealer
gloss Court says it likely would have dismissed some defendants had the complaint alleged a conspiracy against this platform alone; each defendant's knowledge of the conspiracy's scope is treated as a fact question unsuited to the pleadings.
element restraint : not-reached
gloss Mode of analysis and anticompetitive effect of the alleged boycott are not discussed here (the court relies on its earlier decision, 261 F.Supp.3d 430).
element injury : not-reached
element standing : not-reached
element commerce : not-reached
defense statute-of-limitations : not-reached
scope procedural
count conduct before June 14, 2014
variant fraudulent-concealment-tolling/deferred-to-discovery
fact @28356..28460 [supports] | Defendants separately move to dismiss as time-barred trueEX's claims as to conduct before June 14, 2014.
held @29391..29573 | The Court therefore denies the motion to dismiss this portion of trueEX's claims as time-barred, without prejudice to defendants' right to renew such a motion after discovery closes.
gloss Court calls the limitations argument "substantial" but declines to rule; concealment and diligence are fact-intensive.
defense x-law-of-the-case : not-satisfied [law]
scope procedural
variant offensive-by-plaintiff/separate-mdl-action-must-state-own-claim
fact @9731..9977 [cuts-against] | The Court's earlier ruling insofar as it addressed a § 1 conspiracy reaching trueEX was made on the basis of complaints in two other cases: the putative class action brought by investor plaintiffs and the joint action brought by Javelin and Tera.
rule @10860..10956 | In an MDL proceeding, each lawsuit consolidated within the MDL must independently state a claim.
held @12874..12979 | The Court therefore evaluates trueEX's complaint de novo , unconstrained by the law of the case doctrine.
gloss Not a defense: it is the PLAINTIFF's preclusion-type argument (the earlier ruling that it was a boycott target binds the court), rejected. `scope procedural` keeps it out of the instance counts; the `defense` kind still inverts the parties.
misfit The agreement holding is not self-contained: plausibility of this complaint depends on allegations and holdings in a DIFFERENT opinion and different plaintiffs' complaints (IRS I, incorporated "sub silentio"). The facts that carry the element are mostly not in this text; the notation has no cross-case "relies on findings of <case>" link.
misfit `agreement` has two distinct questions, now separated only by `theory` text: (a) existence/scope of the conspiracy (does it reach this target?) and (b) each defendant's joinder in that particular object. Sub-ids like agreement.scope / agreement.joinder are not declared in the law file.
misfit The individual-participation ruling is collective ("any one Defendant Dealer") with no per-defendant facts in the opinion, so `party` can only name the class of defendants even though the holding is nominally per defendant.
misfit A plaintiff-side procedural doctrine (law of the case) rejected by the court has no home other than a `defense` block, which inverts the parties (scope procedural does not cure that). The limitations defense was neither accepted nor rejected but deferred ("denied without prejudice ... after discovery"), which not-reached only approximates.
misfit `result claimant-won` at 12(b)(6) only means the claim survives; with [pleaded] basis this is recoverable, but the result vocabulary has no "survives" value.
misfit Fact lines are the court's bullet-point paraphrase of complaint paragraphs attributed to "the Dealers" collectively (group pleading); who did what is not recoverable from this opinion.