United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018-11-20
15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed
Case and law context
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; claim:
Uncertainty
None recorded
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.
`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.
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.
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.
`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.
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.
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 11
Elements 7–11 of 11
| Case | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under 15 U.S.C. § 15b; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | Law-of-the-case doctrine in consolidated/MDL antitrust proceedings | Criminal mens rea: knowing participation in the conspiracy or intent to restrain trade | Ancillary restraints doctrine (restraint subordinate and collateral to a legitimate productive integration) | Horizontal cartel / hub-and-spoke conspiracy operating through vertical or dual-distribution arrangements |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | ○ not reached · basis not recordedNot counted: applied/procedural | ✗ not · lawNot counted: applied/procedural | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; theory: existence of a Dealer conspiracy whose objects included trueEX's platform; subject: theory=existence of a Dealer conspiracy whose objects included trueEX's platform 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. | group-boycott-conspiracy/partial-dealing-in-context-of-well-pled-parallel-boycott | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [16924:17148] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.The Dealers created unreasonable delays and erected artificial barriers to the progress of the trueEX platform.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [17172:17283] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.The Dealers conditioned their provision of liquidity to all-to-all trading platforms upon the platforms use of "name give up."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [17718:17844] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.The Dealers attempted to placate trueEX with minor business opportunities designed to create the illusion of cooperation or progress.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [18457:18590] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [15382:15567] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [15778:16052] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.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,Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [22047:22231] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [23222:23404] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a. |
| In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — satisfied · pleaded (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Concerted action ("contract, combination ... or conspiracy") between separate economic decisionmakers | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: pleaded; party: each individual Dealer defendant (ruled on collectively); theory: joinder in the conspiracy's third object (trueEX's platform); subject: party=each individual Dealer defendant (ruled on collectively); theory=joinder in the conspiracy's third object (trueEX's platform) 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. | joinder-in-conspiracy/scope-extends-to-additional-target-thin-individual-allegations | Defendants argue that as to a number of Dealers, the affirmative acts of obstruction towards trueEX that are pled are "razor thin."Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [25418:25549] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [26077:26280] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.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)?Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [24595:24804] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.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 DealerSource: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [26497:26658] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a. |
| In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Restraint of trade or commerce among the several States or with foreign nations | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Private antitrust injury and fact of damage (Clayton Act §§ 4, 16; Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Unreasonable restraint of trade (Standard Oil Co. v. United States) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / meritsMode 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). | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Antitrust standing / efficient enforcer test (Associated General Contractors; Illinois Brick) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not reached (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Statute of limitations (4-year civil under 15 U.S.C. § 15b; 5-year criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 3282) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural count: conduct before June 14, 2014; subject: count=conduct before June 14, 2014 Court calls the limitations argument "substantial" but declines to rule; concealment and diligence are fact-intensive. | fraudulent-concealment-tolling/deferred-to-discovery | Defendants separately move to dismiss as time-barred trueEX's claims as to conduct before June 14, 2014.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [28356:28460] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [29391:29573] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a. |
| In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 — not · law (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed) | Law-of-the-case doctrine in consolidated/MDL antitrust proceedings | not Excluded from merits counts applied / procedural basis: law 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. | offensive-by-plaintiff/separate-mdl-action-must-state-own-claim | 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.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [9731:9977] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.In an MDL proceeding, each lawsuit consolidated within the MDL must independently state a claim.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [10860:10956] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.The Court therefore evaluates trueEX's complaint de novo , unconstrained by the law of the case doctrine.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [12874:12979] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
In an MDL proceeding, each lawsuit consolidated within the MDL must independently state a claim.
In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig. — 351 F. Supp. 3d 698 (2018) · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · 2018 (15usc1: author: Fable · historical QA: PASS (QA2, neov2/qa/cases-QA2.md) · changed after review; current content not independently reviewed)
In an MDL proceeding, each lawsuit consolidated within the MDL must independently state a claim.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f_supp_3d_351.jsonl#/f-supp-3d/351/0698-01; Unicode character offsets [10860:10956] (end exclusive); SHA-256 3fc0ce3b5b594533bf7983e3ac6f93e376c4d197c6a565e4382d2c04e6842b9a.Procedural defense invoked where prior rulings in a multidistrict litigation address overlapping conspiracy allegations.