NEW YORK - The federal judge in New York overseeing the London InterBank Offered Rate (Libor) antitrust litigation on Aug. 23 denied motions by over-the-counter (OTC), bondholder and exchange-based plaintiffs for leave to amend their amended complaints to add allegations of antitrust injury related to their claims that 16 banks manipulated the Libor interest rate benchmark (In re: LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, No. 11 MD 2262, S.D. N.Y.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 120674).
SAN FRANCISCO - The commission responsible for accrediting community colleges ignored the conflict of interest created by lobbying to end the "open access policy" of the City College of San Francisco while simultaneously evaluating the school's accreditation, resulting in a "politically motivated decision" to end its accreditation, San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera alleges in an Aug. 22 action seeking an injunction under the California unfair competition law (UCL) (People of the State of California, ex. Rel. Dennis Herrera, San Francisco City Attorney v. Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges, No. 533693, Calif. Super., San Francisco Co.).
INDIANAPOLIS - A student-athlete who brought a putative class action against the National Collegiate Athletic Association alleging that NCAA bylaws prohibiting multiyear scholarships and capping the amount of allowable scholarships violated federal antitrust law defined a relevant market sufficient to defeat a motion to dismiss, a federal judge in Indiana ruled Aug. 16 (John Rock v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, No. 1:12-cv-1019, S.D. Ind.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116133).
CHICAGO - A company that is alleging that its competitor violated federal antitrust laws filed a petition for hearing and rehearing en banc on Aug. 16 of a Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision interpreting the venue provisions of Section 12 of the Clayton Act and the general venue statute (KM Enterprises, Inc. v. Global Traffic Technologies, Inc., et al., No. 12-3406, 7th Cir.).
BALTIMORE - Direct purchasers of titanium dioxide alleged parallel conduct and "plus factors" sufficient to proceed with their price-fixing claims against two manufacturers, a federal judge in Maryland ruled Aug. 14 in denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment (In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation $(All Actions$), No. 10-0318, D. Md.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114927).
SAN FRANCISCO - A chain of hardware stores may continue with its claim that Home Depot USA Inc. violated federal antitrust law under the rule of reason by entering into exclusive agreements with two power tool suppliers but not its federal antitrust claims against the suppliers, a federal judge in California said Aug. 13 in a tentative order "issued solely to prepare counsel for oral argument" (Orchard Supply Hardware LLC v. Home Depot USA, Inc., et al., No. 12-cv-06361, N.D. Calif.).
FRESNO, Calif. - Litigation privilege does not prevent a district attorney's California unfair competition law (UCL) action challenging collection practices specifically prohibited by state and federal statute, a state appeals court panel held Aug. 15 (The People v. Persolve LLC, et al., No. F064571, Calif. App., 5th Dist.).
KANSAS CITY, Kan. - A previous ruling granting summary judgment in the "hot fuels" case applies equally to California consumers' unfair competition law (UCL) claims against the remaining defendants, a federal judge held Aug. 14 (In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales Practices Litigation, MDL 1840, 07-1840, D. Kan.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114654).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The District of Columbia Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on Aug. 9 vacated class certification to direct purchasers who allege that railroad freight haulers violated antitrust laws by conspiring to charge excessive fuel surcharges, and the court remanded for reconsideration in light of Comcast v. Behrend (In re: Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation $(BNSF Railway Company, et al., Petitioners$), No. 12-7085, D.C. Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 16500).
WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Department of Justice on Aug. 13 filed a lawsuit against US Airways Group Inc. and AMR Corp., the parent company of American Airlines Inc., seeking a full injunction to prevent the proposed merger of the two airlines on grounds that it violates federal antitrust law and that "consumers will get the shaft" (United States of America, et al. v. US Airways Group, et al., No. 13-01236, D. D.C.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A razor manufacturer's claim that one of its products provides "incredible comfort" is puffery and does not suggest superiority over another of its products, a Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel held Aug. 9 in affirming dismissal of California unfair competition law (UCL) claims (Ryan Edmundson, et al. v. The Procter & Gamble Co., No. 11-56664, 9th Cir.).
NEW YORK - A group of airline customers on Aug. 6 filed an adversary complaint against bankrupt AMR Corp., the parent company of American Airlines Inc., in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging that the proposed $11 billion merger of American Airlines and US Airways Group Inc. would be a violation of federal antitrust laws (Carolyn Fjord, et al. v. AMR Corporation $(In Re: AMR Corporation$), No. 11-15463, Chapter 11, S.D. N.Y. Bkcy.).
SAN FRANCISCO - A federal magistrate judge in Florida on Aug. 5 found that SLM Corp. (Sallie Mae) and other defendants have not established that the choice-of-law provisions in promissory notes bar claims at the pleading stage of a putative class action alleging that Sallie Mae's late fees violate California's consumer protection law, allowing the case to continue (Tina M. Ubaldi, et al. v. SLM Corporation, et al., No. 11-1320, N.D. Calif.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109877).
NEW YORK - The United States and the 33 states that prevailed in federal district court in New York on their claims that Apple Inc. conspired with five publishers to fix prices of electronic books submitted their proposed remedy on Aug.2 (United States of America v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 12 Civ. 2826, S.D. N.Y.; State of Texas, et al. v. Penguin Group $(USA$) Inc., et al., No. 12 Civ. 3394, S.D. N.Y.).
TRENTON, N.J. - The New Jersey federal judge overseeing the insurance brokerage antitrust multidistrict litigation on Aug. 1 approved a $10.5 million settlement between insurance companies and policyholders who accused the insurers of conspiring with insurance brokers in a price-fixing scheme to inflate commercial insurance prices (In re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1663, No. 04-5184, D. N.J.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108042).
RICHMOND, Va. - The Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on July 30 denied the North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners' petition seeking rehearing and rehearing en banc of a ruling declining to review the Federal Trade Commission's holding that dentists in North Carolina, through the board, are conspiring to exclude non-dentists from providing teeth-whitening services in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (The North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 12-1172, 4th Cir.).
PHILADELPHIA - The City of Philadelphia sued nine London Interbank Offered Rate (Libor) Panel banks and certain of their subsidiaries in Pennsylvania federal court on July 26, claiming that the defendants manipulated the Libor in an effort to minimize returns on a derivative they sold to entities such as the city in violation of federal antitrust laws (The City of Philadelphia v. Bank of America Corp., et al., No. 13-4352, E.D. Pa.).
SAN DIEGO - A hospital system failed to allege that a managed care organization and its related entities conspired with a labor union to exclude competition in the markets for emergency and acute-care hospital services, a federal judge in California ruled July 25 (Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Service Employees International Union, et al., No. 11-2652, S.D. Calif.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS).
SAN FRANCISCO - California law allows out-of-state plaintiffs to pursue California unfair competition law (UCL) claims challenging the efficiency of Apple Inc.'s iPhone 4S and its digital assistant "Siri" at the pleading stage, but none of the plaintiffs has shown the requisite injury, a federal judge held July 23 (In re iPhone 4S Consumer Litigation, No. 12-1127, N.D. Calif.; 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103058).
LOS ANGELES - A federal judge in California on July 19 dismissed antitrust and other claims alleging that WellPoint Inc. and other companies conspired to use a flawed database to set the rates for which out-of-network medical services (ONS) are reimbursed (In re: WellPoint Inc. Out-Of-Network "UCR" Rates Litigation, MDL No. 2:09-ml-02074, C.D. Calif.).
RICHMOND, Va. - Gas station operators failed to present sufficient evidence to defeat wholesale distributors' motion for summary judgment on the operators' monopolization and attempted monopolization claims, the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals affirmed July 19 in an unpublished opinion (SSS Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. Nov Petroleum Realty, LLC, et al., No. 12-2088, 4th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14641).
SAN FRANCISCO - An aftermarket automobile parts dealer did not demonstrate that its competitor knew that the price advantages it received from a distributor resulted from anything other than its large volume of purchases or that an alleged agreement between its competitor and the distributor resulted in anti-competitive harm to the relevant market, the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled July 19 in affirming summary judgment against the dealer on its Robinson-Patman Act and Sherman Act claims (Gorlick Distribution Centers, LLC v. Car Sound Exhaust Sytem, Inc., et al., No. 10-36083, 9th Cir.; 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 14635).
SAN FRANCISCO - A trial against manufacturers on claims that they were engaged in a conspiracy to raise and fix the prices of film transistor-liquid crystal displays (TFT-LCD) panels and certain products containing those panels is set to begin July 22 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, following recent settlements reached with several of the defendants in the opt-out cases in the multidistrict litigation (In re: TFT-LCD $(Flat Panel$) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1927 $(Best Buy v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., No. 10-CV-4572; Best Buy v. Toshiba Corp., et al., No. 12-CV-4114; Eastman Kodak Company v. Epson Imaging Devices Corp., et al., No. 10-CV-5452; Target Corp., et al. v. AU Optronics Corp., et al., No. 10-CV-4945$), N.D. Calif.).
SAN DIEGO - A trial court judge provided an appellate opinion as an alternative explanation for his ruling denying class certification of a California unfair competition law (UCL) claim but did not fail to address the claim, a state appeals court held July 17 (Juan Marcos Almaraz, et al. v. Sharp Healthcare, et al., No. D059648, Calif. App., 4th Dist., Div. 1).
RICHMOND, Va. - The North Carolina Board of Dental Examiners on July 15 filed a petition seeking rehearing and rehearing en banc of a Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling declining to review the Federal Trade Commission's holding that dentists in North Carolina, through the board, are conspiring to exclude non-dentists from providing teeth-whitening services in violation of Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (The North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission, No. 12-1172, 4th Cir.).