var googletag = googletag || {}; googletag.cmd = googletag.cmd || []; googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().disableInitialLoad(); });
device = device.default;
//this function refreshes [adhesion] ad slot every 60 second and makes prebid bid on it every 60 seconds // Set timer to refresh slot every 60 seconds function setIntervalMobile() { if (!device.mobile()) return if (adhesion) setInterval(function(){ googletag.pubads().refresh([adhesion]); }, 60000); } if(device.desktop()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [468, 60], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } else if(device.tablet()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [320, 50], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } else if(device.mobile()) { googletag.cmd.push(function() { leaderboard_top = googletag.defineSlot('/22018898626/LC_Article_detail_page', [320, 50], 'div-gpt-ad-1591620860846-0').setTargeting('pos', ['1']).setTargeting('div_id', ['leaderboard_top']).addService(googletag.pubads()); googletag.pubads().collapseEmptyDivs(); googletag.enableServices(); }); } googletag.cmd.push(function() { // Enable lazy loading with... googletag.pubads().enableLazyLoad({ // Fetch slots within 5 viewports. // fetchMarginPercent: 500, fetchMarginPercent: 100, // Render slots within 2 viewports. // renderMarginPercent: 200, renderMarginPercent: 100, // Double the above values on mobile, where viewports are smaller // and users tend to scroll faster. mobileScaling: 2.0 }); });
×

Supreme Court Hears IPO Antitrust Case

( 2 votes, average: 4.5 out of 5)
What do you think about this article? Rate it using the stars above and let us know what you think in the comments below.
The class-action lawsuit is comprised of a large group of investors who allege that 16 securities firms and institutional investors breached antitrust laws during the technology boom of the 1990s when they falsely inflated prices for shares of more than 900 IPOs. Among other allegations, the investors contend that the banks employed "tie-in" agreements requiring investors to buy shares of little-known IPOs in order to be eligible to purchase popular IPOs.

In addition to tie-ins, the investors claim the banks utilized a practice known as "laddering," which forces individuals to purchase shares at higher prices after their initial public offerings to generate more fervor for stocks, and forced investors to pay "inflated prices" for shares in technology companies, including Amazon.com, Inc., and eBay.com, Inc.


Several of the securities firms and banks have claimed that the process employed for initial public offerings is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission and, therefore, does not need to be regulated by antitrust laws, as well.

Stephen Shapiro of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw, LLP, one of the attorneys representing the banks, said that dual regulation would come with a "danger of inconsistencies and conflicts." Moreover, he argued, "This [the SEC] is the toughest cop in Washington. They are perfectly capable of dealing with this." The banks also insist that the regulations delineated by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission afford them immunity from antitrust laws.

It is this issue of immunity that lies at the crux of the investors' lawsuit, which argues that the securities firms should not be immune from antitrust laws but should be forced to abide by them.

In 2005, a federal appeals court ruled in favor of the investors. The banks subsequently appealed the decision and are now hoping that it will be overturned. It is important to keep in mind that the Supreme Court is not making judgments as to whether or not the actions taken by the securities firms were legal; instead, it is considering whether the influence of these firms on the securities market should be regulated by antitrust laws.

During the proceedings, the attorney representing the investors, Christopher Lovell, a principal of Lovell, Stewart & Halebian, LLP, maintained that the actions taken by the securities firms amounted to an intentional scheme that sought to illegally increase profit and that, as a result, the firms should be punished more severely than they can be by a federal agency. "It was a massive violation that the securities laws were really not set out to address," Lovell explained.

Two of the most influential bystanders of the case are Wall Street and its companion, corporate America. The Chamber of Commerce and others stated in a court filing that this suit and others like it would "increase...the cost of capital for companies offering shares to the public." Even more importantly, they said, such suits will "damage...the competitiveness of the United States' capital markets."

The court's decision will most likely come in June, but what that decision will be is still uncertain. Some observers have argued that the fact that the court was willing to hear the case at all is a sign that it did not completely agree with the decision made by the federal appeals court. Additionally, a brief filed by the solicitor general stated that the appeals court made a mistake when it handed down its verdict.

There is still a chance that the court may find in favor of the investors, and many fear that if the Supreme Court agrees with the appeals court and securities firms become subject to antitrust laws, a wave of antitrust cases may be filed against them. This, they believe, echoing the Chamber of Commerce's concerns, would inhibit the firms' competitiveness.

In addition to Credit Suisse, other firms named in the lawsuit include Bear Stearns Companies, Inc., Citigroup, Inc., Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Company, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and Morgan Stanley.


Featured Testimonials

LawCrossing works fine, and is very easy to use.
Antonio


Facts

LawCrossing Fact #144: Our job alerts come right to your inbox so you barely have to lift a finger!

 
Let's Do It!
Email:

Only LawCrossing consolidates every job it can find in the legal industry and puts all of the job listings it locates in one place.

  • We have more than 25 times as many legal jobs as any other job board.
  • We list jobs you will not find elsewhere that are hidden in small regional publications and employer websites.
  • We collect jobs from more than 250,000 websites and post them on our site.
  • Increase your chances of being seen! Employers on public job boards get flooded with applications. Our private job boards ensure that only members can apply to our job postings.

Success Stories

I’ve used LawCrossing for years and I think it is terrific. The search features work very well and bring back extremely relevant results. I think it is exactly what it should be.
  • Karen Crupi Highlands Beach, FL

Everyone Loves LawCrossing

LawCrossing is great at picking up all of the legal listings everywhere across the internet. I could have gone to three different sites to search, but you had them all on your site. That was extremely helpful. LawCrossing is a one stop shop!
  • Eileen Baca-Penner New Mexico
+ Read More Success Stories
  • All we do is research jobs
  • Our team of researchers, programmers, and analysts find you jobs from over 50,000 career pages and other sources
  • Our members get more interviews and jobs than people who use "public job boards"