Joint Ventures Antitrust Primer; Case Study -- When Restraints on JV Members are Lawful but Price-Confidentiality Requirements Imposed on the JV's Customer Prevent Comparison of Prices

05 Mar , 2024

To register for the upcoming live webinar, please Click Here

The purpose of this course is to provide a primer about joint ventures.  First, what they are and why they formed.  Next, the course will explain the antitrust implications of joint ventures, via examination of the relevant statutes, case law and agency guidelines.   The course will focus on restraints imposed collectively on the venture members - - most importantly, what attributes make them illegal or not. 

The course then turns to a previously published examination of a series of joint ventures: Wall Street syndicates for private underwritings in excess of $100 million. The course notes that a small oligopoly of commercial and investment banks dominates the arranging and underwriting of loans and bonds for publicly traded companies, and that each underwriting is performed by a syndicate that constitutes a joint venture of competitors.  Further, that each syndicate requires the borrower to agree not to disclose the syndicate’s fee, an obligation that requires not just violation of the securities laws, but constitutes a price-related restraint of each joint venture at issue.  The course concludes that the series of price-related restraints compelling price confidentiality impacts the market for the fees in question by preventing customers to compare them, or show them to competitors in fee negotiations.

A quote of interest from the underlying Article, explained in more detail during the seminar: 

“One leading securities law expert has opined that ‘the failure to file these agreements suggests that it is the ‘custom and practice’ of Wall Street banks to violate the securities laws by directing customers to keep documents relating to their fees confidential”. 

Also, on reviewing the article, the authors of a 2020 Article , “Collusion in Markets with Syndication,” commented that “[t]his is great. It seems like the fees are known internally through the network of banks, so they can monitor compliance with the collusive agreement, but not known externally, so it is hard for a new entrant to figure out the best way to undercut the collusive agreement.”

 

To register for the upcoming live webinar, please Click Here

More Webcasts

Can You Really Get F...

In a recent decision, rap music became front and center of a workplace harassment lawsuit. In Stepha...

Drafting Shareholder...

In this program, we will cover the purposes of Shareholders’ Agreements and the types of share...

Everything You Alway...

Do any of these sound familiar? • I’m ok. I can work this out for myself. • I&rsqu...

Key Developments in ...

In the highly competitive, knowledge-driven global marketplace, a company’s ability to protect...

How to Properly Plea...

Many neophyte plaintiff’s lawyers who file civil liability actions anticipating that defendant...

Mental Health and Th...

In the last 20 years, our profession has devoted a great deal of attention to the mental health of a...

Protecting and Enfor...

IPR theft in international trade is on the rise, with adverse consequences for workers, importers, c...

Litigating Long-Term...

COVID brought to light serious deficiencies in Long-Term care that existed long before the pandemic....

The Role and Benefit...

Confidentiality is one of the most valuable – but misunderstood – benefits that internat...

Trends in Antitrust:...

When we think of criminal antitrust enforcement, we often think of monopolies and widespread price-f...