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

Litigation Series: S...

Evidence Demystified Part 1 introduces core evidentiary principles, including relevance, admissibili...

Litigation Series: S...

Part 1 - This program focuses specifically on cross?examining expert witnesses, whose credentials an...

Generative AI for Li...

Explore the transformative potential of generative AI in modern litigation. “Generative AI for...

MODERATED-There’s ...

You’ve arranged to speak with a reporter. Do you know how to deliver insights that are memorab...

Cellphone Forensics ...

Cellphones represent one of the fastest-changing areas of legal practice. Mobile device evidence is ...

Internet and Sports ...

The statistics are compelling and clearly indicate that 1 out of 3 attorneys will likely have a need...

MODERATED-The Hatch-...

MODERATED-This course is designed to inform patent practitioners on the bounds of the Hatch-Waxman S...

Litigation Series: S...

This presentation teaches attorneys how to deliver memorized text—especially openings and clos...

Welcome to the NFL, ...

The always idiosyncratic Nassim Taleb likes to say, “Nothing is more permanent than ‘tem...

MODERATED-Ethics Iss...

MODERATED-This CLE will discuss the critical issues relating to the use of social media and legal et...