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: F...

This program provides a detailed examination of the Black Market Peso Exchange (BMPE), one of the mo...

Vibecoding for Lawye...

This program provides attorneys with a practical and ethical framework for understanding and respons...

Litigation Series: S...

The direct examination presentation outlines how attorneys can elicit truthful, credible testimony w...

Evolving Ethically: ...

This course provides a roadmap for ethical AI integration in high-volume practices through real-worl...

1099 and W-9 Update ...

This CLE program covers the most recent changes affecting IRS information reporting, with emphasis o...

MODERATED-Trauma Inf...

Attorneys hopefully recognize that, like many other professionals, their lives are filled to the bri...

Litigation Series: M...

This companion program to Part 1 goes deeper into the rhetorical power of Shakespeare, emphasizing h...

Building the Data Pr...

Effective data privacy and artificial intelligence governance programs do not happen by accident. Th...

Litigation Series: S...

Part 2 - This program will continue the discussion from Part 1 focusing specifically on cross?examin...

An Attorney’s Play...

Attorneys are judged every time they speak—in client meetings, depositions, hearings, negotiat...