Dale Collins
NYU School of Law
Georgetown University Law Center

NB: "±" indicates that the hyperlink will take you to another site.

Home page
Topical index
Case studies index

20. Exclusive contracts

Reading and class notes
Significant precedents
GTE Sylvania
The Redbox complaints
Credit Card "Merchant Restraints" Cases
Reference materials
Case studies

Primary Materials

Supplemental Materials

Units 21-23 reading materials

Unit 21 class notes

White Motor Co. v. United States, 372 U.S. 253 (1963) (applying rule of reason)

District court

Supreme Court

United States v. Arnold, Schwinn & Co., 388 U.S. 365 (1967) (± Oyez) (abrogating White Motor)

District court

Supreme Court

Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977) (± Oyez) (abrogating Schwinn)

District court

Complaint for Debt and Possession of Personal Property, John P. McQuire & Co. v. Continental T.V., Inc., No. 44251 (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 12, 1965)
(Note: did not include GTE Sylvania as a party)

Docket sheet

Answer, Counterclaim and Cross-Claim (Nov. 24, 1965)
(added GTE Sylvania as a cross-claim defendant)

Order (Dec. 6, 1965)

Verdict (Nov. 6, 1970)

Judgment (Dec. 11, 1970)

Notice of Appeal (Mar. 2, 1971)

Ninth Circuit

Opinion, GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Continental T,V,, Inc., No. 71-1705 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 1976) (rehearing en banc) (reported at 537 F.2d 980)

Supreme Court

Oral argument transcript (Feb. 28, 1977) (± Oyez)

Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977) (± Oyez) (abrogating Schwinn)

Remand

Memorandum of Decision, Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., No. C-44251-WAI (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 1978) (granting summary judgment to defendant) (reported at 461 F.Supp. 1046)

Ninth Ccircuit

Continental T.V., Inc. v. G.T.E. Sylvania Inc., 694 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1982) (affirming grant of summary judgment)

Commentary

Warren S. Grimes, From Schwinn to Sylvania to Where? Historical Roots of Modern Vertical Restraint Policy, in Antitrust Stories 145 (Eleanor M. Fox & Daniel A. Crane eds., 2007).

GTE Sylvania

Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977) (± Oyez) (abrogating Schwinn)

N.D. Cal.

Complaint for Debt and Possession of Personal Property, John P. McQuire & Co. v. Continental T.V., Inc., No. 44251 (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 12, 1965)
(Note: did not include GTE Sylvania as a party)

Docket sheet

Answer, Counterclaim and Cross-Claim (Nov. 24, 1965)
(added GTE Sylvania as a cross-claim defendant)

Order (Dec. 6, 1965)

Verdict (Nov. 6, 1970)

Judgment (Dec. 11, 1970)

Notice of Appeal (Mar. 2, 1971)

Ninth Circuit

Opinion, GTE Sylvania, Inc. v. Continental T,V,, Inc., No. 71-1705 (9th Cir. Apr. 9, 1976) (rehearing en banc) (reported at 537 F.2d 980)

Supreme Court

Oral argument transcript (Feb. 28, 1977) (± Oyez)

Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U.S. 36 (1977) (± Oyez) (abrogating Schwinn)

On remand to the N.D. Cal.

Memorandum of Decision, Continental T.V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., No. C-44251-WAI (N.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 1978) (granting summary judgment to defendant) (reported at 461 F.Supp. 1046)

Ninth Ccircuit

Continental T.V., Inc. v. G.T.E. Sylvania Inc., 694 F.2d 1132 (9th Cir. 1982) (affirming grant of summary judgment)

Commentary

Warren S. Grimes, From Schwinn to Sylvania to Where? Historical Roots of Modern Vertical Restraint Policy, in Antitrust Stories 145 (Eleanor M. Fox & Daniel A. Crane eds., 2007).

The Redbox Complaints

First Amended Complaint, Redbox Automated Retail, LLC v. Universal Studios Home Entertainment, LLLP, C.A. No. 08-766-RBK (D. Del. filed Jan. 22, 2009) (original complaint filed Oct. 10., 2008)

Opinion (Aug. 17, 2009) (dismissing non-antitrust claims and denying motion to dismiss antitrust claims) (Order)

Notice of Dismissal with Prejudice (Apr. 23, 2010)

Universal Studios Home Entertainment & Redbox Automated Retail, LLC, Press Release, Universal Studios Home Entertainment and Redbox Forge Distribution Agreement (Apr. 22, 2010)

Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E to complaint

Docket sheet (downloaded Aug. 18. 2014)

Motion to dismiss:

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(B)(6) for Failure to State a Claim Upon which Relief May Be Granted (Dec. 5, 2008) (proposed order)

Defendants’ Opening Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(B)(6) (Dec. 5, 2008)

Defendants’ Supplemental Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Dismiss (Feb. 2, 2009) (proposed order)

Redbox's Answering Brief in Opposition to Universal's Motion to Dismiss (Mar. 4, 2009)

Defendants’ Reply in Support of its Motion to Dismiss (Mar. 13, 2009)

Motion to certify interlocutory appeal:

Defendants’ Motion to Certify August 17, 2009 Order for § 1292(B) Interlocutory Appeal (Sept. 30, 2009)

Defendants’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Certify August 17, 2009 Order For § 1292(B) Interlocutory Appeal (Sept. 30, 2009)

Redbox Automated Retail, LLC's Answering Brief in Opposition to Universal's Request for a Section 1292(b) Finding (Oct. 21, 2009)

Defendants’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion to Certify August 17, 2009 Order for § 1292(B) Interlocutory Appeal (Nov. 9, 2009)

Post-settlement

Coinstar, Inc. Form 10-K For the Fiscal Year Ended: Dec. 31, 2010

Amended Complaint, Redbox Automated Retail LLC v. Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC, 1:09-cv-00592-UNA (D. Del. filed Nov. 30 11, 2009) (Exhibit A filed under seal) (Exhibits B-D)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 30, 2009)

Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC's Motion to Dismiss Redbox’s Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Dec. 21, 2009) (proposed order)

Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment LLC's Opening Brief in support of its Motion to Dismiss Redbox’s Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6) (Dec. 21, 2009) (Exhibits A, B, C, D, E, F)

Amended Complaint, Redbox Automated Retail LLC v. Warner Home Video, 1:09-cv-00613-UNA (D. Del. filed Aug. 18, 2009)

Docket sheet (downloaded Dec. 30, 2009)

Exhibits A and B to the Amended Complaint

Motion to dismiss amended complaint:

Defendant Warner Home Video's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Dec. 21, 2009) (proposed order)

Defendant Warner Home Video's Opening Brief in Support of its Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Dec. 21, 2009)

Declaration of Katherine B. Forrest in Support of Defendant Warner Home Video's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (Dec. 21, 2009) (Exhibits A-G)

Bruno v. Warner Home Video, Civ. A. No. 10-civ-1733 (S.D.N.Y. filed Mar. 4, 2010)

The Credit Card "Merchant Restraints" Cases

Complaint for Equitable Relief for Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, United States v. American Express Co., No. 10-cv-4496 (E.D.N.Y. filed Oct. 4, 2010)

U.S. Dep't of Justice, Press Release, Justice Department Sues American Express, MasterCard and Visa to Eliminate Rules Restricting Price Competition; Reaches Settlement with Visa and MasterCard (Oct. 4, 2010)

Amended Complaint for Equitable Relief for Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (filed Dec. 21, 2010)

Docket sheet (downloaded Nov. 11, 2018)

± DOJ web page

Memorandum & Order (July 20, 2011)

Final Judgment as to Defendants MasterCard International Incorporated and Visa Inc. (July 20, 2011)

Stipulation (Oct. 4, 2010)

Exhibit A: [Proposed] Final Judgment as to Defendants MasterCard International Incorporated and Visa Inc. (Oct. 4, 2010)

Competitive Impact Statement (Oct. 4, 2010)

Plaintiff's Notice of the Applicability of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act to the Proposed Final Judgment (Oct. 4, 2010)

Stipulation Regarding Additional Parties to Proposed Final Judgment (Dec. 20, 2010)

Response of Plaintiff United States to Public Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment (June 14, 2011)

The ± public comments are collected on the DOJ web site.

Memorandum & Order (July 20, 2011)

Final Judgment (July 20, 2011)

District court

Amended Complaint for Equitable Relief for Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1 (Dec. 21, 2010)

Docket sheet (downloaded Nov. 11, 2018)

Amended Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Defendants American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (Jan. 4, 2011)

United States v. American Express Co., Civ. No. 10-CV-4496 (NGG) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 19, 2015) (finding for the plaintiff) (reported at 88 F. Supp. 3d 143)

United States’ Opening Statement (Public Version) (July 7, 2014)

Memorandum, United States v. American Express Co., Civ. No. 10-CV-4496 (NGG) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2015) (on relief) (reported at 2015 WL 1966362)

Order Entering Permanent Injunction As to the American Express Defendants (Apr. 30, 2015)

Judgment, United States v. American Express Co., Civ. No. 10-CV-4496 (NGG) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 30, 2015)

Notice of Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (May 1, 2015)

Defendants’ Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (May 1, 2015)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to American Express’s Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal (May 11, 2015)

Defendants’ Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Stay Pending Appeal (May 15, 2014)

Memorandum & Order (May 19, 2015) (denying motion to stay pending appeal)

Stipulation and Order (May 14, 2015) (regarding fees payable to plaintiff states as prevailing plaintiffs)

Notice of Appeal (May 21, 2015)

Second Circuit

Docket sheet No. 15-1672 (downloaded Dec. 18, 2015) (docketed May 21, 2015)

Brief of Defendants-Appellants American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (Page Proof) (Aug. 5, 2015)
Brief of Defendants-Appellants American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (Final Form) (Oct. 23, 2015)

Brief for Amici Curiae J. Gregory Sidak, Robert D. Willig, David J. Teece, and Keith N. Hylton Scholars and Experts in Antitrust Economics in Support of Defendants-Appellants and Supporting Reversal (Aug. 10, 2015)

Page-Proof Redacted Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees (Sept. 14, 2015)
Redacted Final Form Brief of Plaintiffs-Appellees (Oct. 21, 2015)

Brief of Amici Curiae Ahold U.S.A., Inc. and Other Merchants (Sept. 18, 2015)

Brief for Amici Curiae Merchants and Retail Trade Organizations in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Supporting Affirmance (Sept. 14, 2015)

Brief for Amici Curiae Home Depot USA, Inc. in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellees and Supporting Affirmance (Sept. 17, 2015)

Reply Brief of Defendants-Appellants American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (Final Form) (Oct. 23, 2015)

Oral argument (Dec. 17, 2015)

Order (Dec. 18, 2015) (sua sponte ordering stay of district court's order entering a permanent injunction)

Opinion, United States v. American Express Co., No 15-1672 (2d Cir. Sept. 26, 2016) (reversing and remanding with instructions to enter judgment in favor of Amex)

Supreme Court—Cert. petitions

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Ohio v. American Express Co., No. 16-1454 (S. Ct. filed June 2, 2017)

Docket sheet (downloaded Feb. 11, 2019) (± SCOTUS Blog)

Brief for Amici Curiae Ahold U.S.A., Inc.; Albertsons LLC; Bi-Lo LLC; Cvs Pharmacy, Inc.; The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc.; H.E. Butt Grocery Co.; Hy-Vee, Inc.; The Kroger Co.; Meijer, Inc.; Publix Super Markets, Inc.; Rite Aid Corporation; Safeway Inc.; Supervalu, Inc.; and Walgreen Co. In Support Of Petitioners (June 6, 2017)

Brief for Amici Curiae John M. Connor, Martin Gaynor, Daniel Mcfadden, Roger Noll, Jeffrey M. Perloff, Joseph A. Stiglitz, Lawrence J. White, And Ralph A. Winter In Support Of Petitioners (June 6, 2017)

Brief for Discover Financial Services As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioners (June 6, 2017)

Brief of Amicus Curiae Retail Litigation Center, Inc. In Support Of Petitioners (June 6, 2017)

Brief of Amici Curiae Former Federal Antitrust Officals (June 6, 2017)

Brief of Amicus Curiae Southwest Airlines Co. In Support Of Petitioners (June 6, 2017)

Brief for United States Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, Inc. As Amicus Curiae In Support Of Petitioners (June 6, 2017)

Brief of 25 Professors of Antitrust Law As Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners (June 6, 2017)

Brief for the United States In Opposition (Aug. 7, 2017)

Brief for American Express In Opposition (Aug. 21, 2017)

Reply In Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari (Sept. 5, 2017)

Petition for Writ of Certiorari Granted (Oct. 16, 2017)

Supreme Court—Merits

± SCOTUS Blog

Brief for the Petitioners and Respondents Nebraska, Tennessee, and Texas (Dec. 7, 2017)

Joint Appendix (Dec. 7, 2017)

Brief for the United Js as Respondent Supporting Petitioners (Dec. 7, 2017)

Motion for Divided Argument (Jan. 17, 2017) (filed by the Solicitor General, with the consent of the petitoners, seeking to divide the petitioners' time at oral argument, with 15 minutes for petitors and 15 minutes for the United States)

Granted (Feb. 16, 2017)

Brief Amici Curiae of 20 Merchants as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Dec. 14, 2017)

Brief for United States Public Interest Research Group Education Fund, Inc., Center for Responsible Lending, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Consumer Law Center and Public Citizen, Inc. as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Dec.14, 2017)

Brief of Amici Curiae The American Medical Association and Ohio State Medical Association in Support of Petitioners (Dec. 14, 2017)

Brief Amicus Curiae of Verizon Communications Inc. in Support of Neither Party (Dec. 14, 2017)

Brief of the Merchant Advisory Group as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Dec. 14, 2017)

Brief for The American Antitrust Institute as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Dec. 14, 2017)

Brief for Amici Curiae John M. Connor, Martin Gaynor, Daniel Mcfadden, Roger Noll, Jeffrey M. Perloff, Joseph A. Stiglitz, Lawrence J. White, and Ralph A. Winter in Support of Petitioners (Dec. 14, 2017)

Brief for Amici Curiae Ahold U.S.A., Inc.; Albertsons LLC; The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Inc.; H.E. Butt Grocery Co.; Hy-Vee, Inc.; The Kroger Co.; Meijer, Inc.; Publix Super Markets, Inc.; Raley’s; Rite Aid Corporation; Safeway Inc.; Supervalu, Inc.; and Walgreen Co. In Support Of Petitioners (Dec. 14, 2017)

Brief of Open Markets Institute as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Dec. 14, 2017)

Brief of the International Air Transport Association and Airlines for America as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petitioners (Dec. 14, 2017)

Brief of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., The Home Depot, Inc., Target Corporation, Sears Holding Management Corporation, Joann Stores, LLC, and Merchant Trade Associations as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petitioners (Dec. 14, 2017)

Brief for Discover Financial Services as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Dec. 14, 2017)

Brief for the States of New York, Alaska, California, Delaware, Hawai‘i, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Washington, and Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioners (Dec. 17, 2017)

Brief of 28 Professors of Antitrust Law as Amici Curiae Supporting Petitioners (Dec. 14, 2017)

Brief for Respondents American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company (Jan. 16, 2018)

Brief of Amicus Curiae the Computer & Communications Industry Association in Support of Respondents (Jan. 23, 2018)

Brief of the Australian Taxpayers’ Alliance as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents (Jan. 23, 2018)

Brief of Amicus Curiae Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Supporting Affirmance (Jan. 23, 2018)

Brief for Amici Curiae Prof. David S. Evans and Prof. Richard Schmalensee in Support of Respondents (Jan. 23, 2018)

Brief of the Clearing House Association L.L.C. as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents (Jan. 23, 2018)

Brief for Amici Curiae Antitrust Law & Economics Scholars in Support of Respondents (Jan. 23, 2018)

Brief for Amici Curiae J. Gregory Sidak and Robert D. Willig in Support of Respondents (Jan. 23, 2018)

Reply Brief for the Petitioners and Respondents Nebraska, Tennessee, and Texas (Feb. 12, 2018)

Oral Argument (Feb. 26, 2018 (± audio)

Opinion, Ohio v. American Express Co., No. 16-1454 (U.S. June 25, 2018) (5-4)

Notice of Motion to Consolidate for the Purpose of Trial (Sept. 26, 2013)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion to Consolidate for the Purpose of Trial (Sept. 26, 2013; no public version on docket)

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Consolidate for the Purpose of Trial (Nov. 21, 2013)

Memorandum & Order (Feb. 11, 2014) (denying motion to consolidate)

Notice of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Sept. 26, 2013)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Sept. 26, 2013; filed under seal)

Defendants' Statement of Material Undisputed Facts in Support of their Motion for Summary Judgment, (Sept. 26, 2013; filed under seal)

Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Jan. 6, 2013; public version filed Feb. 20, 2014)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Jan. 24, 2014; filed under seal)

Plaintiffs’ Sur-Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Feb. 12, 2014; public version filed Feb. 20, 2014))

Memorandum & Order (May 7, 2014)

Notice of Motion in Limine to Exclude Dr. Janusz Ordover’s Regressions and Any Analysis Based on those Regressions (Mar. 26, 2014) (by the United States)

Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Dr. Janusz Ordover's Regressions and any Analysis Based on those Regressions (Mar. 26, 2014; filed under seal)

Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Dr. Janusz Ordover's Regressions and Any Analysis Based on Those Regressions (Apr. 17; filed under seal)

Notice of Motion in Limine to Exclude Dr. George Hay's Rate of Return Analysis and any Opinions Based on that Analysis (Mar. 26, 2014) (by the United States)

Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude Dr. George Hay's Rate of Return Analysis and any Opinions Based on that Analysis (Mar. 26, 2013; filed under seal)

Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Dr. George Hay's Rate of Return Analysis and Any Opinions Based on that Analysis (Apr. 17; filed under seal)

Notice of Motion in Limine to Exclude Dr. George Hay's and Dr. B. Douglas Bernheim's Unreliable Market Definition Analysis (Mar. 26, 2014) (by the United States)

Memorandum in Support of Motion in Limine to Exclude Dr. George Hay's and Dr. B. Douglas Bernheim's Unreliable Market Definition (Mar. 26, 2013; filed under seal)

Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion in Limine to Exclude Dr. George Hay's and Dr. B. Douglas Bernheim's Market Definition Analysis (Apr. 17; filed under seal)

Joint Pretrial Submission Regarding Trial (Apr. 22, 2014)

[Proposed} Joint Pretrial Order (June 6, 2014) (so ordered July 3, 2014)

Exhibit A: Stipulated Facts
Exhibit B: Witness Lists
Exhibit C: Exhibits Admitted by Stipulation
Exhibit D: Plaintiffs’ Exhibits Subject to Outstanding Objections
Exhibit E: Defendants’ Exhibits Subject to Outstanding Objections

Plaintiffs’ Pre-Trial Memorandum (June 26, 2014)
Defendants’ Pretrial Memorandum (June 27, 2014)

Joint Pretrial Order (July 3, 2014)

Bench trial (July 7, 2014 - August 18, 2014)

Letter to Judge Garaufis from K. Orsini apprising the Court of the time each party has used after the sixth week of trial (August 15, 2014)

Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Memorandum (September 26, 2014)
Plaintiffs’ Proposed Conclusions of Law (Sept. 26, 2014)

Plaintiffs’ Post-Trial Memorandum (filed under seal)
Defendants’ Post-Trial Brief (Sept. 26, 2014)

Plaintiffs' Closing Presentation (October 9, 2014)

Plaintiff’s Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement and Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Marcus Corp. v. American Express Co., No. 04 Civ. 05432 (GBD) (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2013).

The Marcus Corp. v. American Express Co., et al., No. 13-CV-7355 (NGG) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 23, 2014) (preliminary approval order))

In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litig., No. 1 l-MD-2221 (NGG) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 11, 2014) (Class Settlement Preliminary Approval Order)

On April 30, 2015, the district court entered an order ordering supplemental briefing on (1) how, if at all, the court's decision in favor of the DOJ in the government's case against Amex affect the court's view on the proposed settlement in the private action, and (2) how, if at all, is the court's review of the proposed class settlement affected by the documents and communications recently disclosed between various attorneys?.

Memorandum of the Target Objectors in Response to Court Order Dated April 30, 2015, In re American Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litig., No. 11-MD-02221-NGG-RER (E.D.N.Y. June 1, 2015) (arguing that finding of liability in DOJ Amex case strengthens argument that the proposed private class action settlement is unfair)

Class Plaintiffs’ Memorandum In Response to Question Number 1 Posed by the Court in Its Order Dated April 30, 2015 (June 1, 2015)

Supplemental Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Final Approval of Settlement (June 1, 2015) (filed by the 7-Eleven objectors)

Supplemental Brief of Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. Objecting to American Express Class Action Settlement (June 1, 2015)

Supplemental Memorandum of the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions (June 1, 2015)

Supplemental Memorandum of American Express in Support of Final Approval (June 2, 2015)

Response of American Express to Objectors’ Submissions Regarding Question 1 of the April 30, 2015 Order (June 4, 2015)

Class Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Response to Question Number Two Posed by the Court in Its Order Dated April 30, 2015 (July 29, 2015)

The 7-Eleven Objectors’ Submission Regarding the Impact of the Friedman-Ravelo Communications on the Court’s Review of the Proposed Settlement (July 29, 2015)

Exhibit 1: Declaration of Professor Roy D. Simon, Jr.

Memorandum of the Target Objectors in Response to Court Order Dated April 30, 2015 (July 29, 2015)

Memorandum & Order (Aug. 4, 2015) (denying final approval in light of disclosures of improper contracts between a lawyer representing some plaintiffs and a lawyer representing MasterCard)

See Declaration of Keila Ravelo, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., No. 1 :05-MD-1720(MKB)(JO) (E.D.N.Y. filed Aug. 30, 2015)

Commentary

± Robin Sidel, A Bentley, Secret Emails and a Credit-Card Antitrust Case. The Strange Life of Lawyer Keila Ravelo, Wall St. J., Aug. 30, 2015.

± Kevin Dugan, ‘Burn after Reading’ Email Sets Fire to AmEx Credit-Card Pact. N.Y. Post, Aug. 4, 2015.

± Paul Barrett, Inside a $5.7 Billion Antitrust Trainwreck, BloombergBusiness.com, Nov. 11, 2015

Court papers

Indictment, United States v. Feliz, Crim No. 2:14-cr-00327-KM (D.N.J. issued June 6, 2014)

Criminal Complaint, United States v. Ravelo, Mag. No. 14-6080 (D.N.J. filed Dec. 19, 2014)

Verified Complaint for Forfeiture in Rem, United States v. Real Properties, Case 2:14-cv-07936-ES-MAH (D.N.J. filed Dec. 22, 2014)

Docket sheet (downloaded Nov. 11, 2015)

Indictment, United States v. Ravelo, Crim. No. 2:15-cr-00576-KM (D.N.J. issued Nov. 5, 2015).

Docket sheet (downloaded Nov. 11, 2015)

E.D.N.Y.

In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., No. 1:05-md-01720-JG-JO (E.D.N.Y. ____)

Definitive Class Settlement Agreement (Oct. 19, 2012)

Appendices

Publication Notice

Report from Court Appointed Expert Professor Alan O. Sykes (Aug. 28, 2013)

Memorandum and Order (Dec. 13, 2013) (granting final approval to settlement)

Class Settlement Order and Final Judgment (Jan. 14, 2014)

± Payment Card Interchange Fee Settlement web site

Second Circuit

Notice of Civil Appeal, In re Payment Card Interchange Fee & Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., No. 12-4671 (2d Cir. docketed Nov. 28, 2012)

Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 14, 2015)
Selected briefs:

Joint Final Form Brief for Objectors-Appellants and Plaintiffs-Appellants (Merchant Appellants’ Joint Brief) (Dec. 19, 2014)

Final Brief for Objectors-Appellants DFS Services LLC, Discover Home Loans, Inc. and Discover Bank (Dec. 19, 2014)

Objectors-Appellants FDC’S Final Form Brief (Dec. 19, 2014)

Final Brief for Objectors-Appellants American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Serve Virtual Enterprises, Inc., Anca 7 LLC D/B/A Vente Privee, USA, Amex Assurance Company and Accertify, Inc. (Dec. 19, 2014)

Brief for Objectors-Appellants National Retail Federation and Retail Industry Leaders Association (The Merchant Trade Groups’ Brief) (Dec. 19, 2014)

Final Form Brief for Plaintiffs-Appellees (Dec. 19, 2014)

Joint Final Form Brief of Defendants-Appellees (Dec. 19, 2014)

Joint Final Form Reply Brief for Objectors-Appellants and Plaintiffs-Appellants (Merchant Appellants’ Joint Reply Brief) (Dec. 19, 2014)

Final Reply Brief for Objectors-Appellants DFS Services LLC, Discover Home Loans, Inc. and Discover Bank (Dec. 19, 2014)

Objectors-Appellants FDC's Final Form Reply Brief (Dec. 19, 2014)

Final Reply Brief for Objectors-Appellants American Express Company, American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc., Serve Virtual Enterprises, Inc., Anca 7 LLC D/B/A Vente Privee, Usa, Amex Assurance Company And Accertify, Inc. (Dec. 19, 2014)

Reply Brief for Objectors-Appellants National Retail Federation and Retail Industry Leaders Association (The Merchant Trade Groups’ Reply Brief) (Dec. 19, 2014)

Oral argument (Sept. 28, 2015)

Opinion (June 30, 2016) (vacating class certifications) (reported at 827 F.3d 223)

Mandate

On remand

Order (Jan. 24, 2019) (preliminarily approving settlement)

Memorandum and Order (Jan. 28, 2019)

First Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, No. 1:13-cv-05745-JG-JO (E.D.N.Y. filed July 10, 2014)

Second Amended Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial, No. 1:05-md-01720-MKB-JO (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 27, 2017) (relating to all opt-out cases)

Complaint, Target Corp. v. Visa, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-03477-RA (S.D.N.Y. filed May 23, 2013)

Docket sheet (downloaded Mar. 5, 2019)

Transfer Order (J.P.M.L. Oct. 16, 2013) (transferring case from the Southern District fo New York to the Eastern District of New York)

Order Reassigning Litigation (J.P.M.L. Dec. 5, 2014) (reassigning case to Judge Margo K. Brodie on the retirement of Judge John Gleeson)

Answer of Defendants Mastercard Incorporated and Mastercard International Incorporated to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Oct. 11, 2018)

Answer of Defendants Visa Inc., Visa U.S.A. Inc., and Visa International Service Association to Plaintiffs’ Second Amended and Supplemental Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial (Oct. 11, 2018)

Plaintiffs’ First Amended and Consolidated Complaint, In re American Express Antisteering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), No. 1:11-md-02221-NGG-RER (E.D.N.Y. filed July 27, 2018)

Answer and Affirmative Defenses of Defendants American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. to Plaintiffs’ First Amended and Consolidated Complaint (Oct. 10, 2018)

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment with Respect to the Individual Plaintiffs’
One-Sided and Amex-Only Market Claims (Aug. 17, 2018) (public version filed Oct. 12, 2018)

Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment with Respect to the Individual Plaintiffs’ One-Sided and Amex-Only Relevant Markets (Sept. 14, 2018) (public version filed Oct. 26, 2018)

Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment with Respect to the Individual Plaintiffs’ One-Sided and Amex-Only Market Claims (Oct. 12, 2018) (public version filed Oct. 26, 2018)

Reference Materials

Cases finding an unreasonable NPVR

± United States v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 344 F.3d 229 (2d Cir. 2003)

± Graphic Prods. Distribs., Inc. v. Itek Corp., 717 F.2d 1560 (11th Cir. 1983) (affirming a jury verdict for plaintiff)

± North American Soccer League v. National Football League, 670 F.2d 1249 (2d Cir. 1982)

± Eiberger v. Sony Corp. of America, 622 F.2d 1068 (2d Cir. 1980)

Munters Corp. v. Burgess Indus. Inc., 1978 WL 1367 (S.D.N.Y. July 10, 1978)

Law of vertical restraints

J. Thomas Rosch, Developments in the Law of Vertical Restraints: 2012 (2012)

Vertical agreements

± Louis Kaplow, The Meaning of Vertical Agreement and the Structure of Competition Law (May 2016), forthcoming in Antitrust L.J. (2016).

Economics of vertical restraints

± Serge Moresi & Steven C. Salop, vGUPPI: Scoring Unilateral Pricing Incentives in Vertical Mergers, 79 Antitrust L.J. 185 (2013).

Patrick Rey & Thibaud Vergé, Economics of Vertical Restraints, in Handbook of Antitrust Economics 353 (Paolo Buccirossi ed., 2008)

± Francine Lafontaine & Margaret Slade, Exclusive Contracts and Vertical Restraints: Empirical Evidence and Public Policy (Sept. 2005), final version published in Handbook of Antitrust Economics 391 (Paolo Buccirossi ed., 2008)

± Swedish Competition Authority, The Pros and Cons of Vertical Restraints (2008) (containing papers by Margaret E. Slade, Daniel P. O’Brien, Paul W. Dobson, Patrick Rey and Joanna Goyder)

F.M. Scherer, The Economics of Vertical Restraints, 52 Antitrust L.J. 687 (1983).

Injunctive relief

Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp., 392 U.S. 134 (1968) (± Oyez)

NPVR commentary

± Herbert J. Hovenkamp, Post-Sale Restraints and Competitive Harm (Feb. 3, 2010)

± Patrick Rey & Jean Tirole, A Primer on Foreclosure (Jan. 30, 2006), final version at III Handbook of Industrial Organization 2145 (Mark Armstrong & Robert H. Porter eds., 2007)

Frank H. Easterbrook, Vertical Arrangements and the Rule of Reason, 53 Antitrust L.J. 135 (1984).

Case Studies

Mylan v. Celgene
(private 2014)

Complaint, Mylan Pharms., Inc. v. Celgene Corp., No. 2:14-cv-02094-ES-MAH (D/N.J. filed Apr. 3, 2014)

Docket sheet (downloaded Oct. 15, 2014)

Defendant Celgene Corporation's Notice of Motion to Dismiss the Complaint Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (May 25, 2014)

Brief in Support of Defendant Celgene Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (May 25, 2014)

Plaintiff Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Brief in Opposition to Defendant Celgene Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (June 16, 2015)

Federal Trade Commission’s Brief As Amicus Curiae (June 17, 2014)

Reply in Support of Defendant Celgene Corporation’s Motion to Dismiss (June 30, 2014)

Oral Opinion (Dec. 22, 2014)

Amended Scheduling Order (Aug. 20, 2015)

Related matter

± Andrew Pollack, Drug Goes From $13.50 a Tablet to $750, Overnight, N.Y. Times, Sept. 20, 2015.

± Andrew Pollack, Big Price Increase for Tuberculosis Drug Is Rescinded, N.Y. Times. 21, 2015.

± Andrew Pollack, New York Attorney General Examining Whether Turing Restricted Drug Access, N.Y. Times, Oct. 12, 2015.

Letter to Martin Shkreli, CEO, Turing Pharmaceuticals LLC, from Eric J. Stock, Chief, N.Y. Antitrust Bureau dated October 12, 2015 re New York antitrust investigation.

Taylor v. (private 2007)

Second Amended Complaint, Taylor v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., No. 2:07-cv-01849-RSL (W.D. Wash. filed June 16, 2008) (original complaint filed Nov. 15, 2007)

Docket sheet (downloaded Aug. 18, 2014)

Order Granting Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment; Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Apr. 14, 2009)

Judgment in a Civil Case (Apr. 14, 2009)

Notice of Appeal (Apr. 16, 2009)

Ninth Circuit

Appellant’s Informal Opening Brief (June 9, 2009)

Appellee Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.’s Brief (July 9, 2009)

Appellee Hanson Motors, Inc. 's Motions for Joinder in Response Brief of Volkswagen of America, Inc. (July 13, 2009)

Appellant’s Reply Brief in Opposition to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.’s Brief (July 23, 2009)

Memorandum (Apr. 11, 2010) (not for publication) (affirming grant of summary judgment to defendants)

Mandate (Apr. 23, 2010)

20. Exclusive contracts

22. Tying