Applied Antitrust Law

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

 

22. Tying

 

 

21. Non-Price Vertical Restraints

 

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

 
Primary Materials
Supplemental Materials

Reading and Class Notes

Reading and class notes

Units 21-23 reading materials

Unit 21 class notes

 

Significant Precedents

 

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

Supreme Court

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)

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

Universal Studios

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

Fox

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)

Warner

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)

Related cases
 

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

DOJ complaint

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)

Docket sheet (downloaded Sept. 29, 2014)

± DOJ web page

—DOJ Visa and Mastercard settlements

Memorandum & Order (July 20, 2011)

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

E.D.N.Y.

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)

Second Circuit

 

—DOJ Amex litigation

District court

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 (Apr. 30, 2015) (on relief) (reported at 2015 WL 1966362)

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

Judgment (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)

 

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 May 23, 2015)

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

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)

—Private Amex settlement: Preliminary approval

 

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)

 

—Private Amex settlement: Denying approval
 

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)

—Private Visa/MasterCard settlement
 

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

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

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. Volkswagen
(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