Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, SUPREME COURT DOCKET: Recent decisions, cases, and petitions pending High Court review, (Jun 29, 2016)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

This Antitrust Law Daily feature presents a chart highlighting the decisions, arguments, briefs, and petitions on antitrust and trade regulation issues before the 2015 Term of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Since the opening of its 2015 Term, the Supreme Court has issued three opinions concerning advertising, RICO, and privacy cases; granted summary disposition in another case; and granted review in two related antitrust cases. In addition, the Court has denied 41 petitions in antitrust and trade regulation cases, while 11 other petitions are awaiting review.

RICO, injury. The European Community (EC) and 26 of its member states could not proceed with RICO claims against RJR Nabisco and related entities because the character of the asserted RICO injuries was extraterritorial, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled. According to the Court, RICO § 1964(c) required civil RICO plaintiffs to allege and prove a domestic injury to their business or property; however, it did not allow recovery for foreign injuries. Because the EC had waived its damages claims for domestic injuries, and because the remaining damages claims rested entirely on injuries that were suffered abroad, the RICO claims were properly dismissed by the district court (RJR Nabisco, Inc. v. European Community, Dkt. 15-138).

Antitrust, conspiracy. The Supreme Court also granted review of a decision entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., which revived price fixing claims that were brought against Visa, MasterCard, and affiliated banks by automatic teller machine (ATM) operators, as well as consumers who purportedly paid excessive fees when using these machines. The appellate court had concluded that, even where a member of a conspiracy appears to sever ties with other co-conspirators, there is no withdrawal if that member continues to support or benefit from the agreement (Visa Inc. v. Osborn, Dkt. 15-961) and (Visa Inc. v. Stoumbos, Dkt. 15-962).

RICO, causation. Three health benefit plans are asking the Supreme Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City, which affirmed that the plans failed to show an injury causally related to drug manufacturer Sanofi-Aventis’ alleged misrepresentations of the safety and efficacy of its drugs. The petition asks where purchasers allege that a manufacturer misrepresented a drug’s safety to prescribing doctors to increase sales, does the presence of the doctors break the causal chain—for purposes of RICO causation—between the misrepresentations and the purchasers’ economic injuries? (Sergeants Benevolent Association Health and Welfare Fund v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLP, Dkt. 15-1525).

RICO, injury. A former Seyfarth Shaw attorney is also seeking High Court review of a decision entered by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Chicago, which determined that his RICO claims against the City of Chicago, several law firms, individual lawyers, at least two court reporters, and a judge were frivolous. The RICO-specific questions presented are: (1) whether this Court’s ruling in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) prohibits the dismissal of Petitioner’s well-pleaded RICO claims (18 U.S.C. §§ 1961 et seq.) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and (2) whether dozens of alleged acts of extortion, mail fraud, and wire fraud, perpetrated over a two-year period by lawyers, state court judges, and court reporters, sufficiently alleges a "pattern" of racketeering activity under RICO, when the criminal enterprise has used undue influence over the state courts and attorney admission process and thus presents a clear threat of continued racketeering activity (Antonacci v. Chicago, Dkt. 15-1524).

Denials. The Supreme Court denied review in the following cases: (Black & Decker U.S. Inc. v. SD3, LLC, Dkt. 15-942); (Price v. Philip Morris, Inc., Dkt. 15-947); and (Prime Healthcare Services, Inc. v. Service Employees International Union, Dkt. 15-1448).

For details about these and other petitions and cases pending before the Supreme Court, please consult the chart of antitrust and trade regulation cases awaiting decision in the 2015 term. Issued opinions, granted petitions, pending petitions, and denied petitions are listed separately, along with a summary of the questions presented and the current status of each case.

News: Advertising Antitrust RICO