In House: Securities & Antitrust Archives
In House - The FindLaw Corporate Counsel Blog

Recently in Securities & Antitrust Category

Steve Jobs may have been a genius, but he was an idiot about discussing anti-competitive behaviors over email. His emails were one of the deciding factors in the Apple e-book lawsuit (Apple lost) and now, his words are haunting his friends in the tech industry in a different anticompetitive case: the non-poaching pact class action that first made headlines late last year.

In October, the all-knowing, all-seeing Judge Lucy Koh allowed the lawsuit to proceed, and now, six months later, the parties are entering into intense settlement negotiations, with figures like $9 billion being floated around (and scoffed at by the tech companies). Laugh now, pay later, because the eDiscovery evidence seems damning.

It's like the script of a bad movie.

One man, a Touro Law Center graduate (Google it -- it exists), worked as a career managing law clerk at BigLaw mergers and acquisitions powerhouse Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP. You can probably guess where this is going.

He'd allegedly pass along tips to a friend, who passed them to a broker, and eventually, someone noticed and the friend turned state's witness. The only surprising part of the story is the lengths that they went to to avoid getting caught.

Keurig, a subdivision of Green Mountain Coffee, makes single-cup pod-style coffee makers. Until 2011, they held 100 percent of the legitimate market, as they had a patent on the cups.

Until 2011.

And late last year, Green Mountain's attempt to use method patents to stop the burgeoning third-party pod market was shot down by the Federal Circuit, putting the company's $2.4 billion cash cow at risk. The Federal Circuit called the strategy an "end-run around exhaustion," dismissing the company's argument that their method patents applied to the brewers, end-users were violating those patents, and that competitors were inducing infringement.

On January 22, 2014, Maxim Marketing sued ConAgra and Trader Joes' for breach of contract regarding one of our personal favorite salty/sweet snacks -- peanut butter-filled pretzels -- in Los Angeles Superior Court (case number BC533822), reports the Los Angeles Business Journal. How could something so delicious stir up so much controversy?

Easy -- it all comes down to money.

To us gamers, Battlefield has long occupied the second-fiddle status to Activision's Call of Duty franchise. Think Pepsi to Coke, market-wise. But Battlefield 4 had a chance to be different. With the release of two new gaming consoles, the Xbox One and the PlayStation 4, this was a new war altogether, and BF4 was shaping up to be a contender, with 21 awards at the annual E3 tradeshow, including GameSpot's Best of E3 award.

On November 15, the game dropped for the PlayStation 4, both literally and figuratively, and a week later for the Xbox One. Gameplay was plagued with glitches, online play (the core feature of the game) was unreliable, and made worse by a Distributed Denial of Service (DDOS) attack that crashed the servers.

In retrospect, the game wasn't ready for release. The flaws were so bad that EA had to pull programmers off of other games, and delay other releases, to work on fixing the glitches. This, of course, hurts sales for both BF4 and the other delayed games.

Judge Lucy Koh strikes again. Last year, we called her the "most powerful woman in Silicon Valley," due to her status as the presiding judge over the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement trial. Since then, she's upheld a class-action lawsuit against Google over its email scanning practices, and now, has upheld another class-action against Google, Apple, Adobe and Intel for unfair labor practices, reports Reuters.

But, but, Google has free food, you say. And laundry, a gym, and other insane perks. They're legendary for their positive treatment of employees!

The company also, allegedly, agreed with the other defendants not to poach each other's talent. And when all of the major companies conspire to keep talent from moving around the valley, it depresses those employees' salaries and career opportunities.

Last month, charges were brought against two of the three traders alleged to have taken part in the London Whale scandal at J.P. Morgan Chase, while the third participant agreed to serve as a cooperating witness. No charges were filed against any executives, even though the company's failed oversight led to $6 billion in losses.

After the charges were announced, we couldn't help but wonder: how does the government expect banks to reform their practices when the only disincentive was a temporary dip in stock prices? Today, we got our $1 billion answer.

After the 2008 financial meltdown, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act ("Dodd-Frank") was enacted to reform our crumbling financial services industry. After languishing for several years because of hastily drafted imprecise wording, The Wall Street Journal reports that a requirement of the Act may soon be taking effect: disclosing the gap between CEO compensation and "rank-and-file employees." (Subscription only).

The Washington Post reports that Mary Jo White, SEC Chairwoman hopes the rule will be finished by September and stated: "We are very much as a staff and commission focused on that rule-making."

The Wall Street Journal calls Mark Hayes a lobbyist for Humana, an insurance company that makes much of it's revenue off of Medicare. Bloomberg calls him a lobbyist for Greenberg Traurig. He's also a consultant for an investment research firm, Height Securities. The parties' intertwined relationships are starting to sound like a Mississippi family tree.

Greenberg Traurig represented both Height and Humana. The Journal published an email from an analyst at Height to a Humana lobbyist, which was met with an "out of office" email auto responder, that stated "You guys seem to have done everything you can. I wish you the best with rates this evening."

Walmart Opposes $7B Visa/Mastercard Deal, Urges Retailers to Join Them

Walmart is not pleased with the Visa/MasterCard settlement and they're not keeping it to themselves. The company is urging other retailers to reject the multi-billion dollar proposed settlement.

Visa and MasterCard reached a $7.25 billion agreement with retailers earlier this month for damages in a price-fixing claim involving credit card swipe fees. The deal repays retailers for unfair fees and also lowers swipe fees for the next few months.

As part of the settlement, retailers now have the option to charge credit card users more for their purchases.

That's all well and good but the real issue for Walmart and other retailers is what the agreement doesn't do.