Many high profile cases are making their way through the Southern District of New York, and to the Second Circuit. Today, we'll give you the latest on Apple's e-books suit, Chinese search engine Baidu's free speech, Rajat Gupta's failed appeal and JPMorgan's win.
Apple e-books Class Action Certified
Apple was dealt another blow last week when U.S. District Judge Denise Cote granted plaintiffs' motion for class certification. The consumers are suing Apple for "conspiring with five major publishers to fix e-book prices in violation of antitrust law," reports Reuters. Last year, Judge Cote found Apple liable in an antitrust action brought by the Department of Justice based on the same conduct. Today, 33 states have brought actions against Apple, and class actions have been filed in the remaining states, reports Reuters.
Baidu's Censorship Is Free Speech
Pro-democracy activists sued Chinese search engine Baidu.com for violating their civil rights claiming that the search engine engaged in censorship by not including political information in search results, reports Reuters. The court found that the site's editorial control of results amount to speech that must be protected, and stated, "the First Amendment protects Baidu's right to advocate for systems of government other than democracy (in China or elsewhere) just as surely as it protects Plaintiffs' rights to advocate for democracy."
No New Trial for Gupta
Rajat Gupta was convicted in 2012 of insider trading, for leaking secrets to his billionaire hedge fund Raj Rajaratnam. On appeal, the Second Circuit "conclude[d] that none of the challenged rulings constituted an abuse of the court's discretion and that a new trial is unwarranted," reports The New York Times. Though he maintains his innocence, it's unclear whether Gupta will appeal to the Supreme Court, according to the Times.
JPMorgan's Silver Lining
Last week, the Second Circuit affirmed a lower court's ruling, in an antitrust suit, that silver investors failed to show that JPMorgan engaged in price fixing and conspired to drive down the price of silver, reports Reuters. The court stated, "An inference of intent cannot be drawn from the mere fact that JPMorgan had a strong short position," according to Reuters.