Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing
2007 U.S. LEXIS 7724, 127 S. Ct. 2383, 551 U.S. 264 (2007)
Rule of Law:
Federal securities law implicitly precludes the application of antitrust laws to joint underwriting practices in initial public offerings where there is a clear incompatibility between the two statutory schemes, evidenced by comprehensive SEC regulatory authority, active exercise of that authority, and a significant risk of conflicting standards and harm to efficient securities markets.
Facts:
- A group of underwriters typically forms a syndicate to market shares during an Initial Public Offering (IPO) to raise capital for a new enterprise.
- Underwriting syndicates engage in "bookbuilding" during a "road show" to gauge investor interest and determine suitable initial share prices and quantities.
- The syndicate agrees to buy all newly issued shares from the firm at a discounted price and then resells them to investors at a fixed price, earning a commission.
- Between March 1997 and December 2000, 10 leading investment banks acted as underwriters for hundreds of technology-related companies' IPOs.
- These underwriters allegedly abused the practice of combining into underwriting syndicates by agreeing to impose harmful conditions on potential investors.
- The alleged conditions included requiring investors to (1) commit to buying additional shares later at escalating prices (known as 'laddering'), (2) agree to purchase other less desirable securities from the underwriters (known as 'tying'), or (3) pay unusually high commissions on subsequent security purchases.
- These alleged agreements by underwriters artificially inflated the share prices of the securities in question.
Procedural Posture:
- Respondents, a group of 60 investors, filed two antitrust class-action lawsuits against petitioners, 10 leading investment banks, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The petitioners (underwriters) moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing that federal securities law impliedly precluded the application of antitrust laws.
- The District Court agreed with the petitioners and dismissed the complaints.
- The respondents (investors) appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the District Court's decision and reinstated the complaints.
- The petitioners (underwriters) filed a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does federal securities law implicitly preclude the application of antitrust laws to joint underwriting practices involving 'laddering,' 'tying,' and excessive commissions during initial public offerings?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Breyer
Yes, federal securities law implicitly precludes the application of antitrust laws to the alleged joint underwriting practices involving 'laddering,' 'tying,' and excessive commissions during initial public offerings. The Court found a 'plain repugnancy' or 'clear incompatibility' between the antitrust claims and federal securities law. This conclusion rested on four critical factors: (1) the challenged conduct lies squarely within the heartland of securities regulations, being central to the proper functioning of capital markets; (2) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) possesses clear and comprehensive authority to regulate all activities in question, including bookbuilding, solicitations, and communications; (3) the SEC has actively and continuously exercised this authority, defining permissible and impermissible conduct, and bringing enforcement actions; and (4) there is a serious conflict between applying antitrust laws and the existing regulatory regime. Even accepting that the SEC disapproves of the specific conduct alleged, the fine, complex lines separating permissible from impermissible conduct, the need for securities expertise to draw these lines, the overlapping evidence that could be interpreted contradictorily, and the high risk of inconsistent results from numerous non-expert antitrust courts would lead to serious mistakes and unduly deter lawful, procompetitive conduct. The enforcement-related need for antitrust lawsuits is diminished because the SEC actively enforces its rules, investors can recover damages under securities law, and the SEC is mandated to consider competitive effects in its rulemaking. Allowing antitrust suits would risk circumventing the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
No, the securities laws do not implicitly preclude antitrust claims, as broad saving clauses in both the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 preserve other existing legal remedies, including antitrust actions. Justice Thomas argued that the securities statutes are not silent regarding antitrust, as Section 16 of the Securities Act (15 U. S. C. §77p(a)) and Section 28 of the Securities Exchange Act (15 U. S. C. §78bb(a)) explicitly state that the rights and remedies provided by these acts are "in addition to any and all other rights and remedies that may exist at law or in equity." He contended that antitrust remedies, existing since the Sherman Act of 1890, are clearly encompassed by these broad saving clauses. He dismissed the majority's reliance on prior cases (Silver, Gordon, NASD) by noting that those opinions, neither majority nor dissent, offered any analysis of the saving clauses, making their omission non-precedential. He also rejected the idea that these clauses are limited to state-law or securities-related remedies, pointing to Congress's ability to explicitly impose such limitations elsewhere in the statutes when intended.
Concurring - Justice Stevens
No, the alleged conduct involving 'laddering,' 'tying,' and excessive commissions during initial public offerings does not violate antitrust laws because these are procompetitive joint ventures and do not cause antitrust injury. Justice Stevens concurred in the judgment but disagreed with the majority's reasoning regarding implied immunity. He argued that agreements among underwriters on how to market IPOs, including price and other terms, should be considered procompetitive joint ventures, not conspiracies in restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. He asserted that the syndicate system does not affect general market prices and that claims of manipulation of IPO terms to restrain trade are frivolous. While acknowledging that underwriters might divert benefits from issuers, this would be a breach of fiduciary duty, not an 'antitrust injury' for investors. He also concluded that 'laddering' and 'tying' do not constitute vertical restraints violating antitrust law, as there is no injury to any relevant competition. He would dismiss the claims because the conduct does not violate antitrust laws at all, rather than finding an implied immunity from them.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the standard for implied repeal of antitrust laws by a federal regulatory scheme, particularly within the heavily regulated financial sector. It emphasizes a functional incompatibility test, where the risk of conflicting standards and severe market disruption due to overlapping enforcement justifies implied preclusion, even when the regulatory agency itself disapproves of the conduct. The decision reinforces the idea that where an industry is subject to comprehensive and active expert regulation, the unique expertise required and the potential for inconsistent judicial outcomes may outweigh the benefits of parallel antitrust enforcement. This ruling will likely make it more difficult for plaintiffs to bring antitrust claims against conduct central to financial markets that are already under rigorous SEC oversight.
