Securities Law | Expert Legal Commentary

February 26, 2010

Electronic Trading v. Banc of America: Federal Securities Laws Preclude Antitrust Laws re: Short Sale Litigation

Electronic Trading Group LLC v. Banc of America Securities LLC

By Josh Lawler of Zuber Lawler & Del Duca and Joel Ginsberg

Electronic Trading v. Banc of America: Federal Securities Laws Preclude Antitrust Laws re: Short Sale Litigation

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed a putative antitrust case relating to short sale transactions on the grounds that federal securities laws precluded the application of antitrust laws to short sale transactions. The case, Electronic Trading Group LLC v. Banc of America Securities LLC (aka In re Short Sale Antitrust Litigation) 588 F.3d 128 (2nd Cir. 2009), marked the Second Circuit’s first application of the implied preclusion doctrine outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264 (2007). The decision essentially insulates prime brokers who allegedly collude regarding short sellers from any Sherman Act claim, at least in the Second Circuit.

Plaintiff Electronic Trading Group LLC was a “short seller” of securities. It filed a putative class action against certain financial institutions that serve as prime brokers in short sale transactions, alleging that they arbitrarily designated certain securities as “hard-to-borrow,” then agreed to fix the minimum price for borrowing these securities (higher than the price of other securities) in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. section 1. The plaintiff also alleged state law claims of breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment.

The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the Sherman Act claims were subject to the doctrine of implied preclusion of antitrust claims by the securities laws. The plaintiffs argued, among other things, that preclusion should not apply because no actual or potential conflict between antitrust and securities laws exist, since neither allows the collusive fixing of borrowing fees. The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York agreed with the defendants and dismissed the Sherman Act claim with prejudice. The District Court also dismissed the state law claims without prejudice.

The Billing factors support a finding of implied preclusion of antitrust claims

In affirming the District Court’s decision, the Second Circuit panel applied the considerations on preclusion of antitrust claims outlined by the U.S. Supreme Court in Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264 (2007). In Billing, the Supreme Court found implied preclusion of an antitrust claim where underwriters were accused of requiring buyers to take additional shares at escalating prices, forcing them to pay high commissions on subsequent buys, and requiring them to purchase less desirable securities.

Billing set forth four considerations that must be examined to determine whether the securities laws are “clearly incompatible” with antitrust laws in a particular context, thus warranting implied preclusion. Billing, 551 U.S. at 285. The four considerations are whether 1) the area of conduct is “squarely within the heartland of securities regulation”; 2) the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has the authority to regulate the conduct; 3) there is ongoing SEC regulation; and 4) a conflict exists between the antitrust and securities laws and regulation. Billing, 551 U.S. at 285.

As to the first Billing consideration, the Circuit Court found that “short selling is market activity regulated by the securities law” and therefore in the heartland of securities regulations. Electronic Trading, 588 F.3d at 134. As to the second consideration, even though no specific current SEC provision explicitly references the regulation of borrowing fees, the SEC does have the authority to regulate the role of prime brokers and the borrowing fees they charge. Id. at 134-135. As to the third consideration, the Circuit Court found that the SEC’s general regulation of the role of prime brokers in short selling weighed in favor of preclusion, even though the SEC had not focused on the regulation of borrowing fees in particular. Id. at 135-136.

Regarding the fourth consideration, the Circuit Court reasoned that because it “is permissible for brokers to communicate about the availability and price of securities,” the imposition of “antitrust liability could create actual and potential conflicts” because it would inhibit this conduct on the part of prime brokers “that the SEC currently permits and that benefits the efficient functioning of the short selling market.” Id. at 137.

Moreover, the Circuit Court found another potential conflict between securities law and antitrust law, “based on the possibility that the SEC will act upon its authority to regulate the borrowing fees set by prime brokers.” Id. at 138. Despite the plaintiff’s argument to the contrary, the Circuit Court said that it is “not decisive that neither securities law nor antitrust law allows – or encourages – the collusive fixing of borrowing fees.” Id.

Because consideration of all four Billing factors weighed in favor of preclusion, the Circuit Court upheld the District Court’s dismissal of the case.

CONCLUSION

In Electronic Trading, the Second Circuit took the opportunity to apply the Billing doctrine to find implied preclusion in an area not currently covered by securities regulations. The result: prime brokers who allegedly collude in setting borrowing fees for short sellers cannot be sued in federal court for violating the Sherman Act.

About the Authors

Joel Ginsberg is Deputy General Counsel at Guidance Software, an industry leader in digital investigative solutions.

Image Credit: ©iStockphoto.com/stockmachine

View a PDF of the judicial opinion

Connect on Linkedin®

Josh Lawler
Joel Ginsberg

Companies Mentioned

Banc of America Securities LLC

Bank of New York

Bear Stearns Companies, Inc.

CIBC World Markets Corp.

Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

Citigroup Inc.

Credit Suisse (USA) Inc.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC.

Daiwa America Corp.

Daiwa Securities America Inc.

Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.

Electronic Trading Group, LLC

Goldman Sachs Execution & Clearing, L.P.

Goldman, Sachs & Co.

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.

J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.

Lehman Brothers Inc.

Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.

Morgan Stanley & Co. Inc.

Morgan Stanley DW Inc.

The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

UBS Financial Services, Inc.

Van Der Moolen Specialists USA, LLC.

Also See:

Amgen Inc. v. Connecticut Retirement Plans & Trust Funds: Supreme Court Sides with Investors in Securities Fraud Class Action

Gabelli v. SEC: Unanimous Supreme Court Rejects Extending Statute of Limitations in SEC Enforcement Actions

In re Rigel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Ninth Circuit Increases Difficulty for Investors to Sue Drug Companies Based on Clinical Trial Results

Mastick v. TD Ameritrade, Inc.: Court Upholds Use of California Arbitration Act in Contracts Governed by California Law

Lawson et al. v. FMR LLC: Sarbanes-Oxley’s Whistleblower Protection Is Limited to Employees of Publicly Traded Companies

The most advanced document                
         management system in the world.

Only $59 / person / month
FeaturesLawLoop Demo
FeaturesWelcome to the Future
Play LawLoop Demo

Companies Mentioned

Securities Law

The following companies are mentioned in Securities Law Updates:

Securities and Exchange Commission

Harris Associates, L.P.

Banc of America Securities LLC

Citicorp USA, Inc.

Jan Charles Finance S.A.

Park East, Inc.

CIBC World Markets Corp.

Citigroup Inc.

Barclays Capital Inc.

Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

The Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi

Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc.

Alex Brown, Inc.

Toronto Dominion Texas, LLC f.k.a. Toronto Dominion Texas, Inc.

SG Cowen Securities Corp.

Tellabs, Inc.

Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc.

Mizuho International PLC

Lydia Capital, LLC

Suntrust Capital Markets, Inc.

Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd.

ABN AMRO Inc.

Tribune Company

Fleet Securities, Inc. n.k.a. Bank of America, N.A.

City of Philadelphia Board of Pensions and Retirement

Staples, Inc.

The Bank of New York Company, Inc.

CIBC, Inc.

Citibank, N.A.

Metal Management, Inc.

European Metal Recycling, Ltd.

Salomon Smith Barney Inc. n.k.a. Citigroup Global Markets, Inc.

Calyon Securities (USA), Inc. f.k.a. Credit Lyonnais Securities (USA) Inc.

Calyon New York Branch (successor by operation of law to Credit Lyonnais New York Branch)

Salomon Smith Barney, Inc.

JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Dynex Capital Inc.

Citigroup, Inc.

JPMorgan Securities Inc.

Merit Securities Corp.

Scotia Capital (USA), Inc.,

Teamsters Local 445 Freight Division Pension Fund

Aetna, Inc.

Cowen & Co., LLC f.k.a. SG Cowen Securities Corp.

Societe Generale

SunTrust Bank

TD Securities (USA), Inc.

BMO Nesbitt Burns Corp. n.k.a. Harris Nesbitt Burns Corp.

Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney Professional Corporation

Consolidated Leasing Hugoton Joint Venture #2

Additional Resources

Securities Law

Further Reading in Securities Law

Other Recent Expert Legal Commentaries

More Securities Law Expert Legal Commentaries

Recent Summaries

More Securities Law Summaries