| | An overview of antitrust injury is provided at ''Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med.'', 428 F.3d 408, 441 (2d Cir. 2005). | | An overview of antitrust injury is provided at ''Daniel v. Am. Bd. of Emergency Med.'', 428 F.3d 408, 441 (2d Cir. 2005). |
| − | Beware of misleading reliance on Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co. (ARCO), 495 U.S. 328 (1990) and Brunswick Corp., as explained here: | + | Beware of misleading reliance on ''[[Atl. Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co.]]'' (ARCO), 495 U.S. 328 (1990) and Brunswick Corp., as explained here: |
| − | {{cquote|The Supreme Court's decisions in ARCO and Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977), 97 S. Ct. 690, 50 L. Ed. 2d 701 — the principal authorities upon which the LIBOR I Court relied, see 935 F. Supp. 2d at 689-92, and upon which Defendants rely (although not as heavily) here (Defs.' Br. 26) — do not call for a different conclusion. As the ''FX'' Court explained, those cases "were brought by competitors against their rivals, not by consumers alleging the per se wrong of horizontal price-fixing against colluding competitors." 74 F. Supp. 3d at 598. The cases thus stand for the uncontroversial proposition that a competitor cannot use the antitrust laws to recover lost profits as a result of being confronted with an increase in competition.}} | + | {{cquote|The Supreme Court's decisions in ARCO and ''[[Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat]], Inc.'', 429 U.S. 477 (1977), 97 S. Ct. 690, 50 L. Ed. 2d 701 — the principal authorities upon which the LIBOR I Court relied, see 935 F. Supp. 2d at 689-92, and upon which Defendants rely (although not as heavily) here (Defs.' Br. 26) — do not call for a different conclusion. As the ''FX'' Court explained, those cases "were brought by competitors against their rivals, not by consumers alleging the per se wrong of horizontal price-fixing against colluding competitors." 74 F. Supp. 3d at 598. The cases thus stand for the uncontroversial proposition that a competitor cannot use the antitrust laws to recover lost profits as a result of being confronted with an increase in competition.}} |
| | ''Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Bank of Am. Corp''., 175 F. Supp. 3d 44, 60 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) | | ''Alaska Elec. Pension Fund v. Bank of Am. Corp''., 175 F. Supp. 3d 44, 60 n.2 (S.D.N.Y. 2016) |