FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T NOVEMB ER 10, 2011 J OHN L EY CL ERK [PUBLIS H]

IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 1 1- 13 25 4 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 1 :1 1- cv -0 01 17 -TCB

COMP UCREDIT HOLDINGS CORPORATION, ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Pl ai nt iff - App el la nt , vers us AKANTHO S CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, LLC, ARIA OPPORTUNITY FUND LTD., AQR ABSOLUTE RETURN MASTER ACCOUNT, L. P., CC ARB ITRAGE, LTD. , CNH CA MASTER ACCOUNT, L.P., et al ., ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll Defen da nt s - Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt forth e North ern Dis tri ctof Ge or gi a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (No ve m be r 10 , 20 11 )Befo re WILSON, PRYOR an d KRAVITC H, Circ ui t Jud ge s.

PER CURI AM: Pl ai nt iff -Ap pe ll an t Co m

pu Cred itHol di ng s C or

po rat io n (“ Co m

pu Cred it ”) br ou gh t s ui t al le gi ng an ti tru stvi ol at io ns ag ai ns t a n um be r of he dg e fu nd s (Defe nd an ts -Ap pe ll ees ) th atho ldco nv ert ib le sen io r no te s i ss ue d b y Co m pu Cred it
. Co m pu Cred itcla im edth atDefen da nt s ac te d c ol le ct iv el y to for ce Co m

pu Cred itto pa y ab ov e-m ark etpri ces to red eem it s n ot es earl y , th us vi ol at in g t he Sh erm an Act. The d is tri ctco urt g ran te d Def en da nt s’ m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o n t he 1 pl ead in gs ; Co m

pu Cred itno w app eal s.

I. BACKGROUND 2 Co m pu Cred itis a pr ov id er o f cred itan d re la te d fi na nc ia l s erv ic es pro du ct s. Defen da nt s ar e h ol de rs of l on g- te rm co nv ert ib le pro m is so ry

no te s i ss ue d b y Co m pu Cred itin 20 05 in two ser ie s. Th e fi rs t s eri es is du e an d p ay ab le in 20 25 ; th e se co ndser ie s i s due an d p ay ab le in 20 35 . Thes e n ot es were o rig in al ly iss ue d in a pr iv at e p la cem en t, b utare n ow t rad edon th e se co nd ary m ark et . As of Decem be r 20 09 , th e twe nt y -o ne he dg e fu ndDefen da nt s co ll ect iv el y own ed70 % of th e n ot es is su edin 20 05
. 15 U.S.C. § 1. 1 We rec ite the fa cts in the light most favor able to the nonmovingparty . See O rtega v. 2 Christ ian , 85 F.3d 1521, 1524 ( 11th Cir. 1996). 2InDecem be r 20 09 , Com

pu Cred itanno un cedth atitwas p lann in g t o i ss ue a di vi de ndof $ 25 mil li on to st oc kh ol de rs an d was co ns id eri ng sp in ni ng off it s pr of it ab le m ic ro lo anbu si ne ss . In re sp on se , Defen da nt s fi le d s ui t u nd er the Uni fo rm Frau du le ntTran sf

er Act s (“ UFTA”), al le gi ng th atCo m pu Cred itwas in so lv en t o n apro form a b as is an d re qu es ti ng th atth e co urt en joi n t he pa ym en t o f th e d iv id en d a ndth e sp in of f to en su re tha t Co m

pu Cred itco ul d p ay

ba ckit s d eb t ob li ga ti on s. At t he ti m e o f th e su it , Com pu Cred itha d n ev er m is se d an i nt eres t pa ym en t o n t he no te s. The co urt fo un d t ha t Co m pu Cred itwas n otin so lv en t an d d en ie d t he in jun ct io ns . Com

pu Cred itth enoff

eredto rep ur ch as e up t o $ 16 0 m il li on of i ts
no te s o ut st an di ng at apri ce p ur po rte dl y at o r ab ov e m ark etva lu e. Non e o f th e Defen da nt s p art ic ip at edin th e te nd er o ffer , andCo m pu Cred itall eg es th atth ey co ns pi redin th ei r refu sa l o f th e o ffer . Com pu Cred itwas abl e to rep ur ch as e ab ou t 11 % of t he ou ts ta nd in g 2 02 5 n ot es at r ou gh ly 50% o f fac e v al ue an d abo ut10 % of it s o ut st an di ng 20 35 no te s atap pr ox im at el y 35 % of f ace v al ue . The Defen da nt s co nt inue d t o a ll eg e Co m pu Cred it ’s in so lv en cy . In J an ua ry 20 10 , th ey

wrot e a l et te r to Co m

pu Cred it ’s aud it or , exp res si ng do ub t ab ou t Co m pu Cred it ’s fin an ci al he al th . In Fe brua ry 20 10 , th ey

wrot e th e Sec ur it ie s an d Exc hang e Co m

m is si on , all eg in g t ha t Co m pu Cred itwas i ns ol ve nt . In M arch 20 10 , 3Defen da nt s co nt act edth e in de ntur e trus te e, cl ai m in g t ha t Co m pu Cred itha d vi ol at edth e te rm s o f th e in de ntur es . Fin al ly, on Marc h 8 , 20 10 , Defen da nt s m ad e a co ll ect iv e d em an d t ha t Co m pu Cred itrep ur ch as e th ei r no te s atpa r va lu e. Co m pu Cred itest im at es th atth e 2 02 5 n ot es were t rad in g a t 5 3.5 pe rcen t o f par an d th e 2 03 5 n ot es were t rad in g a t 3 7 p erce ntof p ar atth e ti m e o f th is de m an d. 3 Co m pu Cred itrefu se d Def

en da nt s’ reque stto rep ur ch as e th e n ot es at p ar
an d b ro ug htth is su it . Com pu Cred itall eg es th atDefen da nt s co ns pi redto bo y co tt it s t en de r of

fer i n o rd er t o i nf

la te th e red em

pt io n p ric e o f th ei r no te s an d t he reb y vi ol at edth e Sh erm anAct. Defe nd an ts m ov edfora jud gm en t o n t he pl ead in gs , an d t he di st ric t co urt g ran te d t he ir m ot io n o n J un e 1 7, 2 01 1. Th is ap pe al fol lo wed
. II. DISCUSSI ON W e rev ie w de no vo a ru li ng on a m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o n the pl ead in gs . Hor sl ey v. Ri ver a , 29 2 F .3d69 5, 7 00 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). Forth e sa ke of o urrev ie w, we wil l ac cep t al l wel l-p le d fa ctua l al le ga ti on s i n t he co m pl ai ntas tru e. Dougl as Asp ha lt Co . v. Qor e, In c. , 54 1 F .3d12 69 , 12 73 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ). Howev er, we are no t o bl ig at edto acce ptall eg edleg al co nc lu si on s as tru e. Se e Gre en Lea f Nu rs er y v. E.I. DuPo nt

De Nemo ur

s & Co
. , 34 1 F .3d12 92 , 13 04 n.1 2 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3)
. “ If

Def endants a rgue that this demand wa s require d under the litigation proc edure s of the 3 UFT A. 4up on rev ie win g the pl ead in gs itis cle ar tha t t he pl ai nt iff wou ldno t b e en ti tl edto rel ie f un de r an y

setof f act s t ha t co ul d b e p ro ve d c on si st en t wi th th e al le ga ti on s, th e co urt s ho ul d d is m is s t he co m pl ai nt .” Hor

sl ey , 29 2 F .3dat 7 00
. Co ns tru in g the fact s m os t fa vo rab ly to Co m pu Cred it , we fin d t ha t t he be ha vi orof De fen da nt s al le ge d b y Co m pu Cred itdo es no t co ns ti tu te a vi ol at io n o f th e Sh erm anAct. Th e cas es th atCo m pu Cred itoff

ers in supp ort o f it s p os it io n are f actua ll y di st in gu is habl e fro m

an d t hu s i rrel ev an t t o t he curren t d is pu te , and we fi ndno othe r cas e law th atwou ldsupp ort t he pro po si ti on th atth e act io ns al le ge d a re i ll eg al un de r th e Sh erm anAct. Th eref or e, we affi rm

th e d is tri ctco urt. Co m pu Cred itfir starg ue s t ha t t he co nt ro ll in g c as e fo r th is di sp ut e is FTC v. Su pe ri or Co ur t Tr ia l La wye rs Ass ’n , inwhi chth e Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t i t was
a v io la ti on of t he Sh erm anAct fo r tr ia l l awy ers to bo y co tttak in g o n c ou rtap po in te d c riminal cas es in ord er t o g ai n l ev erag e in pa y ne go ti at io ns with the Dis tri ctof C ol um

bi a Supe rio r Co urt. 49 3 U.S. 4 11 , 42 8, 1 10 S. Ct. 7 68 , 86 9 (1 99 0) . Desp it e Co m

pu Cred it ’s cha ract eri zat io n o f Defen da nt s as “ ho riz on ta l
co m pe ti to rs ” en ga ge d i n a“bo y co tt ” o f Co m pu Cred it ’s ten de r of

fer, we d is ag ree wit h C om pu Cred it ’s ass ert io n t ha t Su pe ri or Co ur t Tr ia l La wye rs Ass ’n is an ap pr op ria te pa ral le l. Defe nd an ts he re are ho ld ers of C om pu Cred it ’s pro m is so ry no te s. Th is rel at io ns hi p a ro se when Co m pu Cred itwil li ng ly too k o n an o bl ig at io n 5to rep ay

th e n ot es vi a a fre e-m ark ettra ns act io n. Al th ou gh th es e p ro m is so ry no te s are t rad edon a se co nd ary m ark et , th ey ret ai n t he ir e ss en ti al ch arac te r as de bt in st ru m en ts . The p re-e xi st in g d eb to r an d c red it orrel at io ns hi p d iff eren ti at es th is
cas e fro m Su

pe ri or Co ur t Tr ia l La wye rs Ass ’n . Com pu Cred itwas n otin th e sa m e po si ti onas ano rm al bu y er o f go od s o r se rv ic es ; i ns te aditwis he d t o p ay ba ckth e
m on ey italr ead y

owed(ata pr ic e b el ow p ar v al ue bu t ator abo ve m ark etva lu e). Defen da nt s’ cho ic e to rejectth is off er an d s eekful l p ar v al ue is no t t he same as a bo y co ttin te nd edto rai se futur e sa le s p ric es . Co m pu Cred itals o re li es he av il y on Ca ta la no , Inc . v. Tar

ge t Sa le s, In c. , 44 6 U.S. 64 3, 1 00 S. Ct. 1 92 5 (1 98 0) (pe r cu ria m). Altho ug h Ca ta la no actua ll y in vo lv edde bt or s, t he all eg edan ti tru stvi ol at io ns co nc ern edth e te rm s o f fu tu re tra ns act io ns , no t a p re-e xi st in g d eb t. Id
. at 6 44 –4 5, 1 00 S. Ct. at19 26 . The Supr em e Co urt h el d t ha t an ag reem en t am on g b eer wh ol es al ers to be gi n d en y in g sh ort-t erm

cred itto ret ai le rs was “ m erel y on e fo rm of p ric e fi xi ng ” an d t hu s il le ga l. Id
. at65 0, 1 00 S. Ct. at19 29 . Here, th e p ar v al ue of t he de btwas a lre ady fix edby agree m en t o f th e p art ie s. Neg ot ia ti on s ab ou t t he rep aym en t o f a d eb t ar e factua ll y di ss im il ar fro m

a un il at eral co ns pi racy to fi x fu tu re p ric es in a m ark et . Fu rth erm or e, othe r ci rcu it s h av e h el d t ha t i t i s n ota vi ol at io n o f th e Sh erm anAct fo r de bt or s t o a ctco ll ab or at iv el y to co ll ectpre -ex is ti ng de bt s. In
6Uni te d Ai rl in es v. U.S. Ban k, N.A. , th e Sev en th Cir cu ithe ldth atco ll ect iv e act io n

of a gr oup o f cre di to rs to reco ve r th e fu ll am ou ntof d eb ts ari si ng fro m

“ co m pe ti ti ve ly det erm in edco ntract s” was n otin vi ol at io n o f th e an ti tru stlaws
. 40 6 F .3d91 8, 9 21 (7t h C ir. 2 00 5) . Sim il arl y , in Sh ar on St eel Co rp . v. Cha se Man ha tt an Ban k, N.A. , th e Sec on d C irc ui t fi rm ly rejectedth e ap pe ll an t’s cl ai m th atjoi ntact iv it y

by its cred it or s t o c ol le ctth e d eb ts owedby app el la ntvi ol at ed
an ti tru stlaw. 6 91 F.2d10 39 , 10 52 –5 3 (2 d C ir. 1 98 2)
. III. CONCLUSI ON W e d o n otfin d t ha t t he fact s al le ge d c on st itut e a v io la ti on of t he Sh erm an Act. Th e o rd er o f th e d is tri ctco urt g ran ti ng Defen da nt s’ m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o n th e p le ad in gs is affi rm ed
. AFFIRMED.

7