Document: 127 S. Ct. 2383 (2007) CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA) LLC, fka Credit Suisse First Boston et al., Petitioners, v. Glen BILLING al. No. 05-1157. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 27, 2007. Decided June 18, *2386 Stephen M. Shapiro, Washington, D.C., for Petitioners. Paul D. Clement, States as amicus curiae, by special leave the Court, supporting Christopher Lovell, Respondents. Robert B. McCaw, Louis R. Cohen, Ali Stoeppelwerth, Fraser L. Hunter, Jr., Noah A. Levine, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, New York, Petitioner Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Kenneth Geller, Timothy Bishop, John P. Schmitz, Mayer, Brown, Rowe Maw Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner Smith Incorporated, Andrew J. Frackman, Muris, Richard G. Parker, Brendan Dowd, O'Melveny Myers Robertson Stephens, Carter Phillips, Pietrzak, Joel *2387 Mitnick, Sidley Austin Deutsche Bank Securities Clubok, Brant W. Bradley Bondi, Kirkland Ellis Morgan Stanley Co. Shepard Goldfein, Preeta Bansal, James Keyte, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher Flom Janus Capital Management Cirillo, Karen Kowalski, King Spalding Moses Silverman, Philip Barber, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton Garrison Lehman Brothers Inc. Jon Roellke, Jeffrey H. Drichta, Clifford Chance US Gonson, Glenn Reichardt, Kirkpatrick Lockhart Preston Gates Gandolfo V. DiBlasi, Penny Shane, David M.J. Rein, J.L. Lomuscio, Sullivan Cromwell Petitioners The Goldman Sachs Group, and Goldman, Co., Randy Mastro, Herfort, Falek, Gibson, Dunn Crutcher Bear, Stearns Steven Wolowitz, Matthew Ingber, Comerica, Gerald Fields, Kevin C. Logue, Hastings Janofsky Walker Van Wagoner Management, Funds, Ichel, Jayma Meyer, Simpson Thacher Bartlett J.P. Donovan, Jones, Ropes Gray Boston, Mass., Fidelity Distributors Corp. Brokerage Services Investments Institutional Russel Beatie, Beatie Osborn Respondent Milton Pfeiffer. Justice BREYER delivered opinion Court. A group buyers newly issued securities have filed an antitrust lawsuit against underwriting firms that market distribute those issues. claim underwriters unlawfully agreed with one another they would not sell shares a popular new issue to buyer unless committed (1) buy additional security later at escalating prices (a practice called "laddering"), (2) pay unusually high commissions on subsequent purchases from underwriters, or (3) purchase other less desirable "tying"). question before us is whether there "`plain repugnancy'" between these claims federal law. See Gordon York Stock Exchange, 422 U.S. 659, 682, 95 2598, 45 Ed. 2d 463 (1975) (quoting Philadelphia Nat. Bank, 374 321, 350-351, 83 1715, 10 915 (1963)). We conclude is. Consequently we must interpret laws implicitly precluding application conduct alleged in this case. U.S., 689, 691, 2598; see also National Assn. Dealers, 694, 2427, 486 (NASD); Silver *2388 373 341, 1246, 389 (1963). I practices take place during course initial public offering (IPO) company. An IPO presents opportunity raise capital enterprise selling investing public. will typically form syndicate help shares. investigate estimate likely demand various prices. It then recommend firm price number it believes should offer. Ultimately, promise all specified date fixed, agreed-upon price, which charge investors when resells When buys issuing firm, however, gives discount, amounts syndicate's commission. generally Loss Seligman, Fundamentals Regulation 66-72 (4th ed.2001). At heart marketing activity lie its efforts determine suitable share quantities. first, makes preliminary submits registration statement Exchange Commission (SEC). conducts "road show" representatives meet potential engage process industry calls "book building." During time, present information about company stock. And attempt gauge strength investors' interest purchasing For purpose, might well ask how their vary depending upon are offered. They learn, among things, shares, what quantities, prices, long each hold purchased them others. On basis kind information, members work out final arrangements fixing per specifying be jointly responsible. As said, after buying discounted fixed effect earning commission process. B In January 2002, respondents, 60 investors, two class-action lawsuits petitioners, leading investment banks. sought relief under § 1 Sherman Act, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, amended, 15 U.S.C. 1; 2(c) Clayton 38 730, amended Robinson-Patman 49 1527, 13(c); state laws. App. 1, 14. stated 1997 December 2000 banks had acted forming syndicates helped execute IPOs several hundred technology-related companies. Id., 22. Respondents' complaints allege "abused the... combining into syndicates" agreeing themselves impose harmful conditions investorsconditions apparently were willing accept order obtain allocation demand. 12. *2389 These conditions, according consist requirement "additional anticompetitive charges" over above plus particular, charges took investor promises "to bids ... aftermarket price" (i.e., "laddering" agreements); "commitments other, attractive securities" "tying" arrangements); payment "noncompetitively determined" excessive) "commissions," including "purchas[e] issuer's follow-up `secondary' offerings (for earn discounts)." 12-13. complaint added underwriters' agreement some artificially inflated question. 32. moved dismiss ground law impliedly precludes (The include commercial bribery provisions Act.) District petitioners dismissed them. re Initial Public Offering Antitrust Litigation, 287 F. Supp. 497, 524-525 (S.D.N.Y.2003) (IPO Antitrust). Appeals Second Circuit reversed, reinstated complaints. 426 F.3d 130, 170, 172 (2005). granted petition certiorari. now reverse Appeals. II Sometimes regulatory statutes explicitly preclude Compare, e.g., Webb-Pomerene 62 (expressly providing immunity) 601(b)(1) Telecommunications Act 1996, 47 152 (stating remain applicable). Verizon Communications Law Offices Curtis Trinko, 540 398, 406-407, 124 872, 157 823 (2004) (analyzing saving clause Act). Where silent respect antitrust, courts whether, respects, Those determinations may statute statute, relation program set forth particular specific both sets Compare Gordon, 2598 (finding implied preclusion laws); NASD, 729-730, 2427 (same), Otter Tail Power States, 410 366, 374-375, 93 1022, 35 359 (1973) no immunity); 352, 1715 (same); Silver, 360, 1246 (same). Phonetele, American Tel. 664 F.2d 716, 727 (C.A.9 1981). Three decisions specifically address considered dealer's that, expelling him violated prohibition "boycott[s]." 347, 1246. wrote where possible, "reconcil[e] operation [i.e., securities] statutory schemes *2390 rather than holding completely ousted." 357, standard, namely "[r]epeal regarded only if necessary make work, even minimum extent necessary." Ibid. held did claimed boycott insofar denied expelled dealer right fair procedures. 359-360, reaching conclusion, noted SEC lacked jurisdiction review instances enforcement exchange rules"; "nothing [was] built scheme performs function insuring" rules injure competition nonetheless "justified furthering" legitimate "ends"; expulsion "would clearly" violate "the justified reference purposes Act"; could find such justifying purpose "anticompetitive collective action... without procedures." 357-358, 364, (emphasis added). essentially "price fixing" stockbrokers. charged fix sales $500,000. damages injunction forbidding future agreements. 661, n. 3, 2598. law-suit was time attitudes toward stockbroker changing. challenged applied period approved broker-commission rates. But Congress subsequently disapproved id., 690-691, deciding liability lie, repeated Silver's general standard somewhat different terms: said "implied repeal" found "where `plain repugnancy provisions.'" supra, 1715). precluded case hand. rested conclusion three considerations. thing, "gave direct power reasonable rates commission." 685, (internal quotation marks omitted). another, "taken active role proposed rate changes last years," engaged "continuing activity" regulation Finally, immunity, exchanges members" subject "conflicting standards." This considerationthe conflict complicated due Congress', agency's, changing views validity commissions. far past concerned, conflict clear: forbidden very thing permitted, setting future, apparent. That because SEC's (congressionally authorized) (certain) *2391 near-term future. prohibit ratefixing plaintiff's apply. Despite compatibility expressly conflict. arose fact permitted supervise competitive "reintroduc[e] rates," added), certain conditions. consequently "failure imply repeal render nugatory legislative provision agency supervision rates." upshot light conflict, forbid. NASD Department claiming mutual fund companies broker-dealers "resale" i.e., broker-dealer fund's (who wished redeem shares); terms sale related when, how, whom, whom shares; forbid freely to, from, another. 700-703, 2427. again "clear repugnancy," law, implication, parts claim. 719, (e.g., resale maintenance) permitting latter trumped former, relied same kinds considerations determinative Gordon. allegations (restricting free brokers), relevant "enables [the SEC] monitor activities questioned"; history regulations suggests laxity exercise authority"; hence allowing suit proceed "so directly responsibilities" "a substantial danger [broker-dealers defendants] subjected duplicative inconsistent 734-735, (concerning, maintenance), emphasized "vested authority extent" "should tolerated," 729, 2427; although has actively supervised practices, "reflects clear congressional determination oversight, funds allowed retain initiative dealing potentially adverse effects disruptive trading practices," 727, "acceptance fund-initiated restrictions more decades manifests informed administrative judgment contractual appropriate means combating problems industry," 728, "precisely *2392 oversight private contemplated." matter cases THOMAS wrong regard §§ 77p(a) 78bb(a) clauses so broad preserve actions. post, p. 2399 (dissenting opinion). advanced argument Brief Amicus Curiae O.T.1974, 74-304, pp. 8, 42. finding necessarily rejected it. (same holding); Herman MacLean Huddleston, 459 375, 383, 103 683, 74 548 (1983) applicable overlap "overlap neither unusual nor unfortunate" omitted)). Although party made presented below. shall reexamine Court's prior court decides given context consequences, repugnancy" complaintor describe matter, "clearly incompatible." Moreover, sufficient incompatibility warrant implication preclusion, treated following factors critical: existence question; evidence responsible entities authority; resulting risk laws, applicable, produce conflicting guidance, requirements, duties, privileges, standards conduct. note (4) possible affected squarely within area financial seeks regulate. principles, us, considerably narrow our legal task. parties cannot reasonably dispute here previously crucial First, here promote securities central proper functioning well-regulated markets. supports seek capital; helps spread ownership broadly investors; directs flows ways better correspond public's goods services. experts, regulators, consider joint case, road shows book-building essential successful IPO. Memorandum Antitrust, Case 01 CIV 2014(WHP) (SDNY), 15, 39-40, D Pet. Cert. 124a, 138a, 155a-157a (hereinafter SEC). Thus, concern enterprise. Second, grants Indeed, possesses considerable forbid, permit, encourage, discourage, tolerate, limit, otherwise regulate virtually every aspect engage. *2393 See, 77b(a)(3), 77j, 77z-2 (granting book-building, solicitations "indications interest," communications participants customers, occur shows); 78o(c)(2)(D) define prevent through acts fraudulent, deceptive, manipulative); 78i(a)(6) (similar); 78j(b) (similar). Private individuals who suffer harm result violation pertinent recover damages. 78bb, 78u-4, 77k. Third, continuously exercised issue. defined detail, example, do say shows. Guidance Regarding Prohibited Conduct Connection Allocations, 70 Fed.Reg. 19672 (2005), M, 17 CFR 242.100-242.105 (2006). brought actions regulations. 13-14, 136a-138a. litigants, too, complaining identical here; obtained Pub. 241 281 (S.D.N.Y.2003). preceding show first condition (legal authority), second (exercise fourth (heartland activity) satisfied well. Unlike authority, doubt regulators authority. Rather, concerns third condition: Is rises level incompatibility? prove practically incompatible administration Nation's laws? III Given comprehensive syndicates, ongoing undisputed need underwriter activity, read attacking bare any considers component IPO-related activity. 155a-157a. F.Supp.2d, 507 (discussing IPOs); 12 (complaint attacks "abuse" preexisting added)); H.R. Rep. 1383, 73d Cong., Sess., 6-7 (1934); 792, 5 (1934) (law give agencies freedom agreements members). Nor understand questioning levels commissions, "excessive." 688-689, (securities conflicts with, therefore precludes, attack approved, but approve, practice). can manner collect "excessive" *2394 laddering, tying, collecting excessive shares), respondents itself already and, likelihood, approve foreseeable claims, contend "conflict" since aim undesirable Without add, "repugnance" "incompatibility," suit. premises respondents' argumentthat full (and, argument's sake, assume continue disapprove) attack. Nonetheless, conclusion. taken together lead prorespondent assumptions, clearly incompatible. permit still threatens serious securities-related harm. line-drawing problem remains unabated. fine, complex, detailed line separates permits encourages concede (and inevitably will) which, theory, open attack). forbids "solicit customers completion distribution regarding quantity intend immediate orders stock," 19675-19676 deleted); 242.100-242.105. permits, indeed encourages, (as part building" process) "inquir[e] customer's desired position longer term six months), customer accumulate activity." 19676. often difficult someone familiar accepted confidence insisted (forbidden), simply allocated run (permitted). expert permanent line, unlikely change sorts "laddering-like" seems forbid? Cf. Similarly, increased sales, "from demanding... offer consideration [such security] addition security's consideration." 69 75785 (2004). "allocat[e] separately retained services, paid compensation services." Ibid., 108. *2395 Association Dealers (NASD), exercises supervisory rule member "offering threatening withhold" "as inducement receipt services provided." 77810. allow, legitimately compete increasing pays underwriter. (describing Proposed Rule 2712(a)). Under standards, distinguish requires understanding just provided, "excessive," indeed, permanently forbidden, confidence? tending unlawful lawful overlap, identical. Consider, instance, conversation intends price), elicits comments concerning investor's short plans. might, plaintiff sees it, provide underwriter's insistence or, defendant effort allocate time. 27. ambiguous establish atypically stocks. Or allocates stabilize price. Enforcement, Disciplinary Proceeding CAF030014, 12-13 (NASD Office Hearing Officers, Mar. 2006). Further, plaintiffs bring throughout Nation dozens nonexpert judges juries. nuanced nature evidentiary evaluations separate permissible impermissible, many reach consistent results. And, fact-related evaluations, assure evaluate similar patterns consistently. factual circumstances differently. Hovenkamp, Violations Markets, 28 607, 629 (2003) ("Once entrusted jury trials, outcomes proceedings another... "). Now together fine lines separating impermissible; expertise (particularly permanent); overlapping contradictory inferences drawn; Together mean practical way confine suits challenge target, presently *2396 suggest mistakes respect. threat mistakes, results stray outside bounds set, act avoid forbid), wide range (but fear treble damages). therein lies problem. exists degree lawsuits. mentioned Congress' institution activities). plays IPOs, along important play effective markets, costs high. wonder, then, told (consistent Government tells here) immunized threaten disrupt Commission's ability authority," adding "chilling effect" "lawful tremendous importance economy country." 40, 157a. believe core issue; great care encouraged forbidden; lawsuits, error disincentive, seriously alter ways, allow efficient enforcement-related small. enforces harmed 2392-2393. required account creates policy embodies rely behavior. 77b(b) (instructing consider, "in protection action efficiency, competition, formation"); 78w(a)(2) (the "shall matters impact competition"); 412, 872 ("[T]he benefit provided tend small" structures "designed deter remedy harm"). Congress, weed unmeritorious recently tightened procedural requirements satisfy file suits. To risks circumventing dress clothing. Litigation Reform 1995, 109 737; *2397 Uniform Standards 1998, 112 3227. sum, accompanied injury markets diminished indicate between, hand, aware Solicitor General, while recognizing device he (in effect, compromise differing positions Division below). Dept. Justice, Division, 2014, 23 (seeking laws), total laws). He asks remand "whether prohibited can, separated scheme," doing so, lower decide SEC-permitted SEC-prohibited "inextricably intertwined." 9. General fears otherwise, totally behavior, say, overtly divide General's disposition, does convincingly herethe difficulty drawing sinuous securities-permitted securities-forbidden conduct, draw likelihood litigating depend yet expect turn, overly (We divisions appear fall heartland here, express view activity.) four elements here: regulations; adequate regulate; regulation; regimes. incompatible" context. Circuit's contrary Reversed. KENNEDY decision STEVENS, concurring judgment. bankers cooperate (IPO), increase amount available producing purchase. By agglomerating networks spreading overvaluation, positive contributions achieved independent action. 137-138 (C.A.2 *2398 2005). my view, best procompetitive ventures analysis. rarest cases, conspiracies restraint trade meaning 1. After purchase, stocks bonds determined vast multitude traded market. restrain manipulating frivolous. Morgan, 118 621, 689 (S.D.N.Y.1953) (Medina, J.) system whatever participating dealers any. contrary, comparable rating quality control .... issue, large one, infinitesimal unit ocean issues running billions, constitutes market"); 615-618 (2003). described enabled divert benefits issuers themselves, thus breaching agents' fiduciary obligations principals. occur, "antitrust injury" giving rise investors. Brunswick Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, 429 477, 489, 97 690, 50 701 (1977). so-called constitute vertical restraints either 13(c). magnitude influenced, think obvious been competition. Bell Atlantic Twombly, 550 ___, 1955, 167 929 (2007), discovery merit plaintiffs' claims. ___- ___ S.Ct., 1986-88 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). defendants failure ground, others, ordinary recognized pro-competitive." Record, Doc. 98, 72. agree hold, Parker 317 351-352, 63 307, 87 315 (1943), defendants' immunity Surely suggest, today, burdens litigation "that mistakes," ante, 2396, analysis this. Accordingly, concur opinion. THOMAS, dissenting. *2399 "are antitrust." 2389. disagree basic premise. silent. Both contain rights remedies existing Section 16 1933 states subchapter exist equity." 77p(a). parallel fashion, 1934 chapter 78bb(a). characterized "confirm[ing] supplemented `any all' remedies." (1983). enacted 1890. 209. certainly thought "rights remedies" existed "at equity" Congresses early 1930's. 77p; 78bb. Therefore, save holds precluded. There convincing why resolve favor. overlooks seemingly "explicitly laws." Ante, 2389; 33, 5.[1] observes, antitrust. 406, 601(b)(1), 110 143, ("`[N]othing amendments construed modify, impair, supersede applicability laws'")). mere targeted demonstrateor suggestthat included "any all" refer. singled treatment statutes, using encompass remedies. enumerate cause actionstate federalthat brought. wants remedies, word "all" sufficient. argue apply securities-antitrust pre-emption cases. ("[N]either *2400 bar [v. (1975)] [United (NASD)]"). Be may, none opinions (1963), NASDmajority dissentoffered clauses. Omitted reasoning little precedential value. Absent indication omissions product reasoned instead inadvertent silence erect perpetual arguments based reading statute's text. argued state-law textual basis. If intended limit surely phrased Other Acts, sentence section containing Act's clause, referred limitation. 77v(a) (referring "State Territorial courts"); "securities commission... State"); cf. 301(b) ("Nothing title annuls limits common State..."). demonstrated lack limitation understood limited remedies.[2] straightforward leads proceed. reconcile respectfully dissent. NOTES [1] preserved respondents. 2391-2392. principal contention below "[t]he immunize Defendants' prosecution Appellants 03-9288(CA2), 15-16. Because analyzing argument, unpreserved. Morton, 467 822, 828, 104 2769, 81 680 (1984) ("[W]e whole"). [2] suggestion criticisms. fraud registered securities. 77p, mail wire fraud, provision.

Category: 7