Opinion ID: 2995956
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Aiding and Abetting: JPMorgan Chase

Text: Another minor issue crops up only in Ocean View, but it too can be disposed of easily. JPMorgan Chase asserts that the district court incorrectly denied its motion to dismiss on the ground that the complaint failed to state a claim against it because it only aided and abetted the conspiracy between Sumitomo and Global. But Ocean View is not attempting to state an “aiding and abetting” case. Its allegation is that JPMorgan Chase was a participant in the conspiracy to manipulate the copper market. To state such a claim, Ocean View need only prove that JPMorgan Chase knew Sumitomo intended to restrain trade, intended that Nos. 00-3979, 01-1148, 01-3229, 01-3230, 01-3485 47 trade be restrained, and materially contributed to that restraint. 7 Phillip E. Areeda, Antitrust Law: An Analysis of Antitrust Principles and Their Application, ¶1474a (1986); Poller v. Columbia Broad. Sys., Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 470 (1962). A broad reading of the complaint alleges this and more. It states that JPMorgan Chase, aware that Sumitomo was manipulating futures prices, provided services and loans at well above-market prices to finance and hide Sumitomo’s activities. JPMorgan Chase also allegedly stonewalled and lied to regulators and otherwise helped Sumitomo in an attempt to avoid investigations, all the while profiting handsomely on its deal. Of course, after merits discovery, it may come to pass that Ocean View lacks the evidence to establish any of these claims. But accepting the allegations as true, it is entitled to proceed.