Opinion ID: 3045133
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Deciding this appeal demands a review of the procedural history of not only this lawsuit, but the other lawsuit that our en banc Court decided earlier. This 2 Case: 12-13467 Date Filed: 10/28/2013 Page: 3 of 23 lawsuit began when the hedge funds, as noteholders, sued Atlanticus in 2009 to enjoin an allegedly fraudulent transfer. Atlanticus then filed its own lawsuit against the noteholders in which it alleged that the noteholders had violated section 1 of the Sherman Act when they filed this allegedly “sham” lawsuit, boycotted the company’s tender offer, and engaged in price fixing. Both lawsuits were transferred to the district court and assigned to the same judge. In an interlocutory appeal, we ordered the district court to dismiss the complaint filed by the noteholders. Akanthos Capital Mgmt., LLC v. CompuCredit Holdings Corp., 677 F.3d 1286, 1298 (11th Cir. 2012). Our decision would have ended this lawsuit except that, while the interlocutory appeal was pending, Atlanticus answered the noteholders’ complaint and incorporated by reference the complaint from its lawsuit against the noteholders. The district court construed this pleading as a counterclaim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c). The noteholders moved to dismiss the counterclaim on the ground that Atlanticus was attempting to obtain discovery that the district court had denied in its other lawsuit against the noteholders. The noteholders did not mention the doctrine of res judicata as the antitrust claim had not yet been adjudicated, but they acknowledged the parallel litigation in their motion to dismiss. The district court then dismissed both the antitrust complaint and the antitrust counterclaim filed by Atlanticus in the separate actions. On June 16, 3 Case: 12-13467 Date Filed: 10/28/2013 Page: 4 of 23 2011, the district court issued a minute entry stating, “The Court will be issuing an order dismissing the Anti-Trust claim.” On the same day, the noteholders filed a reply in support of their motion to dismiss the counterclaim. In their reply, they acknowledged the minute entry and urged the district court to dismiss the counterclaim because the antitrust claim was identical. On June 17, 2011, the district court dismissed the antitrust lawsuit filed by Atlanticus. CompuCredit Holdings Corp. v. Akanthos Capital Mgmt., LLC, 916 F. Supp. 2d 1326, 1329–32 (N.D. Ga. 2011). On November 8, 2011, the district court dismissed the antitrust counterclaim in this lawsuit. Atlanticus appealed the dismissal of its antitrust lawsuit against the noteholders. A panel of this Court affirmed the dismissal of the antitrust lawsuit, CompuCredit Holdings Corp. v. Akanthos Capital Mgmt., LLC, 661 F.3d 1312, 1315 (11th Cir. 2011), but we later vacated that decision and granted a rehearing en banc. CompuCredit Holdings Corp. v. Akanthos Capital Mgmt., LLC, 677 F.3d 1042, 1043 (11th Cir. 2012). After we granted the rehearing en banc, Atlanticus filed a notice of appeal in this action to appeal the dismissal of its counterclaim. Atlanticus moved to consolidate the en banc appeal and this appeal because “[t]he sole issue” in both appeals was “identical.” The noteholders did not oppose the motion to consolidate the appeals. We denied the motion and stayed this appeal pending the en banc decision. 4 Case: 12-13467 Date Filed: 10/28/2013 Page: 5 of 23 Sitting en banc, we affirmed the dismissal of the antitrust complaint against the noteholders. CompuCredit Holdings Corp. v. Akanthos Capital Mgmt., LLC, 698 F.3d 1348, 1349 (11th Cir. 2012) (en banc). We affirmed without an opinion because the en banc court was evenly divided. Id.; see United States v. Geders, 585 F.2d 1303, 1305–06 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc). After the en banc ruling, we ordered the parties to submit briefs for this appeal, and one month later, the noteholders moved to dismiss this appeal based on res judicata.