Court Opinion

ID: 9461410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 22:14:05.565988+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:37:03.217836
License: Public Domain

FAIRCHILD, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I agree in almost all respects with the opinion ably written for the court by Judge Sprecher. With respect to Part V (dismissal of the antitrust claims), the most persuasive argument seems to me to arise out of the contrast between the relevant language of the Securities Exchange Act and that of the antitrust laws. Although it is arguable whether or not, before the enactment of the Securities Exchange Act, the manipulation specifically described in § 9(a)(2), 15 U.S.C. § 78i, fell within the far more general language of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, the later enactment not only specifically described the activi*1301ty (expressly including acting “with one or more other persons,” as well as “alone”) and declared it unlawful, but in § 28(a), 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(a), very closely limited the recovery for violation, i. e., actual damages under the Securities Exchange Act, contrasted with treble damages under the antitrust laws, 15 U.S.C. § 15. Under all the circumstances, it seems to me the more logical conclusion that the later enactment was either an implied amendment of the earlier, or was itself recognition by Congress that the activity described in § 9(a)(2) of the Securities Exchange Act had not previously been prohibited by the antitrust laws.