descrybe logo
You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

Intervest, Inc. v. Bloomberg, L.P. Sg Cowen Securities Liberty Brokerage Investment Liberty Brokerage, Inc. Liberty Brokerage Securities, Inc. Deutsche Bank Securities Cantor Fitzgerald Securities Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. Merrill Lynch & Co. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. Intervest Financial Services, Inc. v. Bear Stearns, Co. Inc. Cantor Fitzgerald Securties S.G. Cowen Securities Corp. Deutsche Bank Securities Corp. Liberty Brokerage, Inc. Liberty Brokerage Securities, Inc. Liberty Brokerage Investment, Corp. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. Salomon, Smith, Barney, Inc. Bloomberg, L.P. Cantor Fitzgerald, L.P. Cantor Fitzgerald Partners Intervest Financial Services, Inc.

Citations: 340 F.3d 144; 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 16423Docket: 02-2975

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; August 7, 2003; Federal Appellate Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

This case involves an antitrust lawsuit filed by InterVest Financial Services against Bloomberg L.P. and broker-dealers, including S.G. Cowen Securities Corp., under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. InterVest accused the defendants of conspiring to protect their market dominance by pressuring Bloomberg to terminate a contract with InterVest, which had developed an electronic bond trading platform. All defendants except Cowen settled, leading Cowen to move for summary judgment, which the District Court granted. The Court applied the Sherman Act's requirement for direct evidence of a conspiracy or evidence excluding independent action. InterVest's claims were deemed insufficient, as Cowen's actions were rational and aligned with its business interests. Additionally, InterVest's tortious interference claim against Cowen failed to demonstrate improper conduct. The appellate court upheld the District Court's decision, affirming the summary judgment in favor of Cowen, concluding that InterVest did not meet the burden of proof for its antitrust or tortious interference claims.

Legal Issues Addressed

Antitrust Conspiracy under the Sherman Act

Application: The court requires evidence excluding the possibility of independent action by defendants to establish a conspiracy.

Reasoning: InterVest must provide evidence that excludes the possibility of Cowen acting independently to establish a conspiracy, which it fails to do.

Requirements for Direct Evidence of Conspiracy

Application: Plaintiff's evidence did not constitute direct evidence of conspiracy as it required inferences.

Reasoning: Direct evidence of an illegal agreement is required for antitrust claims, and Cowen's actions as a broker-dealer are deemed rational and legal, as concluded by the District Court.

Rule of Reason and Per Se Standard

Application: The court concluded that regardless of the standard applied, the plaintiff failed to provide adequate evidence to survive summary judgment.

Reasoning: The District Court opted for the 'per se' standard, a decision acknowledged by Cowen, but ultimately, the distinction between the two standards is irrelevant since InterVest failed to provide adequate evidence to survive summary judgment on the essential elements of the antitrust claim: the existence of a conspiracy and resultant injury.

Tortious Interference with Contract

Application: For a claim of tortious interference, the plaintiff must prove impropriety in the defendant's interference, which InterVest failed to do.

Reasoning: InterVest's claims rely solely on an alleged complaint by Cowen to Bloomberg, which does not constitute improper interference under established tort principles.