If outside counsel for a company drafts factual memoranda concerning an internal investigation conducted in response to alleged wrongdoing, and then voluntarily shares the memoranda at the company's direction with government investigators, has the company waived the work product privilege?

The ruling from the United States Supreme Court in Official Representatives of the Bondholders and Trade Creditors of Debtors Owens Corning v. Credit Suisse First Boston, 126 S. Ct. 1910 (2006)on May 1, 2006, declining to review the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruling denying substantive consolidation in the Owens Corning bankruptcy, gives good reason to review the concept of substantive consolidation.

CFTC Chair J. Christopher Giancarlo appointed Bruce Tuckman to be Chief Economist of the CFTC. Mr. Tuckman is replacing Sayee Srinivasan, who served as Chief Economist since 2013.

The Supreme Court held that antitrust claims against investment bank underwriters who engaged in practices known as “laddering,” “tying” and “excess compensation” in connection with initial public offerings, led to a “plain repugnancy” between the antitrust laws and the federal securities laws.

Developments in US antitrust law in general, and recent United States Supreme Court rulings in particular, are the subject of a chapter that Mayer Brown LLP partners Mark McLaughlin, Andrew S. Marovitz, and Britt M. Miller authored for Getting the Deal Through: Private Antitrust Litigation 2008 (Global Competition Review), a compendium of private antitrust law in 27 jurisdictions worldwide.

On June 18, the Supreme Court held that the United States securities laws implicitly preclude application of the antitrust laws to allegedly collusive conduct by syndicates of underwriters participating in initial public offerings.

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear appeals of two noteworthy antitrust cases — Leegin Creative Leather Products v. PSKS, Inc., Case No. 06-480 (2006), and Credit Suisse First Boston Ltd. v. Billing, Case No. 05-1157 (2006).

Antitrust lawyers and securities lawyers rarely pay attention to the same litigation. Billing v. Credit Suisse First Boston is a notable exception. Now on a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, Billing could have far-reaching consequences for both securities and antitrust law.

The High Risk Opportunities HUB Fund Ltd. ("High Risk") v. Credit Lyonnais that Credit Lyonnais failed to act in good faith in obtaining market quotations because it interfered with market-makers’ independence in valuing certain non-deliverable forward contracts ("NDFs") for purposes of determining the settlement amount upon an early termination.

On 12 March, 2009 the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, Inc. ("ISDA") published the 2009 ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees and Auction Settlement Supplement to the 2003 ISDA Credit Derivatives Definitions (the "Supplement") and the 2009 ISDA Credit Derivatives Determinations Committees and Auction Settlement CDS Protocol (the "Big Bang Protocol").

Continuing a trend of renewed focus on antitrust law, the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear two cases that should clarify the ability of a manufacturer to control the prices at which its products are resold in the distribution chain and the extent to which conduct subject to industry regulation is impliedly immune from antitrust law.

The First Circuit affirmed a district court’s exclusion of an event study as unreliable under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm.

In a major victory for lenders, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has reversed a ruling that had expanded the equitable doctrine of substantive consolidation. The Third Circuit articulated a heightened standard for substantive consolidation In re Owens Corning, No. 04-4080 (3rd Cir., August 15, 2005), that likely will be influential to bankruptcy courts across the country.

Earlier this year, in a decision handed down in favor of a commercial mortgage lender, the United States District Court for Massachusetts offered a clear warning to careless borrowers.

The United States Supreme Court ruled yesterday, in “Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc.,” that investors cannot state a claim for violation of §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 unless they relied on statements or representations made by the defendant.