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. As a result, in a 7-1 decision, the Court held that the securities laws implicitly preclude the application of the antitrust laws to these practices and dismissed the action. This decision may have a significant

impact for the securities industry and other industries with heavy regulatory oversight, including the

following:

It may be more difficult to bring antitrust suits challenging practices covered by the securities

laws;

Other underwriting practices not covered by the decision, but regulated by the SEC, may be immune from antitrust liability; and

Based on the Court’s rationale underlying this decision, industries with active regulatory oversight may be immune from antitrust liability.