Browse Options

About Richard Wolfram

Richard Wolfram is an independent lawyer based in New York City who focuses on antitrust counseling and litigation on behalf of corporations, professional organizations and public advocacy entities.
In re LIBOR: ‘More Light, Please!’—Questions and Observations As the Decision Dismissing Antitrust Claims for Lack of Antitrust Injury Now Faces Appellate Review

(An in-depth article on In re LIBOR and antitrust injury is available here under this titleThe following is a preview of my article).

(N.B.:  In a coincidence of timing, on Jan. 28, 2015, the date of this posting and publication of the linked article, Judge Lorna Schofield of the federal district court for the Southern District of New York, in a case alleging a conspiracy to manipulate the benchmark rates in the $5.3 trillion/day foreign exchange market, denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and expressly rejected the test used by the court in In re LIBOR for determining antitrust injury, discussed below.  In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y. 1/28 [...]

A Legal Rationale for Liability Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act for Patent ‘Hold-up’ by Patent Assertion Entities with Respect to Standard Essential Patents

(Note:  In December 2012, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission held a Hearing on the impact of patent assertion entities (PAEs) on innovation and competition and the implications for antitrust enforcement policy.  The Agencies then issued a Request for Public Comments on the topic of the Hearing.  In response, on April 5th, Richard Wolfram submitted the following comment to the DOJ and FTC, adapted and shortened here for Antitrust Connect.  The full Public Comment – one of almost 70 public comments submitted to the Agencies — is available at or from the author.)

This comment is submitted in my personal capacity and d [...]

‘Most Favored Nations’ (MFN) Clauses under the Spotlight: U.S. v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan — When Might Otherwise Competitively Neutral or Procompetitive MFN Clauses Violate the Antitrust Laws?

On October 18, 2010, the U.S. Department of Justice and the State of Michigan sued Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (“Blue Cross”), a not-for-profit insurance provider, under Section 1 of the Sherman Act and analogous state law to enjoin Blue Cross from including most-favored-customer (aka, ‘most favored nation’ (MFN)) clauses in its contracts with hospitals in Michigan. United States of America and the State of Michigan v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan, 2:10-cv-15155-DPH-MKM, E.D. Mich. (complaint filed 10/18/10). (A follow-on private putative class action was filed several days later on behalf of a proposed class of purchasers of healthcare services and alleges violations of [...]

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...