Cases compared
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, et al., Petitioners v. Mosaic Health, Inc., et al. vs. Fairfield Sentry Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Citibank NA London, et al. vs. Cherry Grove Beach Gear, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. City of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
Business and Regulation cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1070No. 25-1089No. 25-1130
Side by side
| Fact | AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, et al., Petitioners v. Mosaic Health, Inc., et al. | Fairfield Sentry Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Citibank NA London, et al. | Cherry Grove Beach Gear, LLC, et al., Petitioners v. City of North Myrtle Beach, South Carolina |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1070 | 25-1089 | 25-1130 |
| Status | Before Arguments | Before Arguments | Before Arguments |
| Date | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) | October Term 2025 (2025–2026) |
| Question presented | 1. Whether Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), which bars antitrust claims by indirect purchasers and sellers, applies to a claim of “lost profit” damages based on indirect purchases or sales that were not made due to the alleged conspiracy? 2. Whether the allegation that businesses had an “opportunity to conspire,” such as through joint lobbying and participation in a trade association, plausibly suggests an antitrust conspiracy? | 1. Whether applying 11 U.S.C. 561(d), which instructs that provisions of the Bankruptcy Code relating to securities contracts apply in a Chapter 15 cross-border insolvency case as in a domestic bankruptcy in an American court is consistent with the presumption against extraterritoriality? 2. Whether the safe harbor for securities-related transfers under 11 U.S.C. 546(e), when applied through Section 561(d), bars foreign common-law claims seeking to undo securities-related transfers? | 1. Whether the market participant exception to state action immunity should be adopted under the facts of this case, specifically where the municipality is the sole market participant. 2. Whether the underlying opinion of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals erodes the clear articulation test and Parker immunity jurisprudence as developed by this Court. 3. Whether this Court should clarify that, when a municipality uses legislative power to exclude rivals while it provides the challenged service as a commercial provider, the clear-articulation requirement must be applied with heightened rigor to prevent “simple permission to participate” from being converted into authorization to monopolize. |
| Summary | AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, and Sanofi ask the Supreme Court to review a Second Circuit antitrust case brought by health-care providers. The dispute concerns whether the providers may seek lost-profit damages tied to purchases or sales they say did not occur because of an alleged drug-pricing conspiracy, and whether allegations of joint lobbying and trade-association participation plausibly show an agreement to conspire. | Foreign liquidators for investment funds affected by Bernard Madoff’s fraud seek to use Chapter 15 bankruptcy proceedings to pursue claims under foreign law against Citibank and other financial institutions. They ask the Court to review the Second Circuit’s ruling that the Bankruptcy Code’s securities-transaction safe harbor bars those claims. | This case asks whether North Myrtle Beach can claim state-action immunity from federal antitrust laws after using its municipal authority to exclude private competitors from a service market in which the city itself is the only provider. The petitioners argue that courts should apply the requirement for clearly articulated state authorization more strictly when a city acts as both regulator and commercial participant. |
Relationship
- Shared issue
- Business and Regulation
- Why compared
- Reviewed Business and Regulation tags connect these current-term public cases.
Related
Sources
- Built from reviewed issue tags and official docket records. Status lines and questions presented come from the tracked case data.