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. Council For Responsible Nutrition, Petitioner v. Letitia James, in Her Official Capacity as New York Attorney General
Business and Regulation cases on the Supreme Court docket, side by side.
No. 25-1070No. 25-1089No. 25-1145
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. | Council For Responsible Nutrition, Petitioner v. Letitia James, in Her Official Capacity as New York Attorney General |
|---|---|---|---|
| Docket | 25-1070 | 25-1089 | 25-1145 |
| 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? | Whether the courts below correctly applied the test set forth in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), in determining that petitioner had failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on its facial First Amendment challenge to this sales restriction? |
| 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. | The Council for Responsible Nutrition asks the Supreme Court to review a Second Circuit decision allowing New York to restrict sales of dietary supplements to minors when the products are labeled, marketed, or represented for weight loss or muscle building. The Council argues that the law violates the First Amendment because it restricts truthful commercial speech without sufficient evidence that the restriction will directly advance the state’s interests or that less speech-restrictive options would not work. |
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.