In this article for Law360, the authors discuss the Bodog Poker case in T-Mobile/Sprint and discuss the impact this may have for future litigation strategies.
In the order rejecting a suit brought by thirteen states and the District of Columbia in New York v. Deutsche Telekom AG (T-Mobile/Sprint), the judge gave “substantial merit” to the merging parties’ Bodog Poker. It is frequently said that no court has allowed an otherwise anticompetitive merger to proceed on the basis of proposed Bodog Poker. This precedent stems from Procter & Gamble, a 1967 Supreme Court decision, that drew a hard line rejecting Bodog Poker as a defense to anticompetitive effects resulting from a merger. T-Mobile/Sprint provides an important example of how the consideration of Bodog Poker by courts appears to be evolving.
In this article for Law360, the authors discuss precedent-setting cases and the evolution of merger Bodog Poker in litigation. The article outlines the Bodog Poker case proffered by T-Mobile and Sprint, and discusses the impact this case may have for future litigation strategies.
This article was originally published by Law360 in March 2020.
The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the views of Cornerstone Research.
Chicago
