Barbri Escapes Competitor's Antitrust Suit—Again
LLM Bar Exam alleged that Barbri colluded with law schools to push it out of the test prep market, but the U.S. Court of Appeals was not convinced.
April 25, 2019 at 01:38 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Bar exam prep behemoth Barbri Inc. did not run afoul of antitrust laws in its dealings with law schools as a competitor alleged, a federal appeals court has ruled.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Thursday affirmed dismissal of LLM Bar Exam's $50 million antitrust suit, which claimed Barbri colluded with law schools to keep the plaintiff off campuses, dominate the LL.M. bar prep market and eventually drive it out of business.
The appellate court found in a seven-page opinion that LLM Bar Exam's allegations of Sherman Act and RICO violations failed to state a plausible claim to relief, and concluded that the lower court was correct to dismiss the plaintiff's remaining claims in 2017.
LLM Bar Exam's attorney, Judd Spray, did not immediately respond to requests for comment, nor did the company's founder Emanuele Tosolini.
“Barbri is pleased that the Second Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment to dismiss the case for failure to state a claim,” said Barbri president Mike Sims on Thursday.
LLM Bar Exam was a test prep company founded in 2009 by Tosolini, who helps run Tosolini, Lamura, Rasile & Toniutti, a self-described international law firm with offices in Italy, New York and other U.S. states. The company sued Barbri and 11 law schools in 2016, claiming they conspired to give Barbri a monopoly over bar prep for LL.M. students. Among the defendant schools were Columbia Law School; New York University School of Law; Harvard Law School; Georgetown University Law Center; Emory University School of Law; and the University of Southern California Gould School of Law. (LLM Bar Exam later voluntarily dismissed all but the New York law schools from the appeal.)
“[LLM Bar Exam] claims that Barbri and the law schools entered into agreements whereby Barbri donates money to the schools, bribes their administrators and hires their faculty to teach bar review courses; in exchange, the law schools give Barbri 'direct access … to promote and sell its products on campus directly to the JD Market and LLM Market” and “use campus facilities for lecture space,'” reads the appellate decision, summarizing the plaintiffs' allegations.
LLM Bar Exam claimed the law schools barred it from their campuses at the behest of Barbri, preventing the company for marketing its test prep services. But according to the appellate opinion, several law schools say they took action against LLM Bar Exam due to complaints from students.
“There were complaints about the quality of LBE's course materials, about LBE's refusal to provide refunds to students, about misrepresentations made by LBE's marketing representatives to students considering signing up for LBE's course, and about LBE's business tactics, including the use of binding language in its contracts and its decision to pursue litigation against students,” the opinion reads.
LLM Bar Exam, which later shut down, claimed that Barbri has more than 80 percent of the bar exam prep market and actively tried to keep the company out of the bar prep market for LL.M. students. However, the court noted that at least two other test prep companies offered products for LL.M. students at the time that LLM Bar Exam closed.
It was not the first time Barbri had been sued for antitrust violations. The company has been hit with a series of antitrust suits since the 2000s. It has settled numerous cases, among them a 2007 settlement for $49 million in a suit that said law school graduates paid more than they should have for courses because of wrongful noncompetition in the market.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
‘A Force of Nature’: Littler Mendelson Shareholder Michael Lotito Dies At 76
3 minute readUS Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
'Unlawful Release'?: Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in NASCAR Antitrust Lawsuit
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Recent Decisions Regarding the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- 2The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 3Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 4For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 5As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250