Latest news with #PaulNiemeyer
Reuters
10-05-2025
- Automotive
- Reuters
Federal appeals court skeptical over NASCAR antitrust case
May 10 - Although Michael Jordan's 23XI Racing team and Front Row Motorsports won a preliminary injunction in their antitrust lawsuit against NASCAR last December, it might not stand up to scrutiny on appeal. The case went before a panel of three judges in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday in Richmond, Va. The judges appeared to lean toward NASCAR's argument that the basis of the injunction was flawed. 23XI Racing and Front Row Motorsports were granted an injunction that allowed them to operate as chartered NASCAR teams despite not signing a charter. The two teams had refused to sign a take-it-or-leave-it charter agreement presented last September, which the other 13 organizations in the Cup Series signed. NASCAR filed its appeal in February. NASCAR asserted that U.S. District Judge Kenneth D. Bell misapplied antitrust laws and portrayed the release of claims as standard business practice, not anti-competitive conduct. "If you don't want the contract, you don't enter into it and you sue," U.S. Circuit Court Judge Paul Niemeyer said. "Or if you want the contract, you enter into it, and you've given up past releases. But I think our Omega observation (referencing a 1997 case between a travel agency and TWA) is you can't have your cake and eat it too." If the injunction is overturned and the two teams can no longer operate as chartered members, they can still compete in the Cup Series as open teams. NASCAR attorney Christopher Yates noted that the teams would have qualified for every race so far this season even without charter status. However, the attorney representing 23XI and Front Row, Jeffrey Kessler, argued that it would be too disruptive to overturn the initial ruling midstream. "It will cause havoc to overturn this injunction in the middle of the season, while if it just stays into effect till November, we're done," Kessler said. "And then we'll have a trial and we'll either win or lose." NASCAR's recent countersuit against 23XI and Front Row said they were engaging in an "illegal cartel" to try to extract more favorable contracts from the racing league. A trial is set for Dec. 1, but it is unknown whether the panel will make a decision regarding the injunction anytime soon. --Field Level Media
Reuters
27-01-2025
- Business
- Reuters
Citigroup wins appeal against military personnel over credit card rates
NEW YORK, Jan 27 (Reuters) - Citigroup (C.N), opens new tab can force military personnel to arbitrate claims that its Citibank unit charged unfairly high interest rates on their credit card balances after they returned to civilian life, a federal appeals court panel ruled on Monday. Reversing a trial judge, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said Congress did not intend when adopting the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) to override a federal law providing enforcement of arbitration agreements. With roots dating to the Civil War, the act relieves military personnel of mortgage foreclosures, default judgments and other burdens while they serve their country. Four plaintiffs sought to pursue a class action against Citibank after it began charging civilian interest rates on card balances they accumulated during active duty, when rates were capped at 6%. One plaintiff, Army Sergeant Jeremy Bell, saw his rate jump to 25.99%, court records show. Circuit Judge Paul Niemeyer, however, wrote for the three-judge panel that because the SCRA was silent on arbitration, the Federal Arbitration Act required the plaintiffs to arbitrate disputes individually. The panel directed the North Carolina trial judge to review whether the federal Military Leave Act, which caps some rates and overrides arbitration agreements, applies to the plaintiffs' card accounts. Leah Nicholls, a lawyer at the nonprofit Public Justice representing the plaintiffs, said they may seek a rehearing. She said the decision conflicted with how the U.S. Supreme Court has assessed Congress' intent to displace arbitration agreements. "We are obviously disappointed," she said. Citigroup, based in New York, declined to comment. Class actions let groups of plaintiffs seek potentially higher recoveries at lower cost than if members arbitrated claims individually. A similar case is pending against American Express (AXP.N), opens new tab in the North Carolina court. It was put on hold until the appeals court could rule. In March 2023, the U.S. Department of Justice sided with the plaintiffs in both cases, saying the SCRA gave servicemembers an "unwaivable right" to pursue class actions even if they agreed to arbitrate. Consumer protection had been a focus of then-Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden's domestic agenda. The case is Espin et al v Citibank NA, 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 23-2083.
