Last Week in Antitrust Litigation (#045)

Week of January 19, 2026

Top Takeaways

1. Section 2 and Financial Coordination Claims Broaden Market Reach: Comulate v. Applied Systems and CentralSquare v. Eagle Point showcase evolving monopolization and collusion theories in enterprise SaaS and leveraged-loan markets, extending antitrust enforcement into complex technology and credit infrastructures.

2. Professional-Board Conduct Under Renewed Challenge: Am. Coll. of Nurse-Midwives v. Mississippi Board of Medical Licensure highlights increasing judicial willingness to scrutinize state-imposed collaboration mandates under Parker and North Carolina Dental, testing the boundaries of regulatory immunity.

3. Judicial Gatekeeping on Antitrust Injury and Equitable Relief: Recent rulings in Clements, Tuuci, and Patterson reaffirm courts’ insistence on rigorous causation, definitional precision, and caution in granting injunctions that could disrupt long-regulated markets.

   
   

New Cases Filed

Ardent Labs, Inc. v. Applied Sys., Inc. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 19, 2026): Ardent Labs, doing business as Comulate, filed suit against Applied Systems alleging it unlawfully attempted to monopolize the market for enterprise-level insurance agency management systems in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act. The complaint claims Applied, which controls over 80% of the market for such systems through its Epic platform and ownership of the Ivans data network, sought to eliminate Comulate after it refused an acquisition offer by weaponizing sham litigation, spreading false claims of trade secret theft, coercing shared customers to abandon Comulate, and conspiring with Ascend to monopolize the downstream market for automated insurance accounting software. Comulate alleges Applied coordinated with smaller rival Ascend—its so-called “Preferred Referral Partner”—to divert customers temporarily before acquiring or cutting off Ascend as well, consolidating Applied’s dominance over accounting automation. The suit contends this campaign reduces pricing pressure that lowers prices, reduces output, and degrades the quality of products in the relevant market.

Am. Coll. of Nurse-Midwives v. Miss. State Bd. of Med. Licensure (S.D. Miss. Jan. 20, 2026): The American College of Nurse-Midwives sued the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure and several individuals alleging that the state’s statutory and regulatory requirements forcing certified nurse-midwives (CNMs) to obtain physician collaboration in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act and Mississippi’s Antitrust Act. The complaint asserts that Mississippi’s collaboration mandate—which prohibits CNMs from practicing unless they secure a contract with a licensed physician—has no legitimate public health justification, unlawfully restricts competition in maternity care, and worsens the state’s maternal health crisis. The suit contends that the Medical Board’s rules go even further by fixing collaboration prices using uniform “fair market” rates, imposing mileage and in-state practice limits that function as territorial market allocations, and deterring physicians from collaborating with midwives. CNMs, the complaint argues, provide safe, evidence-based care equivalent to physicians for low-risk pregnancies and are unfairly excluded while unlicensed midwives face no such barriers.

CentralSquare Techs. LLC v. Eagle Point Credit Co. (D. Conn. Jan. 21, 2026): CentralSquare filed a putative class action against a group of major collateralized loan obligation (“CLO”) equity investors—including Eagle Point, Capra Ibex, Fair Oaks, Livermore, Eldridge, and Pearl Diver—alleging they conspired to fix leveraged loan interest rates during the 2023 LIBOR-to-SOFR transition in violation of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The complaint claims the defendants—who collectively controlled CLOs holding over 60% of U.S. leveraged loans—organized a January 2023 conference call and subsequent working group that pressured CLO managers to reject any borrower amendments adopting credit-spread adjustments (CSAs) below the Federal Reserve’s recommended benchmarks. This collective refusal allegedly forced borrowers, including CentralSquare, to pay artificially inflated SOFR-based interest rates, raising spreads by 47–73 basis points across hundreds of billions in loans. The suit cites public admissions by defendants’ executives and a parallel DOJ criminal investigation as evidence of collusion, asserting that the conspiracy eliminated competition among lenders and inflated borrowing costs nationwide.

WJ's of Aiken, Inc. v. Home Team Rest. Grp. (M.D. Fl. Jan. 21, 2026): WJ’s of Aiken, operator of the Aiken Fish House restaurant, sued Home Team Restaurant Group and Ben E. Keith Company alleging, among others, antitrust violations arising out of a secret kickback scheme. The complaint asserts that under a 2024 management agreement—explicitly designating Aiken Fish House as an independent business—Home Team required purchases from its “approved supplier,” Ben E. Keith, while concealing that Ben E. Keith was paying Home Team illegal rebates and commissions of 2–10% on all sales. The alleged kickbacks inflated food and supply prices and forced Aiken Fish House to buy through Ben E. Keith’s Florida distributor rather than local sources, raising costs and suppressing competition. The suit claims violations of, among others, the Robinson-Patman Act’s commercial bribery provisions and South Carolina antitrust law.

Coretronic Corp. v. Maxell, Ltd. (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2026): Coretronic and its subsidiary Optoma filed suit against Maxell Ltd. alleging patent misuse in violation of, among others, the Sherman Act under a Walker Process fraud theory. The complaint alleges Maxell falsely reported infringement claims to Amazon and other distributors despite knowing the patent’s claims were invalid—anticipated by Optoma’s own HD72 projector and Hitachi projectors predating the filing—and not practiced by any accused product. Coretronic and Optoma further contend Maxell lacks ownership of the patent because a 2021 merger dissolved the original Maxell Ltd., rendering its subsequent assignment void. The suit asserts Maxell should have known that claims of the patent were not valid and that Maxwell does not own the patent, but still sought to prevent the sale of plaintiff’s branded projectors.

The follow-on cases that were filed are:

• Dupuis v. Zillow Grp. (W.D. Wash. Jan. 16, 2026) (alleging Zillow engaged in anticompetitive conduct in the real estate online search market like in REX – Real Estate Exchange, Inc. v. Zillow, Inc. (W.D. Wash. Mar. 9, 2021))

• Vt. Medical Soc'y v. MultiPlan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 2026) (alleging price-fixing conspiracy amount health insurers and third-party administrators like in In re Multiplan Health Ins. Provider Litig. (N.D. Ill.))

• Mont. Medical Ass'n. v. MultiPlan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2026) (same)

• Neb. Med. Ass'n. v. MultiPlan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2026) (same)

• Or. Med. Ass'n. v. MultiPlan, Inc. (N.D. Ill. Jan. 22, 2026) (same)

• Huyler v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (S.D. Ind. Jan. 22, 2026) (alleging conspiracy to fix prices of conventional fresh shell eggs like in King Kullen Grocery Co. v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (S.D. Ind. Nov. 6, 2025))

Dispositive Orders and Verdicts

Patterson v. NCAA (M.D. Tenn. Jan. 15, 2026): In this case challenging the NCAA’s “Four-Season” and “Five-Year” eligibility limits as unreasonable restraints of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the court denied football players’ motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to compete for a fifth season. The court held that although modern NIL and revenue-sharing developments render NCAA eligibility rules commercial in nature, plaintiffs failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits because their evidence did not demonstrate a substantial anticompetitive effect in the Division I FBS football labor market. The court found that the House NIL Settlement’s roster and compensation caps undermined claims that removing eligibility limits would expand output or increase wages, and that plaintiffs had not proven a less restrictive alternative to the four-year limit. While the court recognized some irreparable harm from lost playing opportunities, it concluded that the balance of equities and public interest weighed against intervention, warning that judicial alteration of longstanding eligibility rules risked broad market disruption.

Tuuci Worldwide, LLC v. Outer, Inc. (S.D. Fl. Jan. 20, 2026): In this case alleging an antitrust counterclaim over high-end outdoor umbrellas, the court granted Tuuci Worldwide’s motion to dismiss the antitrust counterclaim. The court dismissed the Sherman Act monopolization claim based on Noerr-Pennington immunity because the alleged conduct was all pre-litigative and litigative activity, and the conclusory allegation that the activity was objectively baseless was insufficient to establish sham litigation.

Clements v. CVS Health Corp. (W.D. Mo. Jan. 20, 2026): In this class action alleging that major pharmacy benefit managers conspired to inflate prescription drug prices through rebate and steering schemes, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court held that plaintiffs had Article III standing because they plausibly alleged paying higher prices traceable to PBMs’ conduct, but failed to state viable antitrust claims. It ruled that the alleged rebate and pharmacy-steering practices by CVS Caremark, OptumRx, and Express Scripts were not plausibly parallel or coordinated, as the actions occurred years apart and under differing circumstances, defeating any inference of concerted conduct under Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The Robinson-Patman Act claim was also dismissed for lack of antitrust standing, since plaintiffs were end-payors rather than competitors, and their alleged injury—higher consumer prices—was not the type the Act was designed to prevent.

***      ***      ***

If you have any antirust questions or would like more information about any of these matters, please contact one of the following authors:

Christian Lorenz Zach Martin  christian@kressinpowers.com zach@kressinpowers.com

This newsletter has been prepared by Kressin Powers LLC for educational and informational purposes only regarding recent legal developments and does not constitute advertising or solicitation. No legal or business decision should be based on its content. Neither this publication nor the lawyers who authored it are rendering legal or other professional advice or opinions on specific facts or matters, nor does the distribution of this publication to any person constitute the establishment of an attorney-client relationship. Those seeking legal advice should contact a member of the Firm or legal counsel licensed in their jurisdiction. The invitation to contact is not a solicitation for legal work under the laws of any jurisdiction in which Kressin Powers LLC lawyers are not authorized to practice. Confidential information should not be sent to Kressin Powers LLC without first communicating directly with a member of the Firm about establishing an attorney-client relationship.