In October 2012, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 5-5 en banc decision, concluded that a group of hedge funds holding approximately 70 percent of CompuCredit’s convertible senior notes did not violate antitrust laws by agreeing to reject CompuCredit’s tender offer. The case is CompuCredit Holdings Corp. v. Akanthos Capital Management, __ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. 2012). CompuCredit had offered to repurchase up to $160 million of its outstanding notes at allegedly market prices, but all of the funds declined to participate on the grounds that the redemption price was too low, and demanded that CompuCredit repurchase the notes at par. CompuCredit asserted a Sherman Act Section 1 claim, alleging that the funds had unreasonably restrained trade by boycotting its tender offer to inflate the price at which it could redeem its notes. The district court granted the funds’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that all of the cases in which CompuCredit relied involved creditors who reached agreements about whether or on what terms to extend credit in the future, rather than creditors who acted collectively to maximize their ability to collect on an existing debt. The district court further observed that the type of collective activity at issue can reduce the cost of borrowing and can benefit consumers, concluding that the Sherman Act was not implicated by the funds’ conduct as alleged in the complaint. The decision has the effect of vacating the panel opinion and affirming the district court’s ruling. The opinion is available here.