Legal Opinion
Lum v. Bank of America
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Decided March 11, 2004No. 01-4348PPublishedCited by 146 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
ROTH, Circuit Judge.
The meaning of the term “prime rate” lies at the heart of this appeal. Plaintiffs, Hing Q. Lum, his wife Debra, and Gary Oriani have borrowed money from defendant banks pursuant to lending agreements with “prime plus” interest rates. Plaintiffs claim in them Amended Complaint that the defendant banks, in setting “prime plus” interest rates, have violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), § 1962(d). The banks allegedly violated the Sherman Act by agreeing to misrepresent…
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Hishon v. King & SpaldingSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- In Re Burlington Coat Factory Securities Litigation. P. Gregory Buchanan, Jacob Turner and Ronald AbramoffCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1997
- Sedima, S. P. R. L. v. Imrex Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. White Consolidated Industries, Inc., C/o Ct Corporation Systems Registered AgentCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1962
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by146 opinions
- Frederico v. Home DepotCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
- In Re Insurance Brokerage Antitrust LitigationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2010
- Warren General Hospital v. Amgen Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2011
- McTernan v. City of York, Penn.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
- Broadcom Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2007
141 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.