Articles on Antitrust

Unbridled or reined in? Horse cloning suit shows antitrust risks for association rule-making By Beth L. Fancsali & Aaron J. Hersh Animal Law, September 2014 Cloning of animals, and whether a breed association can ban clones from its registry, is the subject of much debate: not only from a scientific and moral standpoint, but now also from an antitrust perspective.
Unbridled or reined in? Horse cloning suit shows antitrust risks for association rule-making By Beth L. Fancsali & Aaron J. Hersh June 2014 Cloning of animals, and whether a breed association can ban clones from its registry, is the subject of much debate: not only from a scientific and moral standpoint, but now also from an antitrust perspective.
FTC v. Actavis, Inc.: Pay-for-delay settlements subject to rule of reason By Kate O’Súilleabháin June 2013 On June 17, in FTC v. Actavis, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court determined that “pay-for-delay” settlements (also known as “reverse-payment settlements”) between drug manufacturers are subject to rule of reason antitrust scrutiny for purposes of determining whether they violate federal antitrust laws.
Recent decisions in Kleen and Fosamax shape the arguments in motions to compel use of predictive coding By Zachary L. Sorman June 2013 Can a party unilaterally impose a discovery methodology on an adverse party?
A warning on the antitrust risks in private equity collaboration By Thomas F. Bush June 2013 A recent decision by a federal district court in Boston, however, demonstrates how easily even well-advised firms can stumble and end up facing a substantial claim of an antitrust violation.
Highlights from the U.S. Antitrust Agencies’ Report on Intellectual Property: How agency policy statements can be helpful to practitioners By Jennifer M. Dixton December 2007 This past Spring, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) issued a joint report concerning antitrust enforcement and intellectual property rights.
The antitrust counselor: The Supreme Court reversed Dr. Miles: Now what? By Mildred L. Calhoun October 2007 The US Supreme Court recently overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons, holding that all vertical price restraints are to be analyzed under the Rule of Reason. In other words, instead of being per se illegal and presumed anticompetitive, all vertical price restraints are now analyzed for reasonableness and their effect on competition.
Minimum resale price maintenance after Leegin By Robert T. Joseph October 2007 On June 28, 2007, in Leegin v. PSKS, Inc., the Supreme Court overruled Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. and held that vertical prices restraints are to be judged by the rule of reason under federal law.
The role of regression analysis in class certification decisions in antitrust cases By Jeff Dorman February 2007 The combined effects of the massive potential liability presented by an antitrust class action and the prohibition of a cross-claim for contribution has made class certification decisions in antitrust cases virtually outcome determinative.
Should the origination of a vertical restraint be relevant to its legality? By Blake L. Harrop February 2007 Over the last decade, the antitrust laws’ restrictions on vertical restraints have come under increased criticism from both the judicial and economic communities.
The Antitrust Counselor: Robinson Patman after Reeder-Simco By Mildred L. Calhoun December 2005 The Supreme Court appears to be coming to the rescue of counselors who are still bemused by the Eighth Circuit’s astonishing opinion in Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. v. Volvo GM Heavy Truck Corp.
The Antitrust Counselor: Benchmarking By Mildred L. Calhoun October 2003 The impetus to benchmark waxes and wanes according to the current management theory in vogue at any given time, but regardless of management imperatives, benchmarking always requires significant antitrust scrutiny.
Allocation of antitrust enforcement between and within agencies: A comparison By Ivan Gurov December 2002 There are two basic models of antitrust enforcement. Chronologically, the first one appeared in the United States with the Sherman Act of 1890.
The antitrust implications of creative pricing strategies By Rebecca A.D. Nelson December 2002 The Sherman Act1 was enacted in 1890. It is a very straightforward law, prohibiting "contracts, combinations or conspiracies ... in restraint of trade" (Section 1) and monopolization or attempted monopolization of any part of trade or commerce (Section 2).
Recent cases December 2002 This opinion consolidates several cases arising out of an alleged conspiracy to fix the price of copper futures at artificially high levels on the international exchange markets in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Will Adam Smith’s statement be retired from trials? By John L. Conlon December 2002 A hoary but effective quote that government and plaintiff's counsel frequently use in their briefs and at trials in antitrust cases is Adam Smith's classic statement in the Wealth of Nations:
Auto body shop owner entered into price-fixing arrangement in violation of Illinois Antitrust Act By Marija Popovic April 2000 The Illinois Attorney General filed suit against six body shop owners for price-fixing in violation of the Illinois Antitrust Act, 740 ILCS 10/3(1).
Enforcement of Illinois’ Wine and Spirits Industry Fair Dealing Act enjoined April 2000 While the news media gave coverage to U.S. District Court Judge Joan B. Gottschall's preliminary injunction enjoining the Illinois Liquor Control Commission from enforcing the state's recently adopted Wine and Spirits Industry Fair Dealing Act ("Act"), they did not go into many of the details.
Federal antitrust Guidelines for collaborations among competitors under final review April 2000 People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversations ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some diversion to raise prices. Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations (1776).
Aggressive criminal antitrust investigations: government electronic monitoring By Steven M. Kowal December 1999 Criminal enforcement by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice has increased dramatically.

Select a Different Subject