Search

IAN SIMMONS: And, Doha, if I could just put a footnote on that, we did a jury trial before Judge Schofield, an antitrust case for the plaintiff's side, in the Southern District of New York from March to May, and Judge Schofield's standing orders are young lawyers need to argue in limine, so the judiciary is bringing people forward, giving them those opportunities. Also, you are now seeing judges actually appointing Plaintiffs' leadership development committees in class actions to ensure that women lawyers and lawyers of color are getting the type of experience that they need so that they can apply for MDL leadership positions. You learn about the intricacies of an industry; you learn a little bit about economics, Martha, enough to be dangerous; and you also have the good fortune to work with distinguished economic experts and lawyers from around the country on both the plaintiff side and the defense side, and of course government lawyers as well. DOHA MEKKI: On the point about opportunities for younger lawyers, I want to highlight the trial court judges who have given the Antitrust Division the opportunity to give many junior lawyers the chance to stand up and take their first witnesses at trial. On behalf of the ABA Antitrust Magazine, I want to thank Judge Wood, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Doha Mekki, Martha Samuelson, Roberta Liebenberg, Barbara Sicalides, and Eleanor Fox. [Extracted from the article]

IN OUR LAST ARTICLE IN THIS SERIES ON AARON DIRECTOR AND the Origins of the Chicago School, we began our study of the Antitrust Project, co-led by Aaron Director and Edward Levi from 1953 to 1957, which laid the foundations for the Chicago School of Antitrust.[1] In previous articles, we introduced the four talented research associates Director and Levi recruited to work on their project: William Letwin, Robert Bork, Ward Bowman, and John McGee, all four of whom went on to successful careers as academics and whose work continues to shape our understanding of antitrust law and economics. That being the case, "The price of the combination is the only matter of interest", and a firm could not raise the price of one product (e.g., a left shoe) without having to lower the price of the other (e.g., a right shoe).[61] Therefore, the likely explanation for tying them together (pardon the pun) is that it is more efficient to sell them in a single package. In that case, Bowman acknowledged that a firm might have an incentive to use a tie-in to gain a second monopoly and thereby increase its monopoly profits.[62] (3) Evasion of price regulation. Echoing Bork and Bowman, they maintained that large firms lack the power to impose coercive restrictions on their suppliers or their customers as a means of obtaining a monopoly. [Extracted from the article]

Director and Levi, therefore, decided to have their Antitrust Project test the hypotheses Director had developed using the tenets of price theory through empirical studies of five business practices that had been a frequent subject of antitrust litigation: vertical integration, price discrimination, resale price maintenance, predatory pricing, and tying. In addressing this first problem, Levi and Director assigned Bill Letwin to study the legal foundations and early history of the antitrust laws. This will set the stage for showing how the Antitrust Project laid the intellectual foundation for the later Chicago reformation led by Robert Bork and Richard Posner, who became the two most effective advocates for the approach to the antitrust laws that Director and Levi had pioneered. [Extracted from the article]

The article reports that the analytical framework for assessing various forms of competitor collaborations under Section 1 of the Sherman Act has remained unchanged for decades. Another type of case interpreting American Needle is Top Rank, Inc. versus Haymon, an antitrust and tort case involving the promotion of boxing. The distinction between analysis of conspiratorial capacity and the merits took center stage in the recent Sixth Circuit decision in Medical Center at Elizabeth Place.

The article reports that anti-trust law is designed to ensure an appropriate blend of cooperation and competition. The Collaboration Guidelines recognized the importance of cooperation among competitors in enhancing consumer welfare. It also provided a basic analytical framework for decision makers to apply at a time when many courts were struggling with antitrust analysis of joint ventures and other collaborations.

The article reports that the 2010 Merger Guidelines highlight the significance of high margins in conjunction with a high diversion ratio between the merging parties as enabling upward pricing pressure. In updating the Collaboration Guidelines, the antitrust authorities could make effective use of this enforcement action and its resolution to illustrate important general principles.

An interview with European Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager is presented. Topics discussed include impact competition enforcement on competition policy, increase in merger-related concentration throughout the economy, and European Union's Merger Regulation to capture minority shareholdings.

The article discusses the efforts to banish hypothesis testing in antitrust class actions case. Topics discussed include determination of impact and damages of regression models on class members, use of statistical hypothesis testing methods in scholarly economics research, and plaintiffs' efforts to banish such as hypothesis testing.

The article discusses Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure's plain language . Topics discussed include imposition of ascertainability requirement presents policy ramifications for anti - trust class actions, protect class members' claims, and oppose certification of a settlement class actions.

The article discusses plain language of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Topics discussed include imposition of ascertainability requirement presents policy ramifications for anti - trust class actions, protect class members' claims, and oppose certification of a settlement class actions.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in a case Comcast Corp. v. Behrend. Topics discussed include selection of court decisions on class certification in relation to plaintiffs' arguments and defendants' counterarguments, use an alteration of the plaintiffs' model to show faulty predictions, and purpose of class certification.

In this article, the author discusses Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that governs class action in antitrust cases. Topics discussed include evolution in class certification standards, importance of the class certification decision in the litigation, and private enforcement of antitrust laws.

In this article, the author discusses Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that governs class certification in antitrust cases. Topics discussed include summary of pending congressional action pertinent to antitrust class actions, analysis of class certification motions in antitrust cases, and positive impact of antitrust class actions on class members.

In this article, the author discusses antitrust enforcement during the U.S. president Barack Obama administration. Topics discussed include effects of increasing consolidation, use of antitrust laws to limit corporate concentration echoes aspects of the statement, and reinvigoration of antitrust enforcement in corporate merger deals.

In this article, the author discusses an anti-trust class action damages case pertaining to Rule 23 (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Topics discussed include evolution in class certification standards, importance of the class certification decision in the litigation, and private enforcement of antitrust laws.

The article focuses on issues concerning antitrust law and the Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) in relation to royalty disputes in the U.S. Other information such as legal or contractual framework governing pricing disputes over licenses for particular essential patent as well as about competition in the monopolized market is presented.

The article examines the developments and trends in the private enforcement of antitrust law across the European Union (EU). Topics covered include the law provisions that form the basis for European private antitrust damages actions, legislative and case law developments in key EU jurisdictions and the possible implications of the EU Antitrust Damages Directive.

The article reports on the U.S. Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors issued in 2000. It states these are meant to offer an analytical framework to examine the competitive impact of non-merger collaborative agreements like joint ventures and strategic alliances. Market share estimates offer a useful starting point under the Collaboration Guidelines for analyzing a competitor collaboration.

The article reports that the anti-trust guidelines for collaboration among competitors offer a useful baseline for evaluating most modern joint ventures. A hypothetical joint venture among several online merchants to develop a new shared payment processing platform. The IP Guidelines offer additional clarity, recognizing several specific pro-competitive benefits of cross-licensing, including reduction in transaction costs and avoiding costly infringement litigation.

The article offers information about the American Bar Association (ABA) Section of Antitrust Law in the U.S. It highlights the role of the council to provide general supervision and control of the affairs of the Section as well as receiving regular reports from representatives from the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Multistate Antitrust Task Force.