DOCSLIB.ORG

Years of Antitrust Important Deadlines Section of Antitrust Law Discounted Registration FEB

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

2012 Years of 60 Antitrust American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law Spring Meeting March 28-30, 2012 Washington, DC dailyevents REGISTRATION (Attendees & Press) Capitol Foyer, Ballroom Level HOURS: Tuesday, March 27 10:00 am – 6:00 pm Wednesday, March 28 7:30 am – 6:00 pm Thursday, March 29 7:30 am – 5:30 pm Friday, March 30 7:30 am – noon CLE INFORMATION DESK Capitol Foyer, Ballroom Level HOURS: Wednesday, March 28 7:30 am – 5:30 pm Thursday, March 29 7:30 am – 5:30 pm Friday, March 30 7:30 am – noon ANTITRUST BOOKSTORE Russell/Hart, Meeting Room Level HOURS: Tuesday, March 27 1:00 pm – 5:30 pm Wednesday, March 28 7:30 am – 5:30 pm Thursday, March 29 7:30 am – 5:30 pm Friday, March 30 7:30 am – noon CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST Start your day with fresh juices, baked goods, and coffee. Continental breakfast will be available at the JW Marriott on the Ballroom Level and at the National Press Club until 9:30 am daily for all Spring Meeting participants. MCLE • All attendees must sign in for CLE. Most attendees only need to do this once for the entire conference. • DE and NY attendees are required by their states to sign in and out of each session. The forms for DE and NY will be located in the back of each session room. At the conclusion of the conference, NY attorneys should pick up their customized Certificate of Attendance at the CLE Information Desk. • Over 40 CLE events are scheduled for the Spring Meeting. Each session is an educational presentation, usually in panel format, presented by one or more of the Section’s committees. Sessions where skills training, trial skills, and/or ethics credit have been applied for are indicated in the brochure. • Required sponsor documentation has been forwarded to and credit requested from MCLE states with general requirements for all lawyers. Lawyers seeking credit in PA must pay a fee of $1.50 per credit hour directly to the PA CLE Board. The ABA pays applicable fees in other states where the sponsor is required to do so. In states where a late fee may become applicable, the ABA pays this fee as well. • Please be aware that each state has its own rules and regulations, including its definition of “CLE” as well as “Ethics.” Therefore, certain sessions may not receive CLE credit in some states. Please check with your state provider for confirmation of general, as well as ethics, approval for any conference. A Uniform Certificate of Attendance will be available with your course materials. • The total number of credit hours that have been approved will be available two weeks prior to the Spring Meeting. • Please check the Spring Meeting website one week prior to the conference for DAILY EVENTS DAILY information on the number of CLE credit hours approved for this conference. 2 tableofcontents 4 WELCOME 5 MEMBERSHIP 6 PROGRAM At-A-GLANCE 10 REGISTRATION 13 HOTEL INFORMATION 15 SECTION PUBLICATIONS 16 SCHEDULE OF EVENTS SCHEDULE OF EVENTS 16 TUESDAY, MARCH 27 17 WEDNESDAY, MARCH 28 26 THURSDAY, MARCH 29 32 FRIDAY, MARCH 30 34 SECTION CALENDAR 35 COMMITTEE DIRECTORY 36 2011-2012 SECTION OFFICERS & STAFF 37 FORMER SECTION CHAIRS 38 THANK YOU ta B le OF CO ntents 3 chair’swelcome The Big Six-O. This year marks the Sixtieth Annual Spring Meeting of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law. A lot has changed over the past six decades, but the Spring Meeting remains the indispensable meeting place for competition and consumer protection lawyers and economists the world over. Those who make their careers in this field know that we are a true community, and the Spring Meeting is our annual family reunion. This Meeting will challenge you, broaden you, inform you, and teach you. Whether you already know nearly all there is to know or are just starting out, you will be rewarded with new insights, new updates, and new skills. It is no surprise that this is the largest gathering of antitrust and consumer protection lawyers and economists anywhere, attracting some 2,500 attendees from over forty countries. Antitrust law frequently is hailed as an essential engine of economic welfare, but the global economy has faced serious challenges in recent years, leading many to rethink the effectiveness of the tools in our economic and legal toolbox. Antitrust and consumer protection law may or may not be at the center of the legal universe— depending on who you ask—but we know that our area of the law is not the only occupant of that universe. At this year’s Spring Meeting, we will be taking a hard look at the effectiveness of our antitrust and consumer protection laws, examining how they fit within the broader context, and asking whether there is more that they can contribute to economic growth. At the same time, the Spring Meeting will offer a cornucopia of the latest updates, in-depth analysis, and live demonstrations to make you a better lawyer or economist. There are three different Fundamentals programs offered this year: Antitrust Funda- mentals, Consumer Protection Fundamentals, and Antitrust Economics Fundamentals. Whether you are at the commencement of your career or interested in broadening your expertise, these sessions offer a perfect introduction, taught by talented and experienced instructors. There also is a wide variety of more advanced programs, covering everything from the nuances of merger review, to the realities of multi-jurisdictional litigation and the complexities of settling false advertising cases. You will be amazed at how much you still have to learn. As before, we highlight three “tracks” you can follow: Litigation, International, and Consumer Protection. Naturally, you may mix and match as you choose, but these tracks are designed to help you spot programs in particular areas of interest. Friday morning, you won’t want to miss our popular Enforcers Roundtable. This year’s edition includes the heads of the Federal Trade Commission, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, the National Association of Attorneys General Antitrust Task Force, the European Competition Commission, and [the Australian Competition Commission]. These Enforcers will explain their respective agendas and answer probing questions from members of our Section. And be sure to attend the Annual Luncheon and Annual Spring Dinner. Nobody ever has gone hungry at the Spring Meeting, and these events provide ideal opportunities to connect and re-connect with new and old friends. E This year’s Spring Meeting would not have been possible without the herculean efforts of Co-Chairs Deb Garza and John Villafranco, Program Officer Roxann Henry, our Section staff, together with literally hundreds of our members who generously COM contributed their time and talent to make the greatest competition cavalcade on Earth. el Reaching sixty is no small achievement, but you will find that the Annual Spring W Meeting is more lively and colorful than ever. This is your jamboree—enjoy it! S With best wishes, R’ ai CH Richard M. Steuer 4 Chair, Section of Antitrust Law membership ABA MEMBERSHIP Start maximizing your ABA membership today. Discover more ways to put our many services to work for you. BENEFITS • Expand your knowledge with authoritative information on your specialty or interest. • Take advantage of important networking opportunities with others who have similar • interests. • Earn CLE credit through CLE conferences, monthly ABA Connection online, and telecon- ference seminars. • Receive hotel discounts using the ABA Preferred Hotel negotiated rates. • Receive discounts on travel with American Airlines, United Airlines, and Hertz. SECTION OF ANTITRUST LAW MEMBERSHIP Enhance your ABA experience by joining the Section of Antitrust Law. Membership in the Section gives you access to colleagues and services that will expand your professional development. BENEFITS • We have a diverse membership and welcome participation by law students, economists, and international colleagues. Keep current on antitrust and consumer protection law. • Receive discounts on conference registration and Section publications. • Receive the Antitrust Law Journal, Antitrust Magazine, and Antitrust Source. • Access the Searchable Antitrust Library (SAL) of antitrust and consumer protection materials, which are useful for research and casework. • Join a community of antitrust and consumer protection professionals with diverse interests and practices, including domestic and international government officials. COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP As a Section member, you may join the Section’s substantive committees, which are organized into three broad areas of law: practice skills/litigation committees; substantive legal committees; and industry committees. With over 26 committees, you will find what you need for practice development across a range of substantive issues and industry areas. Committee membership is an excellent way to access the Section and its wealth of resources, and become engaged personally and professionally with other antitrust and consumer protection specialists. BENEFITS • Committee programs (formerly known as “brown bags”) on timely substantive topics. • Committee newsletters and papers providing in-depth analysis of specialized areas and current topics. • Discussion lists for timely updates and discussion of major developments in antitrust law and consumer protection. • Opportunities to write for committee publications. SECTION WEB SITE – www.americanbar.org/antitrust The site for the most current antitrust and consumer protection information. BENEFITS • Section calendar with upcoming program details. • Online meeting registration. • Searchable Antitrust Library (SAL) online research tool. • Information on how to join the Section and Section committees and member benefits. • Links to current antitrust and consumer protection cases and sites. THE SOURCE – www.antitrustsource.com The ABA Section of Antitrust Law produces the Antitrust Source, an online magazine, six M times a year. E MB QUESTIONS – E • Visit www.americanbar.org/antitrust. R S • Visit the ABA staff in the Bookstore. H • Email Deborah Morgan [email protected] or Diane Odom I [email protected].
Recommended publications
  • V16 FTC Reform

    V16 FTC Reform

    Consumer Protection & Competition Regulation in a High-Tech World: Discussing the Future of the Federal Trade Commission December 2013 Report 1.0 of the FTC: Technology & Reform Project Consumer Protection & Competition Regulation in a High-Tech World: Discussing the Future of the Federal Trade Commission December 2013 Report 1.0 of the FTC: Technology & Reform Project This document represents the combined input of several authors and commentators, and has been compiled to ask questions and prompt discussion about the Federal Trade Commission. It is, by design, over-inclusive, so that it may foster broad discussion. At the same time, it is also certainly not complete. This document does not necessarily represent the views of its principal authors or other contributors to the drafting process, nor the members of the FTC: Technology & Reform Project. The FTC: Technology & Reform Project was convened by the International Center for Law & Economics and TechFreedom. It is not affiliated in any way with the FTC. I. Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 2 A. What this Report is About ................................................................................................................. 4 B. The (Not-So-Unique) Role of Technology .......................................................................................... 4 C. Some Historical Context: Constraining & Reasserting FTC Power ...................................................
  • Ftc Stakeholder Perspectives: Reform Proposals to Improve Fairness, Innovation, and Consumer Welfare

    Ftc Stakeholder Perspectives: Reform Proposals to Improve Fairness, Innovation, and Consumer Welfare

    S. HRG. 115–541 FTC STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES: REFORM PROPOSALS TO IMPROVE FAIRNESS, INNOVATION, AND CONSUMER WELFARE HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON CONSUMER PROTECTION, PRODUCT SAFETY, INSURANCE, AND DATA SECURITY OF THE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION SEPTEMBER 26, 2017 Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation ( Available online: http://www.govinfo.gov U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 35–459 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019 VerDate Nov 24 2008 07:37 Mar 18, 2019 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 S:\GPO\DOCS\35459.TXT JACKIE SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Chairman ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi BILL NELSON, Florida, Ranking ROY BLUNT, Missouri MARIA CANTWELL, Washington TED CRUZ, Texas AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota DEB FISCHER, Nebraska RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut JERRY MORAN, Kansas BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska EDWARD MARKEY, Massachusetts DEAN HELLER, Nevada CORY BOOKER, New Jersey JAMES INHOFE, Oklahoma TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE LEE, Utah GARY PETERS, Michigan RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois CORY GARDNER, Colorado MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire TODD YOUNG, Indiana CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada NICK ROSSI, Staff Director ADRIAN ARNAKIS, Deputy Staff Director JASON VAN BEEK, General Counsel KIM LIPSKY, Democratic Staff Director
  • Section 5: Principles of Navigation, Maureen K. Ohlhausen

    Section 5: Principles of Navigation, Maureen K. Ohlhausen

    United States of America Federal Trade Commission Section 5: Principles of Navigation Remarks of Maureen K. Ohlhausen1 Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission U.S. Chamber of Commerce Washington, D.C. July 25, 2013 I. Introduction Good morning. I am delighted to be here at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Let me thank Sean Heather of the Chamber for inviting me to speak today. In my remarks, I would like to discuss unfair methods of competition (UMC) under Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Act.2 By that, of course, I mean standalone Section 5 enforcement – separate from our enforcement of the antitrust laws. My primary goal in making these remarks is to continue the dialogue on Section 5, both inside and outside the Commission.3 As a Commissioner, I have called for our agency to issue some type of policy statement or other guidance on how and when it will pursue standalone Section 5 cases. Today I offer some thoughts on what might inform such a statement, as well as some guiding and limiting principles for consideration by my colleagues at the Commission and by interested parties outside the agency. Finally, calling on these principles, I will suggest how the agency should prioritize its competition efforts. II. A Sea of Uncertainty For many decades, the Commission’s exercise of its UMC authority has launched the agency into a sea of uncertainty, much like the agency weathered when using its unfairness authority in the consumer protection area in the 1970s. In issuing our 1980 statement on the 1 The views expressed in this speech are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Federal Trade Commission or any other Commissioner.
  • Topic 11: the Agency’S Investigation, Enforcement and Remedial Processes

    Topic 11: the Agency’S Investigation, Enforcement and Remedial Processes

    Comments of TechFreedom Hearings on Competition & Consumer Protection in the 21st Century Topic 11: The agency’s investigation, enforcement and remedial processes Berin Szóka,1 Graham Owens2 & James E. Dunstan3 Overview TechFreedom is a non-partisan think tank dedicated to promoting the progress of technol- ogy that improves the human condition. To this end, we seek to advance public policy that makes experimentation, entrepreneurship, and investment possible, and thus unleashes the ultimate resource: human ingenuity. Wherever possible, we seek to empower users to make their own choices online and elsewhere. 1 Berin Szóka is President of TechFreedom, a nonprofit, nonpartisan technology policy think tank. J.D. Univer- sity of Virginia School of Law; B.A. Duke University. He can be reached at [email protected]. 2 Graham Owens is a Legal Fellow with TechFreedom. J.D. George Washington University School of Law; B.A. University of Virginia. He can be reached at [email protected]. 3 James Dunstan is General Counsel of TechFreedom. J.D. Georgetown University Law Center; B.A. Claremont McKenna College. He can be reached at [email protected]. 1 Since its launch in 2011, TechFreedom has spoken often on the FTC’s regulation and en- forcement of antitrust, unfairness, and consumer protection laws. We welcome the oppor- tunity to once again interact with FTC staff as it works through these issues in a changing world where technological innovation has brought huge benefits to consumers, but has also raised novel questions related to privacy, data security, and unfair business practices. On June 20, 2018, the FTC announced that the agency will hold a series of public hearings on whether broad-based changes in the economy, evolving business practices, new tech- nologies, or international developments might require adjustments to competition and consumer protection enforcement law, enforcement priorities, and policy.4 In preparation for those hearings, the FTC seeks public comment on eleven (11) issues, through the filing of separate comments on each topic.
  • The FTC's Consumer Protection Program During the Miller Years: Lessons for Administrative Agency Structure and Operation

    The FTC's Consumer Protection Program During the Miller Years: Lessons for Administrative Agency Structure and Operation

    Catholic University Law Review Volume 46 Issue 2 Winter 1997 Article 3 1997 The FTC's Consumer Protection Program During the Miller Years: Lessons for Administrative Agency Structure and Operation Mark E. Budnitz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview Recommended Citation Mark E. Budnitz, The FTC's Consumer Protection Program During the Miller Years: Lessons for Administrative Agency Structure and Operation, 46 Cath. U. L. Rev. 371 (1997). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/lawreview/vol46/iss2/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Catholic University Law Review by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. THE FTC'S CONSUMER PROTECTION PROGRAM DURING THE MILLER YEARS: LESSONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY STRUCTURE AND OPERATION Mark E. Budnitz* The conventional wisdom is that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) under President Carter's Chairman, Michael Pertschuk, turned the FTC into a renegade agency which engaged in runaway consumer protection, hamstringing business with excessive regulation to such an extent it be- came known as the "national nanny." 1 According to this popular view, Congress ultimately was compelled to rein in the agency to force it to return to the role Congress intended for it. The conventional wisdom portrays the FTC under Pertschuk's successor, President Reagan's ap- pointee James Miller, in very different yet equally immoderate terms. Miller supposedly went to the opposite extreme, acting as the puppet of the industry he was supposed to regulate by virtually halting the agency's consumer protection activities.2 This Article demonstrates that the reality was far more interesting, complex, and problematic than these generalities suggest.
  • APPOINTEE FILES: Records, 1981- 1989 – REAGAN LIBRARY COLLECTIONS

    APPOINTEE FILES: Records, 1981- 1989 – REAGAN LIBRARY COLLECTIONS

    COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF THE: APPOINTEE FILES: Records, 1981- 1989 – REAGAN LIBRARY COLLECTIONS Material noted in bold within this collection is currently available for research use. If a folder is available for research use it may still have withdrawn material due to Freedom of Information Act restrictions. Most frequent withdrawn material is national security classified material, personal privacy, protection of the President, etc. Any non-bolded folder is closed for research. The non-bolded folders are subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests under the provisions of the Presidential Records Act (PRA). If you are interested in submitting a FOIA request for access to any of the unavailable records or have any questions about these collections or series, please contact our archival staff at 1-800- 410-8354, outside the US at 1-805-577-4012, or email [email protected] COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT, OFFICE OF THE: APPOINTEE FILES: Records, 1981-1989 The Appointee File consists of four series: SERIES I: Appointee Files by Position; SERIES II: Appointee Files by Individual; SERIES III: The President's Private Sector Survey on Cost Control, and SERIES IV: Appointment Memoranda Within Series II, we are using the following organizational abbreviations for all unprocessed folder titles: ACDA - Arms Control & Disarmament FBI - Federal Bureau of Investigation Agency FCC - Federal Communications ACTION Commission AID - Agency for International FDIC - Federal Deposit Insurance Development Corporation CIA - Central Intelligence Agency FEMA - Federal Emergency Management DOAg - Dept. of Agriculture Agency DOC - Dept. of Commerce FNMA - Federal National Mortgage DOD - Dept. of Defense Association DOE - Dept.
  • Chartcommissioners and Chairmen of the Federal

    Chartcommissioners and Chairmen of the Federal

    COMMISSIONERS AND CHAIRMEN OF THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION MARCH 2013 CHAIRMEN OF THE FTC AND THE DATES SERVED Chairmen Selected by Commissioners 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 1. Davies (D) Mar 16, 1915 to Jun 30, 1916 2. Hurley (D) Jul 01, 1916 to Jan 31, 1917 GEORGE RUBLEE (P) 03/16/15-09/08/16 3. Harris (D) Feb 01, 1917 to May 06, 1918 JOHN F. FORT (R) 03/16/17-11/30/19 4. Colver (D) May 07, 1918 to Jun 30, 1919 NELSON B. GASKILL (R) 02/01/20-02/24/25 5. Fort (R) Jul 01, 1919 to Nov 30, 1919 WILLIAM E. HUMPHREY (R) 02/25/25-10/07/33 6. Murdock (P) Dec 01, 1919 to Nov 30, 1920 GEORGE C. MATHEWS (R) 10/27/33-06/30/34 7. Thompson (D) Dec 01, 1920 to Nov 30, 1921 ROBERT E. FREER (R) 08/27/35-12/31/48 8. Gaskill (R) Dec 01, 1921 to Nov 30, 1922 9. Murdock (P) Dec 01, 1922 to Nov 30, 1923 JOHN CARSON (IND) 09/28/48-03/31/53 10. Thompson (D) Dec 01, 1923 to Nov 30, 1924 EDWARD F. HOWREY (R) 04/01/53-09/12/55 11. Van Fleet (R) Dec 01, 1924 to Nov 30, 1925 SIGURD ANDERSON (R) 09/12/55-02/29/64 12. Nugent (D) Dec 01, 1925 to Nov 30, 1926 WILL H.
  • Using the "Consumer Choice" Approach to Antitrust Law Neil W

    Using the "Consumer Choice" Approach to Antitrust Law Neil W

    University of Baltimore Law ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law All Faculty Scholarship Faculty Scholarship 2007 Using the "Consumer Choice" Approach to Antitrust Law Neil W. Averitt Bureau of Competition, Federal Trade Commission Robert H. Lande University of Baltimore School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/all_fac Part of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons, and the Law and Economics Commons Recommended Citation Using the "Consumer Choice" Approach to Antitrust Law, 74 Antitrust L.J. 175 (2007) This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in All Faculty Scholarship by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. USING THE "CONSUMER CHOICE" APPROACH TO ANTITRUST LAW NEIL W. AVERITT ROBERT H. LANDE* The current paradigms of antitrust law-price and efficiency-do not work well enough. True, they were an immense improvement over their predecessors, and they have served the field competently for a genera­ tion, producing reasonably accurate results in most circumstances. Accu­ mulated experience has also revealed their shortcomings, however. The price and efficiency paradigms are hard to fully understand and are not particularly transparent in their application. Moreover, in a disturbingly large number of circumstances they are unable to handle the important issue of nonprice competition. In this article we suggest replacing the older paradigms with the somewhat broader approach of "consumer choice." 1 The choice framework has several advantages.
  • William E. Kovacic an Antitrust Tribute Liber Amicorum - Volume II

    William E. Kovacic an Antitrust Tribute Liber Amicorum - Volume II

    Editors Nicolas Charbit Elisa Ramundo Assistant Editors Anna M. Pavlik - Jessica Rebarber William E. Kovacic An Antitrust Tribute Liber Amicorum - Volume II Donald I. Baker, Jonathan B. Baker, Caron Beaton-Wells, Margaret Bloom, John DeQ. Briggs, George S. Cary, Andy C.M. Chen, Daniel A. Crane, Elaine Ewing, Eleanor M. Fox, Damien Geradin, Laurie-Anne Grelier, Omar Guerrero Rodríguez, Doris Hildebrand, Merit E. Janow, Joseph Kattan PC, Bruno Lasserre, Robert C. Marshall, Leslie M. Marx, Robert Ian McEwin, Andreas Mundt, Ali Nikpay, Maureen K. Ohlhausen, Julián Peña, Alan Ramírez Casazza, Patrick Rey, Simon Roberts, Jacques Steenbergen, John Terzaken, Thibaud Vergé, Florian Wagner-von Papp, Wouter P.J. Wils, Marc Winerman, Chris Wood, Joshua D. Wright. William E. Kovacic An Antitrust Tribute Liber Amicorum - Volume II Editors Nicolas Charbit Elisa Ramundo Assistant Editors Anna M. Pavlik - Jessica Rebarber © Institute of Competition Law, 2014 All rights reserved. No photocopying: copyright licenses do not apply. The information provided in this publication is general and may not apply in a specific situation. Legal advice should always be sought before taking any legal action based on the information provided. The publisher accepts no responsibility for any acts or omissions contained herein. Enquiries concerning reproduction should be sent to the Institute of Competition Law, at the address below. Copyright © 2014 by Institute of Competition Law 60 Broad Street, Suite 3502, NY 10004 www.concurrences.com [email protected] Printed in the United States of America First Printing, 2014 ISBN 978-1-939007-43-8 LCCN 2014940897 Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication (Provided by Quality Books, Inc.) William E.
  • Page 1 a N T I T R U S T M O D E R N I Z a T I O N C

    Page 1 a N T I T R U S T M O D E R N I Z a T I O N C

    Sherman Act, Section 1 (15 U.S.C. § 1) Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a cor- poration, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Sherman Act, Section 2 (15 U.S.C. § 2) Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceed- ing three years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Clayton Act, Section 7 (15 U.S.C. § 18) No person engaged in commerce or in any activ- ity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.
  • Download Our Brochure

    Download Our Brochure

    Antitrust Writing Awards 2018 Washington, DC April 10, 2018 US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit, Judge awards.concurrences.com JURY The Jury is comprised of the Board, the Academic and Business Steering Committees, the Editorial Committee and the Readers. Each of these contributed to the selection process of academic and business articles as well as soft laws. The Editorial Committee of Concurrences Review selected a pool of 220 articles out of more than 500 submissions from the two Steering Committees and the Readers. Then, the Steering Committees and the Readers voted for their favorite articles, resulting in a short list of 40 finalists (20 Academic and 20 Business). Finally, the Board nominated 20 award-winning articles. As for soft law, the Editorial Committee invited competition agencies to submit their soft law documents. The Steering Committees members and the Readers then voted for the 5 best documents. Board Academic Steering Committee • Andrea COSCELLI, Competition and Markets Authority UK • Pinar AKMAN, University of Leeds • Alison JONES, King’s College London • John ASKER, University of California, Los Angeles • Marina LAO, Seton Hall University, School of Law • Douglas GINSBURG • David BAILEY, King’s College, London • Ioannis LIANOS, University College London US Court of Appeals, DC Circuit • Caron BEATON-WELLS, Melbourne Law School • Sandra MARCO COLINO, The Chinese University • Christian BOVET, University of Geneva Law of Hong Kong • Frédéric JENNY School • Douglas MELAMED, Stanford Law School OECD Competition Committee •
  • An Historical and Institutional Perspective Hillary Greene University of Connecticut School of Law

    An Historical and Institutional Perspective Hillary Greene University of Connecticut School of Law

    University of Connecticut OpenCommons@UConn Faculty Articles and Papers School of Law 2005 Agency Character and Character of Agency Guidelines: An Historical and Institutional Perspective Hillary Greene University of Connecticut School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_papers Part of the Administrative Law Commons, and the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons Recommended Citation Greene, Hillary, "Agency Character and Character of Agency Guidelines: An Historical and Institutional Perspective" (2005). Faculty Articles and Papers. 309. https://opencommons.uconn.edu/law_papers/309 +(,121/,1( Citation: 72 Antitrust L.J. 1039 2004-2005 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Aug 15 16:53:35 2016 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0003-6056 AGENCY CHARACTER AND THE CHARACTER OF AGENCY GUIDELINES: AN HISTORICAL AND INSTITUTIONAL PERSPECTIVE HILLARY GREENE* I. INTRODUCTION Though antitrust guidelines have become commonplace, their approach was novel when first introduced. In a 1964 front-page article entitled, Industries Will Get Merger Guidelines, The New