Difference between revisions of "United States 1977"

From AntitrustWorldWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: '''Score = 26''' ''Governed by:'' Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf</ref> (hereina...)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Score = 26'''
+
'''Score = 27'''
  
 
''Governed by:'' Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Sherman Act”), Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12-27<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/The%20Clayton%20Antitrust%20Act.pdf</ref>  (hereinafter referred to as “Clayton Act”), Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §41-51<ref>Federal Trade Commission website, http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/about.shtm; Link to statute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_2.html</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “FTC Act”).
 
''Governed by:'' Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “Sherman Act”), Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12-27<ref>Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/The%20Clayton%20Antitrust%20Act.pdf</ref>  (hereinafter referred to as “Clayton Act”), Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §41-51<ref>Federal Trade Commission website, http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/about.shtm; Link to statute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_2.html</ref> (hereinafter referred to as “FTC Act”).
Line 100: Line 100:
 
|  
 
|  
 
| Other
 
| Other
| 0
+
| 1
|  
+
| Business failure is considered by the ''Brown Shoe, Co. v. United States'' decision.<ref>''Brown Shoe, Co. v. United States'', 370 U.S. 294 (1962)</ref>
 
 
 
|-
 
|-

Revision as of 20:32, 20 August 2007

Score = 27

Governed by: Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1-7[1] (hereinafter referred to as “Sherman Act”), Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12-27[2] (hereinafter referred to as “Clayton Act”), Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §41-51[3] (hereinafter referred to as “FTC Act”).

Category Subcategory Score Comment
Scope Extraterritoriality 1 The effects doctrine says that US antitrust law applies to anything that has a “direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect” on US trade and commerce.
Remedies Fines 1 §1 and 2 of the Sherman Act allows for fines and imprisonment for violations.
Prison Sentences 1 §1 and 2 of the Sherman Act allows for fines and imprisonment for violations.
Divestitures 1 Courts are permitted to order divestiture of assets in certain situations.[4]
Private Enforcement 3rd Party Initiation 1 §4 of the Clayton Act allows 3rd parties to initiate proceedings.
Remedies Available to 3rd Parties 1 §4 of the Clayton Act allows anybody who has been injured to file a case for damages in district court.
3rd Party Rights in Proceedings 0
Merger Notification Voluntary 0
Mandatory 3 Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, prior notification to the FTC and Department of Justice is required.
Pre-merger 2 Under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, prior notification to the FTC and Department of Justice is required.
Post-merger 0
Merger Assessment Dominance 1 §7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers that create a monopoly.
Restriction of Competition 1 §7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers that substantially lessen competition.
Public Interest (Pro D) 0
Public Interest (Pro Authority) 0
Other 1 Business failure is considered by the Brown Shoe, Co. v. United States decision.[5]
Efficiency 1 Courts have recognized a limited efficiency defense.[6]
Dominance Limits Access 1 The court prohibits dominant firms that gain control over a cost reducing essential facility from taking exclusive access in order to ruin a competitor.[7]
Abusive Acts 1 §2 of the Sherman Act prohibits abusing a monopoly position.
Price Setting 0
Discriminatory Pricing 1 §2 of the Clayton Act prohibits discriminatory pricing.
Resale Price Maintenance 1 RPM is generally illegal.[8]
Obstacles to Entry 1 Courts have looked at whether there existed barriers to entry in order to decide whether an action violated §2 of the Sherman Act.[9]
Efficiency Defense 1 Rule of Reason analysis for violations of the Clayton and Sherman Acts are based on factors such as efficiency and benefits to the economy.
Restrictive Trade Practices Price Fixing 1 Price fixing agreements have been interpreted as illegal infringements of §1 of the Sherman Act by the courts.[10]
Tying 1 Tying arrangements have been interpreted as illegal infringements of §1 of the Sherman Act and §3 of the Clayton Act.[11]
Market Division 1 Territorial allocation has been interpreted as “an aggregation of trade restraints.”[12]
Output Restraint 1 Agreements to restrict competition and decrease output are interpreted as illegal.[13]
Market Sharing 1 The courts have interpreted market sharing as illegal.
Eliminating Competitors 1 The purpose of §2 of the Sherman Act is to thwart agreements meant to eliminate a competitor.[14]
Collusive Tendering/Bid-Rigging 1 The court has found that bid rigging schemes can impair competition.[15]
Supply Refusal 1 Group boycotts violate the Sherman Act and the FTC Act.[16]
Efficiency Defense 1 Rule of Reason analysis for violations of the Clayton and Sherman Acts are based on factors such as efficiency and benefits to the economy.

References

  1. Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/us_saa.pdf
  2. Global Competition Forum website, http://www.globalcompetitionforum.org/regions/n_america/USA/The%20Clayton%20Antitrust%20Act.pdf
  3. Federal Trade Commission website, http://www.ftc.gov/ogc/about.shtm; Link to statute, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode15/usc_sup_01_15_10_2.html
  4. FTAA report, http://www.ftaa-alca.org/ngroups/NGCP/Publications/domlaws_e.asp
  5. Brown Shoe, Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (1962)
  6. See F.T.C. v. Staples, 970 F. Supp. 1066 (D.D.C. 1997).
  7. See Gamco, Inc. v. Providence Fruit & Produce Bldg, 194 F.2d 484 (1st Cir.1952).
  8. See Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U.S. 373 (1911).
  9. See U.S. v. American Tel. and Tel. Co., 524 F. Supp. 1336 (D.C.D.C. 1981).
  10. See Stewart & Stevenson Services, Inc., 56 FTC 523.
  11. See United States v. Jerrold Electronics Corp., 187 F. Supp. 545 (E.D. Pa. 1960), aff’d per curiam, 365 U.S. 567 (1961).
  12. See United States v. Sealy, 388 U.S. 350 (1967).
  13. See Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting Co., 441 U.S. 1, 20 (1979).
  14. See McIntire v. Wm. Penn Broadcasting Co. of Philadelphia, 151 F.2d 597 (3d Cir. 1945).
  15. See Stolow v. Greg Manning Auctions, Inc., 258 F. Supp. 2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).
  16. See In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation, 350 F. Supp. 2d 160 (D. Me. 2004).