Law 552 - Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act of 1982 (FTAIA) General Rule: Sherman 1-7 not apply to “conduct.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Price Squeezes after Trinko Aryeh Friedman. United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (1945) Judge Hand held that Alcoa, a vertically integrated company.
Advertisements

McGraw-Hill/Irwin©2007 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 10 Antitrust Law-Restraints of Trade.
© 2011 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license.
Domestic Antitrust Laws and Exemptions Regarding International Membership Donald A. Frederick USDA Rural Development Cooperatives Program
Chapter 46 Antitrust Law Copyright © 2009 South-Western Legal Studies in Business, a part of South-Western Cengage Learning. Jentz Miller Cross BUSINESS.
Copyright © 2004 by Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. PowerPoint Slides to Accompany BUSINESS LAW E-Commerce and Digital Law International Law and Ethics.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 Chapter 46 Antitrust Law Chapter 46 Antitrust Law.
Slides developed by Les Wiletzky Wiletzky and Associates Copyright © 2006 by Pearson Prentice-Hall. All rights reserved. Antitrust Law.
1 COPYRIGHT © 2007 West Legal Studies in Business, a part of The Thomson Corporation. Thomson, the Star logo, and West Legal Studies in Business are trademarks.
Monopoly or Tragedy? Should collusion by associations to protect and prevent the over-use of common pool resources be exempt from the broad language of.
Antitrust Does Google have monopoly power? Microsoft? On what? Why? Why Not? Is that bad? Why? Can you name monopolies in other industries? Is Monopoly.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Scenario 1: Basic Facts Year: 1893 Location: Cleveland, Ohio Two major cement contractors – Smith and Jones.
Copyright © 2009 South-Western Legal Studies in Business, a part of South-Western Cengage Learning. CHAPTER 22 Regulating the Competitive Environment.
© 2007 by West Legal Studies in Business / A Division of Thomson Learning CHAPTER 20 Promoting Competition.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake National Society of Prof. Engineers v. U.S. (1978) Base Facts: National Association of Engineers precluded.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Verizon v. Law Office of Curtis Tinker (2004) Basic Facts: Tinker, New York lawyer and AT&T customer, sued.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake The Big Powerful “Innocent” Oligopoly The situation: 1.Market has few players, all successful. A “Shared.
Chapter 47 Antitrust Law McGraw-Hill/Irwin Copyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Brooke Group LTD v Williamson Tobacco (1993) Basic Facts: For 18 months, Brown Williams Tobacco (B&W) wages.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin©2007 by the McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved. 11 Antitrust Law-Monopolies And Mergers.
Antitrust Policy and Regulation ECO 2023 Chapter 18 Fall 2007.
19 McGraw-Hill/IrwinCopyright © 2012 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.. Antitrust Policy and Regulation.
Antitrust Law—Restraints
Chapter Key Points Identify the goals of antitrust laws Understand the analysis of monopolization Identify both the potential benefits and harms of mergers.
Antitrust. “Is there not a causal connection between the development of these huge, indomitable trusts and the horrible crimes now under investigation?
© 2008 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 BUSINESS LAW TODAY Essentials 8 th Ed. Roger LeRoy Miller - Institute for University.
 “Market power” is the power of company to control the market for its product.  The law does allow for market monopolies when a patent is issued. During.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake National Society of Prof. Engineers v. U.S. (1978) Base Facts: National Association of Engineers precluded.
1 Regulating the Competitive Environment Chapter 22 © 2005 Thomson/West Legal Studies In Business.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake United States v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co (1956) Basic Facts: During period , Dupont controlled.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Verizon v. Law Office of Curtis Tinker (2004) Basic Facts: Tinker, New York lawyer and AT&T customer, sued.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Jefferson Parish Hospital Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde (Sup. Ct. 1984) Basic Facts: Exclusive contract between hospital.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Cartel Per Se Analytical Process Suspect category (price, boycott, market division)? Rule of Reason - Market.
Trade Practices Common law –Covenant not to compete –Must be reasonable –Society demands laws against predatory business practices Legislation –Laws are.
Chapter 20 Antitrust and Regulation of Competition Copyright © 2015 McGraw-Hill Education. All rights reserved. No reproduction or distribution without.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Patent Pooling What is patent pooling? When is patent pooling anticompetitive? Can others be excluded from.
© 2013 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake United States v. AT&T (D.D.C. 1981) What products did Western Electric provide Bell Operating Companies?
What is a monopoly? What is market power? How do these concepts relate to each other? What is a monopoly? What is market power? How do these concepts.
Chapter 46 Antitrust Laws and Unfair Trade Practices
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. (1911) Basic Facts: Dr. Miles sold medicines through 400.
Business Law and the Regulation of Business Chapter 43: Antitrust By Richard A. Mann & Barry S. Roberts.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Key Words: Cartel: A combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to gain market.
Chapter 23 Antitrust Law and Unfair Trade Practices.
Monopoly and Antitrust Policy. Imperfect Competition and Market Power An imperfectly competitive industry is an industry in which single firms have some.
Advising Business Owners Instructor: Dwight Drake Purchase Sales Agreement -Reps and warranties -Covenants -Indemnifications -Due Diligence -Executive.
Ch THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT OF BUSINESS A Critical Thinking Approach Fourth Edition Nancy K. Kubasek Bartley A. Brennan M. Neil Browne Nancy K. Kubasek.
© 2005 West Legal Studies in Business, a division of Thompson Learning. All Rights Reserved.1 PowerPoint Slides to Accompany The Legal, Ethical, and International.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning 1 Chapter 26 Antitrust and Monopoly.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Key Words: Cartel: A combination of independent commercial or industrial enterprises designed to gain market.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake FTC v. Superior Ct. Trial Lawyers Assoc. (1990) Base Facts: Boycott by D.C. trial lawyers who demanded higher.
Copyright © 2008 by West Legal Studies in Business A Division of Thomson Learning Chapter 5 Government Regulation of Competition and Prices Twomey Jennings.
1 Chapter 13 Practice Quiz Tutorial Antitrust and Regulation ©2000 South-Western College Publishing.
© 2004 West Legal Studies in Business, a Division of Thomson Learning 20.1 Chapter 20 Antitrust Law.
McGraw-Hill/Irwin Chapter 8: Pure Monopoly Copyright © 2010 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.
49-1 Copyright © 2013 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. All rights reserved.McGraw-Hill/Irwin.
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Boeing/McDonnell Douglas Merger (1997) What was Boeing’s and McDonnell’s market shares? Was McDonnell failing.
CHAPTER 42: ANTITRUST LAW
Chapter 37 Antitrust Law.
Chapter 22 Promoting Competition.
Chapter 27: Antitrust and Monopoly
PowerPoint Slides to Accompany ESSENTIALS OF BUSINESS AND ONLINE COMMERCE LAW 1st Edition by Henry R. Cheeseman Chapter 21 Antitrust Law Slides developed.
Customized by Professor Ludlum December 1, 2016
The University of Chicago
Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake
2017 AFL-CIO LCC Union Lawyers Conference
Essentials of the legal environment today, 5e
Market Structure.
Antitrust Law and Unfair Trade Practices
Enforcing Competition: the United States Antitrust Laws
Presentation transcript:

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act of 1982 (FTAIA) General Rule: Sherman 1-7 not apply to “conduct involving trade or commerce (other than import trade or import commerce) with foreign nations. Exception: Two prongs: 1. Conduct has “direct, substantial, reasonable foreseeable effect”on non- foreign trade or commerce, import trade or commerce, or export commerce of a person engaged in such commerce in U.S., and 2. Such “effect” gives rise to claim under Sherman 1 – 7.

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Empagran S.A. v. F Hoffman-LaRoche,LTD (D.C. Cir 2003) Basic Facts: Ds, manufactures of vitamins, conspired to fix vitamin prices around the world. Ps were foreign purchasers of vitamins. Ps claim was based on theory that FTAIA exclusion not apply. Two arguments: General FTAIA rule not apply because limited to exports – not here. Even if apply, the domestic effects exception apply because both prongs of test satisfied. D.C. Circuit Holding: Where anticompetitive conduct has requisite effect on US, foreigners who are injured solely by conduct’s effect on foreign commerce (independent of US injury) may sue under US antitrust. - Legislative history supports broader reading. - Broader reading creates greater deterrence against global conspiracies. - Foreign Ps direct victims so have standing. Query: What position did DOJ and FTC take? Why?

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake Empagran S.A. v. F Hoffman-LaRoche,LTD (Sup. Ct 2004) Cite: 124 S.Ct.2359 Holding: Vacated D.C. Cir. holding. General FTAIA rule not limited to exports. Second prong of domestic “effects” exception not satisfied if foreign injury independent of domestic injury. Remanded for independence determination. - FTAIA purpose to exempt activities from antitrust laws to extent only impact foreign markets. - Court construes ambiguities against unreasonable interference with sovereign authority of other nations. Not reasonable to apply US law to foreign parties who are injured in foreign lands. Undermine laws of other lands. - Intent and legislative history not support broader reading. Policy arguments support narrower interpretation.

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (“Alcoa”) (1945) Tough issues on market definition: - Alcoa produced ingot and sheet produced from ingot, and sold ingot to others that produced sheet in competition with Alcoa. - If in-house captive ingot production excluded, ingot market share 60%. If included, 90%. Court included because Alcoa controlled how ingot used. - Should secondary ingot refabricated from junk be factored into market share? Court said no because Alcoa could impact recycling flows. - Should off-shore ingot be factored in. Court held only portion that excluded tariffs and other barriers. Bottom Line: Justice Hand analytically determined Alcoa had 90% market share of ingot and showed monopoly power. Two step analytical process: 1. Define relevant market 2. Evaluate power within relevant market.

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (“Alcoa”) (1945) More from Hand: 1.Size itself isn’t unlawful if monopoly thrust on a party. “The successful competitor must not be turned on when he wins”. 2.Alcoa used its size to build and strengthen monopoly. 3.Section 2 requires both power to monopolize and “intent”, but no “monopolist monopolizes unconscious of what he is doing”. 4.Unlawful practice of using power to raise ingot prices while squeezing sheet prices not part of unlawful monopoly reasoning. Separate offense.

Law Antitrust - Instructor: Dwight Drake United States v. Aluminum Co. of America (“Alcoa”) (1945) Why did district court not bust up Alcoa? -Strong aluminum industry vital to national security. -Strength requires size and economies of scale. -Government had sold its aluminum facilities to Reynolds and Kaiser so there were new competitors. -Dividing vertically integrated company may do more harm than good – inefficiencies, management, less research, etc. - Court ended Alcoa’s control of its Canadian sub. This, with government sales, did the job of creating competitive market.