The Antitrust Counselor: Robinson Patman after Reeder-SimcoBy Mildred L. CalhounDecember 2005The 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.
Case summariesDecember 2005The Plaintiff Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) issued complaints against two music distributors and their affiliates alleging that they had agreed to cease advertising certain recordings of The Three Tenors in violation of § 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. § 45.
Editors’ notesDecember 2005On Monday, October 31, the Supreme Court heard argument in Volvo Trucks North America v. Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. Section member Mildred L. Calhoun discusses the “quagmire that the Eighth Circuit’s opinion creates for counselors” and suggests there is reason to hope that the Supreme Court may help to resolve the dilemma created by the Eighth Circuit’s decision, even if it is unlikely to address the broader public policy issues created by the Robinson-Patman Act.
Editor’s notesApril 2005This issue leads off with a look at developments in the area of merger enforcement actions in light of two recent federal court decisions: Federal Trade Commission v. Arch Coal, Inc. and United States v. Oracle Corp.
Merger enforcement after Arch CoalBy Mildred L. CalhounApril 2005This issue leads off with a look at developments in the area of merger enforcement actions in light of two recent federal court decisions: Federal Trade Commission v. Arch Coal, Inc. and United States v. Oracle Corp.
Oracle beats the government’s Section 7 caseBy John L. ConlonApril 2005The Department of Justice's Antitrust Division and 10 states (collectively, the "government") lost in their effort to have Oracle Corporation enjoined from acquiring PeopleSoft, Inc. because such an acquisition allegedly would violate §7 of the Clayton Act. U.S. v. Oracle Corp., 331 F. Supp. 2d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2004).
“Probation” programs to enforce retail price maintenaceBy Blake L. HarropDecember 2005Many years ago in Phillips v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., the district court found that a supplier had coerced its dealers into agreeing to charge minimum resale prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.