Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Who Should Recover What For Late Trading And Market Timing?, Richard A. Booth
Who Should Recover What For Late Trading And Market Timing?, Richard A. Booth
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Rankings, Reductionism, And Responsibility, Frank Pasquale
Rankings, Reductionism, And Responsibility, Frank Pasquale
Faculty Scholarship
After discussing how search engines operate, and sketching a normative basis for regulation of the rankings they generate, this piece proposes some minor, non-intrusive legal remedies for those who claim that they are harmed by search engine results. Such harms include unwanted (but high-ranking) results relating to them, or exclusion from high-ranking results they claim they are due to appear on. In the first case (deemed inclusion harm), I propose a right not to suppress the results, but merely to add an asterisk to the hyperlink directing web users to them, which would lead to the complainant's own comment on …
State Action Antitrust Exemption Collides With Deregulation: Rehabilitating The Foreseeability Doctrine, Elizabeth Trujillo
State Action Antitrust Exemption Collides With Deregulation: Rehabilitating The Foreseeability Doctrine, Elizabeth Trujillo
Faculty Scholarship
The state action antitrust exemption, also known as the state action immunity doctrine, is used by antitrust defendants to shield themselves against antitrust liability in instances where their anticompetitive conduct, if not under the aegis of state policy, would have been deemed a violation of federal antitrust law. Under the Midcal test, a court may grant state action immunity to a defendant if it is proven that the alleged anticompetitive conduct is pursuant to a clearly-articulated state policy and has been actively supervised by the state.
This paper evaluates the role, function, and definition of the state action exemption in …
Atomism And The Private Merger Challenge, Paul Stancil
Atomism And The Private Merger Challenge, Paul Stancil
Faculty Scholarship
This Article explores the implications of allowing private parties to challenge mergers and acquisitions under the antitrust laws. It highlights a number of relatively recent developments in antitrust law that suggest an increase in private merger challenges in the future, and it identifies antiquated time of suit doctrines that may lead to inefficient and/or frivolous antimerger filings. It concludes by proposing several significant changes to the existing legal regime: (1) limited fee-shifting; (2) rigid time-of-suit deadlines; (3) single damages; and (4) limits on the use of postacquisition evidence to establish liability. Taken together, these reforms will allow private parties to …
Antitrust And The Supremacy Clause , Richard Squire
Antitrust And The Supremacy Clause , Richard Squire
Faculty Scholarship
In the course of damning the market giant Standard Oil, the Supreme Court declared that the purpose of the Sherman Antitrust Act is to prevent "monopoly and the acts which produce the same result as monopoly." The Constitution's Supremacy Clause, in turn, requires preemption-that is, non-enforcement--of state laws that conflict with a federal statute. Put together, these propositions suggest that state laws which create monopolies should be prime candidates for preemption via the Sherman Act. But despite the syllogistic logic bearing down on them, monopoly-creating state laws have easily weathered most federal antitrust challenges, even when the state does not …