Law Commons^™

State Action And The Meaning Of Agreement Under Sherman Act: An Approach To Hybrid Restraints, John E. Lopatka, William H. Page

UF Law Faculty Publications

Antitrust observers are familiar with the two-part Midcal test for the immunity of state regulation from federal antitrust laws: the state must clearly articulate its policy to displace competition and must "actively supervise" any private conduct pursuant to the policy. But state action need not meet these requirements if it is "unilateral" and therefore does not conflict with Section 1. Only if a state-authorized restraint is "hybrid," combining state and private action in a way that resembles aprohibited agreement, need the restraint satisfy Midcal.

In this article, John Lopatka and Bill Page examine the history andcurrent importance of the …

Goldwasser, The Telecom Act, And Reflections On Antitrust Remedies, Philip J. Weiser

Publications

No abstract provided.

The Ftaia And Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Foreign Transactions Under The Antitrust Laws: The New Frontier In Antitrust Litigation, Edward D. Cavanagh

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

The aggressive antitrust enforcement activities by the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division against international cartels in the last decade, coupled with the increasingly global character of commercial markets, have spawned significant private antitrust treble damages litigation in American courts by foreign plaintiffs. Not surprisingly, the jurisdictional reach of the Sherman Act has been a threshold issue in these cases. While jurisdictional questions are not new to American courts, this latest round of antitrust cases has posed novel issues of subject matter jurisdiction, including the extent to which foreign plaintiffs claiming antitrust damages based on foreign transactions may …