Law Commons^™

A Neo-Chicago Perspective On Antitrust Institutions, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

It has long been fashionable to categorize antitrust by its "schools." From the Sherman Act's passage to World War II, there were (at least) neo-classical marginalism, populism, progressivism, associationalism, business commonwealthism, and Brandeisianism. From World War II to the present, we have seen (at least, and without counting the European Ordo-Liberals) PaleoHarvard structuralism, the Chicago School, Neo-Harvard institutionalism, and Post -Chicagoans. So why not Neo-Chicago? I am already on record as suggesting the possible emergence of such a school, so it is too late for me to dismiss the entire "schools" conversation as window-dressing. This Symposium is dedicated to defining …

Reflections On Section 5 Of The Ftc Act And The Ftc's Case Against Intel, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

The Federal Trade Commission’s (“FTC’s”) unprecedented enforcement action against Intel raises profound issues concerning the scope of the FTC’s powers to give a construction to Section 5 of the FTC Act that goes beyond the substantive reach of the Sherman Act. While I have urged the FTC to assert such independence from the Sherman Act, this is the wrong case to make a break. Indeed, if anything, Intel poses a risk of seriously setting back the development of an independent Section 5 power by provoking a hostile appellate court to rebuke the FTC’s effort and cabin the FTC’s powers in …

Linkline's Institutional Suspicions, Daniel A. Crane

Articles

Antitrust scholars are having fun again. Not so long ago, they were the poor, redheaded stepchildren of the legal academy, either pining for the older days of rigorous antitrust enforcement or trying to kill off what was left of the enterprise. Other law professors felt sorry for them, ignored them, or both. But now antitrust is making a comeback of sorts. In one heady week in May of 2009, a front-page story in the New York Times reported the dramatic decision of Christine Varney-the Obama Administration's new Antitrust Division head at the Department of Justice-to jettison the entire report on …

Absolute Priority And New Value, James J. White

Articles

This paper is based on a lecture given on December 6, 1990 ast the Second Annual Robert E. Krinock Lecture. The absolute priority rule is a specific application of the broader doctrine that reorganization plans must be "fair and equitable." Both have their origins in the railroad reorganization cases of the early 20th century. The general doctrine is now codified in section 1129(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code and the rule is codified in subsection 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) which provides that the debtor must pay a nonconsenting class of unsecured creditors in full or "the holder of any claim or interest that is …

Divestiture Of Illegally Held Assets: Observations On Its Scope, Objective, And Limitations, William T. Kerr

Michigan Law Review

"Divestiture has been called the most important of antitrust remedies. It is simple, relatively easy to administer, and sure." This observation was made with reference to an order requiring divestiture of illegally held stock. In the context of the divestiture of illegally held assets, however, the statement is an oversimplification of myriad complex problems. This Comment will examine the difficulties encountered in eliminating the anticompetitive effects of a fully consummated merger found to have violated section 7 of the Clayton Act. No attempt will be made to assess the substantive doctrine upon which the violation in any instance was based, …

Federal Trade Commission Proceedings And Section 5 Of The Clayton Act: Application And Implications, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

Although the primary responsibility for the enforcement of the antitrust laws falls upon governmental agencies, Congress has recognized the effectiveness of the private suit for damages as a deterrent and has sought to encourage such actions by providing for the recovery of treble damages by an injured party. To assist the private litigant, whose problem of proof is formidable, Congress enacted section 5(a) of the Clayton Act, which allows the introduction, as prima facie evidence of an antitrust violation, of a prior judgment or decree obtained by the Government. As a further aid to private litigants, section 5(b) provides for …

Ftc V. Jantzen: Blessing, Disaster, Or Tempest In A Teapot?, Thomas E. Kauper

Michigan Law Review

The court concluded that the Finality Act, by repealing the existing provisions for judicial enforcement proceedings in the courts of appeals, deprived it of jurisdiction to act upon the FTC's petition. It also approved earlier decisions holding that the Finality Act procedures were not applicable to orders issued prior to the act's effective date. These two rulings, in combination, indicate that there is no enforcement machinery now applicable to orders issued under the Clayton Act prior to July 23, 1959.

The question remains, however, whether enforcement of the Clayton Act has really been hampered, and, if so, whether the pre- …