Law Commons^™

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- …