Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Antitrust and Trade Regulation Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Conscious Parallelism And The Sherman Act: An Analysis And A Proposal, D. J. Simonetti
Conscious Parallelism And The Sherman Act: An Analysis And A Proposal, D. J. Simonetti
Vanderbilt Law Review
This Note will examine the problem posed by conscious parallelism from an economic and legal perspective, review the current proposals of Professors Donald F. Turner and Richard A. Posner, the two leading commentators on the subject, and suggest an alternative method of dealing with conscious parallelism... Specifically, this Note proposes that the extended Alcoa doctrine be implemented under section 2 by providing that the existence of conscious parallelism among the largest firms in a highly concentrated industry shall constitute prima facie evidence of a conspiracy to monopolize. Conspiracy to monopolize under section is distinguishable from and independent of conspiracy to …
Antitrust Consequences Of United States Corporate Payments To Foreign Officials, James F. Rill, Richard L. Frank
Antitrust Consequences Of United States Corporate Payments To Foreign Officials, James F. Rill, Richard L. Frank
Vanderbilt Law Review
This Article examines the feasibility and desirability of marshalling section 2(c)' of the Clayton Act as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act and sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act against a practice having deep legal, political, and emotional significance in the United States and overseas. Difficult questions of jurisdiction and coverage are presented, as are major issues of public policy on what the role, if any, should be for these provisions.
Du Pont General Motors Case, James A. Hart
Du Pont General Motors Case, James A. Hart
Vanderbilt Law Review
On June 3, 1957, the United States Supreme Court, in a four to two decision, held that the du Pont Company's ownership of twenty-three per cent of the voting stock of General Motors had tended to create a monopoly in a line of commerce and thus violated section 71 of the Clayton Act. Justice Brennan wrote the majority opinion and Justice Burton, joined by Justice Frankfurter filed a vigorous dissent. Three of the Justices, Clark, Harlan and Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Hence, a possibility remains that the present Court, with all nine …