Civil Law Commons^™

Antitrust Civil Process Act-Requirements For A Civil Investigative Demand, Mary Mandana Long

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner sought an order from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota modifying or setting aside a Civil Investigative Demand served upon it by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice. The demand was issued pursuant to the Antitrust Civil Process Act, which provides a compulsory pre-complaint procedure through which the Department of Justice may obtain documentary information upon which it can make a determination of whether there has occurred a violation of the antitrust laws. Section 1312(b) of the act requires that the demand state the nature of the conduct constituting the alleged violation, recite …

Antitrust-Clayton Act-Admissibilty Of Criminal Conviction Entered On A Plea Of Guilty As Prima Facie Evidence In Civil Suit For Treble Damage, Arthur M. Sherwood

Michigan Law Review

In a civil action for treble damages under section 4 of the Clayton Act, the plaintiff sought to allege as prima facie evidence of a Sherman Act violation a criminal conviction entered on a plea of guilty by the defendant in an earlier prosecution by the government. The trial court sustained a motion by the defendant to strike from plaintiff's complaint any reference to the criminal prosecution. On appeal, held, reversed, one judge dissenting. A judgment entered on a plea of guilty is not a consent judgment within the meaning of the proviso to section 5(a) of the Clayton …

The Civil Investigative Demand: New Fact-Finding Powers For The Antitrust Division, Richard L. Perry, William Simon

Michigan Law Review

The complexity, scope and length of modem antitrust litigation bring to prominence the procedures by which evidence - particularly documentary evidence - is discovered and placed before the courts and administrative agencies. Fact-finding mechanisms now available for ferreting out and prosecuting violations make up an imposing array. These include the grand jury subpoena, the discovery provisions of the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure and the subpoena and visitorial powers of certain administrative agencies. The "civil investigative demand," a precomplaint compulsory process, is a new weapon proposed to be added to this arsenal. Few dispute the desirability of new …

Regulation Of Business-Civil Actions Under Section 3 Of The Robinson-Patman Act, Richard E. Day S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

In Nashville Milk Co. v. Carnation Co. plaintiff sought to recover treble damages and asked injunctive relief, claiming defendant had sold filled milk at unreasonably low prices for the purpose of destroying competition by plaintiff in its sale of a like product in violation of section 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. In affirming an order dismissing the complaint, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that a private action may not be maintained for a violation of section 3 of the Robinson-Patman Act. That very same week, the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reached a contrary …

Antitrust Administration And Enforcement, John T. Chadwell

Michigan Law Review

The importance of the nation's antitrust policy requires that administration and enforcement powers and techniques be equal to the huge task of effectively safeguarding competition. The recommendations of the Attorney General's Committee represent a statesmanlike effort to balance the need for effective enforcement with the need for the preservation of fairness and the conservation of time and resources in antitrust litigation. Some of the recommendations will undoubtedly engender heated controversy; others seem relatively uncontroversial.

Many individual topics are dealt with in the Report of the committee and space does not permit comment upon all of them. The following discussion is …

Corporations - Shareholders - Right To Bring Derivative Action For Treble Damages Under Antitrust Laws, William K. Davenport S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff, owner of 50 percent of the stock in a theater corporation, brought a derivative action in federal court for treble damages for loss of profits allegedly suffered from defendant's violation of the antitrust laws. The district court sustained defendant's motion to dismiss. On appeal to the court of appeals, held, reversed and remanded. Under the new federal rules, a stockholder may bring a derivative action for treble damages under the antitrust laws. Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., (2d Cir. 1953) 202 F. (2d) 731.