Law Commons^™

Antitrust’S State Action Doctrine And The Ordinary Powers Of Corporations, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

The Supreme Court has now agreed to review the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Phoebe-Putney, which held that a state statute permitting a hospital authority to acquire hospitals implicitly authorized such acquisitions when they were anticompetitive – in this particular case very likely facilitating a merger to monopoly. Under antitrust law’s “state action” doctrine a state may in fact authorize such an acquisition, provided that it “clearly articulates” its desire to approve an action that would otherwise constitute an antitrust violation and also “actively supervises” any private conduct that might fall under the state’s regulatory scheme.

“Authorization” in the context of …

Dispute Resolution As A Part Of Your Merger Or Your Acquisition Agreement, Kenneth Mathieu, Vincent (Trace) P. Schmeltz Iii

Michigan Business & Entrepreneurial Law Review

Often overlooked until invoked, the dispute resolution provisions of an acquisition agreement frequently mirror the terms of a lawyer’s last deal. Yet such provisions—including purchase price adjustment clauses, the terms of governing earn-out disputes, and the contract sections outlining the indemnification claims process—often have long-term economic ramifications on the buyers and sellers. In working with corporate lawyers over the years, we have noted that corporate lawyers understand (and give intense thought to) the leverage their clients have, what their clients hope to accomplish in a transaction, and what makes long-term economic sense in drafting an agreement and negotiating more advantageous …

Markets In Merger Analysis, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

Antitrust merger policy suffers from a disconnect between its articulated concerns and the methodologies it employs. The Supreme Court has largely abandoned the field of horizontal merger analysis, leaving us with ancient decisions that have never been overruled but whose fundamental approach has been ignored or discredited. As a result the case law reflects the structuralism of a bygone era, focusing on industrial concentration and market shares, largely to the exclusion of other measures of competitive harm, including price increases. Only within the last generation has econometrics developed useful techniques for estimating the price impact of specific mergers in differentiated …

Standard Oil And U.S. Steel: Predation And Collusion In The Law Of Monopolization And Mergers, William H. Page

UF Law Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court’s 1911 decision in Standard Oil gave us embryonic versions of two foundational standards of liability under the Sherman Act: the rule of reason under Section 1 and the monopoly power/exclusionary conduct test under Section 2. But a case filed later in 1911, United States v. United States Steel Corporation, shaped the understanding of Standard Oil’s standards of liability for decades. U.S. Steel, eventually decided by the Supreme Court in 1920, upheld the 1901 merger that created "the Corporation," as U.S. Steel was known. The majority found that the efforts of the Corporation and its …