Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Fixing "Litigating The Fix", Steven C. Salop, Jennifer E. Sturiale
Fixing "Litigating The Fix", Steven C. Salop, Jennifer E. Sturiale
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Merging firms have increasingly been asking trial courts to adjudicate their merger “as remedied” by a voluntary “fix.” These are remedies that have been rejected by (or never proposed to) the agency. This procedure is known as Litigating-the-Fix” (“LTF”). This article proposes a judicial procedure for managing cases in which the merging parties attempt to LTF. Our recommendations flow from a decision theory approach informed by the relevant LTF case law, the merger enforcement record, the language and goals of Section 7, and an economic analysis of the incentives of the parties and agencies created by LTF. Our recommendation addresses …
Asymmetric Stakes In Antitrust Litigation, Erik Hovenkamp, Steven C. Salop
Asymmetric Stakes In Antitrust Litigation, Erik Hovenkamp, Steven C. Salop
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Private antitrust litigation often involves a dominant firm being accused of exclusionary conduct by a smaller rival or entrant. Importantly, the firms in such cases generally have asymmetric stakes: the defendant typically has a much larger financial interest on the line. We explore the broad policy implications of this fact using a novel model of litigation with endogenous effort. Asymmetric stakes lead dominant defendants to invest systematically more resources into litigation, causing the plaintiff's success probability to fall below the efficient level--a distortion that carries over to ex ante settlements. We explain that enhanced damages may reduce the problem, but …
Merger Settlement And Enforcement Policy For Optimal Deterrence And Maximum Welfare, Steven C. Salop
Merger Settlement And Enforcement Policy For Optimal Deterrence And Maximum Welfare, Steven C. Salop
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Merger enforcement today relies on settlements more than litigation to resolve anti-competitive concerns. The impact of settlement policy on welfare and the proper goals of settlement policy are highly controversial. Some argue that gun-shy agencies settle for too little while others argue that agencies use their power to delay to extract over-reaching settlement terms, even when mergers are not welfare-reducing. This article uses decision theory to throw light on this controversy. The goal of this article is to formulate and analyze agency merger enforcement and settlement commitment policies in the face of imperfect information, litigation costs, and delay risks by …