MENU

Corporate Governance/Dissolution

'New' Antitrust Enforcement Authority under the FTC Act: Defensible Statutory Interpretation or Plumbing the Penumbras? - Event Audio/Video

2013 National Lawyers Convention
David Balto, Thomas O. Barnett, F. Scott Kieff, Maureen K. Ohlhausen, J. Thomas Rosch, Stephen F. Williams November 20, 2013

'New' Antitrust Enforcement Authority under the FTC Act: Defensible Statutory Interpretation or Plumbing the Penumbras? - Event Audio/VideoIs the antitrust enforcement authority of the Federal Trade Commission, proceeding under the FTC Act, broader than that of other litigants – whether private plaintiffs or the Department of Justice – proceeding under the Sherman Act?  Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce” – language which some have interpreted as equivalent in scope with parallel provisions of the Sherman Act.  As recent Supreme Court decisions have appeared to narrow the scope of the Sherman Act, however, the FTC has moved in the opposite direction.  In addition to the Valassis and U-Haul “invitation to collude” cases (a cause of action not recognized under the Sherman Act), the FTC has pursued so-called “Sherman Act plus” antitrust actions against N-Data and Intel.  Is this seeming divergence between FTC Act and Sherman Act enforcement authority legally defensible?  What are its broader policy implications?

The Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group hosted this panel on "'New' Antitrust Enforcement Authority under the FTC Act" on Thursday, November 14, during the 2013 National Lawyers Convention.

Corporations: 'New' Antitrust Enforcement Authority under the FTC Act: Defensible Statutory Interpretation or Plumbing the Penumbras?
12:00 p.m. – 2:00 p.m.

East Room

  • Mr. David A. Balto, David A. Balto Law Offices; Program Fellow, Health Policy Program, New America Foundation
  • Mr. Thomas O. Barnett, Partner, Covington & Burling LLP
  • Hon. F. Scott Kieff, Commissioner, U.S. International Trade Commission
  • Hon. Maureen, K. Ohlhausen, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission
  • Mr. J. Thomas Rosch, Of Counsel, Latham & Watkins LLP
  • Moderator: Hon. Stephen F. Williams, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

[Watch or listen now!]

Achieving Meaningful Civil Justice Reform: Is the Defense Bar a Problem?

Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 1, Issue 2, Spring 1997
Ralph K. Winter May 07, 2009
Today's luncheon program is titled, "Meaningful Change in our Civil Justice System: Is the Defense Bar a Problem?" It turns out that, not having seen the title, I nevertheless began with the line "meaningful change in our civil justice system will not be easily accomplished." One reason for this has to do with the incentives of the bar and the shaping of that system. Those desiring reform tend to view the plaintiffs bar and control of bar associations by ideologues as the principal source of opposition to reform.

Antitrust Enforcement and Price Squeeze - Event Audio/Video

The Future of Business Law in Mexico
Luis Felipe Lucatero Govea, George L. Priest, J. Gregory Sidak, Carlos T. Bea November 02, 2011

The Future of Business Law in MexicoWith Cofeco due to issue its final opinion in its recent action against Telcel, this panel will discuss whether the Ley Federal de Competencia Económica (LFCE – Mexico’s Federal Economic Competition Law) can or should be read to include a price-squeeze cause of action, the ramifications of adopting a price-squeeze theory of liability, and the impact of such a decision on businesses and consumers.  The panel will also examine how antitrust enforcement in Mexico compares with other countries – what factors should or must be considered as Mexico moves forward?  How should Mexico consider consumer interests? This panel was held during The Future of Business Law in Mexico conference on October 20, 2011. Speakers included Mr. Luis Felipe Lucatero Govea, Head of the Unit for Prospective Analysis and Regulation at Mexico's Federal Commission of Telecommunications; Prof. George L. Priest of Yale Law School; Prof. J. Gregory Sidak, Chairman and Founder of Criterion Economics, LLC; and JudgeCarlos T. Bea of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit as the moderator.

Charitable Giving Maximizes Shareholder Value

Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group Newsletter - Volume 3, Issue 1, Spring 1999
Douglas L. Foshee May 06, 2009
I would like to state at the outset of my comments this afternoon that I believe charitable contributions are a part of our corporate purpose. My company, Nuevo Energy, is headquartered in Houston, which is the energy capital of the world. We draw on and depend on the resources of that community every day. I feel that we have an obligation to give back in order to maintain the vitality of what, for at least our industry, is by far the largest labor market in the world.