Standards of Extraterritoriality of US Antitrust Law: Applying the US Supreme Court’s Analysis in RJR Nabisco to Foreign Component Cartels

Author(s):  
SEONUK PARK
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Ariel Ezrachi

‘The legal framework’ outlines the key competition provisions currently in the US and EU. Like in most other jurisdictions, EU and US laws include competition provisions that are used to address antitrust violations such as anti-competitive agreements or abuse of monopoly power. They also include laws dealing with proposed mergers and acquisitions. The US Antitrust Law prohibits contracts and agreements between two or more individuals or entities in restraint of trade or commerce. Meanwhile, EU competition law prohibits agreements between ‘undertakings’ that have, as their object or effect, the prevention, restriction, or distortion of competition, and affect trade between the EU member states.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas G. Wollmann

Prospective merger review is the most frequent application of antitrust law. It exempts transactions on the basis of size, though small deals can have large anticompetitive effects in segmented industries. I examine its impact on antitrust enforcement and merger activity in the context of an abrupt increase in the US exemption threshold. I find that among newly-exempt deals, antitrust investigations fall to almost zero while mergers between competitors rise sharply. Effectively all of the rise reflects an endogenous response of firms to reduced premerger scrutiny, consistent with large deterrent effects of antitrust enforcement. (JEL G34, G38, K21, L41)


2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-91
Author(s):  
J.W. Han ◽  
C. Buts ◽  
T. Joris
Keyword(s):  
The Us ◽  

2020 ◽  
pp. 98-110
Author(s):  
Ivana Rakic

The aim of this article is to provide a short overview and analysis of the US antitrust law. Section 2 of the Sherman Act stipulates that it is unlawful to monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations. The article presents case law that reflects the evolution of monopolization standards and provides some interpretations of undertakings’ behavior that can be defined as monopolization. US practice shows that monopolization standards have changed several times, in accordance with the need to increasingly consider economic efficiencies and the consequences of making wrong decisions, which may lead to reduced innovation and other behaviors of undertakings that increase economic efficiency and improve competition, which is a type I error.


Author(s):  
Angela Huyue Zhang

This chapter demonstrates the close interdependence between the regulatory moves of the United States and those of China. Against the backdrop of the bitter Sino-US tech war, it applies game theory analysis of cooperation and conflict to examine the role of antitrust in China’s tit-for-tat strategy against the aggressive US sanctions. The US executive branch has wide discretion in prosecuting foreign businesses and individuals and has strategically used such legal discretion as an instrument of trade and foreign policy against China. China has retaliated in kind by invoking a number of regulatory measures. In particular, the Chinese antitrust authority has flexed its muscles by holding up large mergers between foreign multinationals, amending its antitrust law to allow for high monetary fines and potential criminal liabilities, and threatening to impose heavy sanctions on firms that boycott or refuse to supply key components to Chinese technology companies. As a result, the line between national security and antitrust policy, once belonging to separate spheres, has become increasingly blurred amid growing Sino-US tensions. However, similar to other countries that have applied countermeasures against US sanctions law, China faces significant economic constraints in weaponizing its antitrust law against US businesses.


2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 181-184
Author(s):  
Amy Garrigues

On September 15, 2003, the US. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit held that agreements between pharmaceutical and generic companies not to compete are not per se unlawful if these agreements do not expand the existing exclusionary right of a patent. The Valley DrugCo.v.Geneva Pharmaceuticals decision emphasizes that the nature of a patent gives the patent holder exclusive rights, and if an agreement merely confirms that exclusivity, then it is not per se unlawful. With this holding, the appeals court reversed the decision of the trial court, which held that agreements under which competitors are paid to stay out of the market are per se violations of the antitrust laws. An examination of the Valley Drugtrial and appeals court decisions sheds light on the two sides of an emerging legal debate concerning the validity of pay-not-to-compete agreements, and more broadly, on the appropriate balance between the seemingly competing interests of patent and antitrust laws.


Author(s):  
Ioannis Kokkoris ◽  
Rodrigo Olivares-Caminal

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document