Antitrust

This Note explains the significance of market definition in a merger between competitors, also known as a horizontal merger. It discusses how the antitrust agencies and the courts analyze a relevant product and geographic market in a horizontal merger under the 2010 Horizontal Merger Guidelines. It provides practical advice on how to define relevant markets and sets out how to use market definition to further analyze the potential effects of a horizontal merger. 

This Practice Note discusses the antitrust agencies' enforcement actions against transacting parties engaging in conduct before closing that violates the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act and other antitrust laws, known as gun-jumping. Gun-jumping violations include the transfer of beneficial ownership of the assets or equity to be acquired before closing as well as other illegal pre-closing conduct.

This Note discusses the threshold requirement that private plaintiffs have antitrust standing to sue for violations of the antitrust laws. In particular, this Note explains the test for antitrust injury and other factors used to determine whether a private individual or entity is an appropriate plaintiff to sue for damages or injunctive relief under the Clayton Act.

This Note discusses the regulatory and antitrust aspects of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) in the banking industry.  It analyzes the various statutes covering bank M&A transactions and the regulatory agencies responsible for approving them.  It includes a full discussion of the factors taken into consideration (including anti-competitive and other banking-specific factors) when applying for approval of a bank M&A transaction.

A Practice Note discussing transactions that are not reportable under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act. Merger enforcement of consummated deals continues to increase but it is difficult to focus clients on antitrust risks of deals that are not reportable under the HSR Act. This Note offers both client management suggestions and strategies for dealing with non-HSR reportable transactions.

This Practice Note provides an overview of the legislation and policies relevant to criminal antitrust enforcement in the US, and discusses practical issues facing a company that discovers it is the potential target of a criminal investigation. Among other things, the Note addresses the potential criminal penalties for antitrust violations, and outlines the Department of Justice Antitrust Division's leniency program, by which companies and individuals can receive amnesty from criminal prosecution by reporting illegal antitrust activity and cooperating with the government's investigation.

This Note outlines the course of antitrust investigations conducted by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission before they start enforcement proceedings.

This Practice Note covers exclusive dealing arrangements between manufacturers or suppliers and distributors, retailers and end users. It discusses the applicability of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 3 of the Clayton Act and Section 5 of the FTC Act to exclusive dealing.  This Note also discusses partial exclusive dealing arrangements and offers counseling tips on exclusive dealing.

This Practice Note discusses violations of the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act through use of transaction structures or other devices to avoid the HSR Act, called Rule 801.90 violations.  

This Note discusses the exemptions available to transacting parties under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act and regulations. Some exemptions are specific to the type of acquisition (such as voting securities, assets or non-corporate interests), while others are generally applicable to all types of transactions.

This Note discusses Item 5 of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act Notification and Report Form (HSR form), including the scope of Items 5(a) and 5(b) and how to complete each item. It also discusses how to update Item 5. Item 5 is the most common deficiency in HSR forms, likely because of its complexity.

A compilation of the Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office's (PNO) informal staff opinions since 2011 relating to Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Form Item 4(d).

A compilation of the Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office's informal staff interpretations since 2011 relating to Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Rule 801.1(d)(2), updated quarterly.

A compilation of the Federal Trade Commission Premerger Notification Office's (PNO) informal staff interpretations since 2011 relating to Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Rule 802.21, updated quarterly.

A compilation of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Premerger Notification Office's (PNO) informal staff opinions since 2011 relating to Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Rule 801.10 on valuing the size-of-transaction, updated quarterly.

This note provides guidance on how to conduct an analysis of market concentration using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index and briefly explains its application.

An outline of the US Department of Justice's leniency program for antitrust violations. Under this program, companies and individuals can receive amnesty from criminal prosecution of antitrust offenses by reporting illegal activity and cooperating with the government's investigation.  

This Practice Note surveys the relevant antitrust statutes and recent enforcement actions involving most favored nation clauses (MFNs).  It also offers practical tips for counsel analyzing an MFN under the antitrust laws.

This Practice Note explains how to prepare Items 6 and 7 of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act Notification and Report Form on behalf of a buyer who must report a transaction under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act. This Note should be used only by buyers who have associates, as defined by the HSR rules.

This Practice Note explains how to prepare a Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR Act) Notification and Report Form (HSR form) on behalf of a seller who must report a transaction under the HSR Act.

Customers, competitors and other third parties opposed to a potential transaction in their industry can take proactive steps to challenge the transaction, such as encouraging the investigating federal antitrust agency to block it, filing a private civil suit or even lobbying Congress.

The European Commission has power under the EU Merger Regulation to vet major cross-border mergers and acquisitions, and to prohibit them when they are incompatible with the internal market. This Practice note considers the scope and application of the Merger Regulation in relation to mergers and acquisitions. (Joint ventures are considered separately in the Practice note, EUJoint ventures).

This Practice Note discusses the application of US antitrust law to vertical price-related agreements between a supplier and its customers. It considers the law governing minimum and maximum resale price maintenance and provides practical guidance for avoiding unnecessary antitrust risks in implementing vertical price-related arrangements.

A discussion of employee provisions in consent decrees settling federal antitrust investigations of mergers and acquisitions. This article includes links to PLC What's Market summaries of recent federal merger consent decrees.

These hypothetical questions and answers may be used to train employees and executives as part of an antitrust compliance program. This Standard Document has integrated notes that explain the answers to each hypothetical question. The drafting notes also distinguish situations where the facts given may violate a company's antitrust compliance policy even though they may not directly violate the antitrust law. This Standard Document provides hypotheticals that concern US antitrust law only and, in particular, dealings with competitors under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

This sample request list (in memorandum form) includes the main items of information needed to prepare the most recent version of the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) form. This Standard Document has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips. The drafting notes distinguish between information required from buyers and sellers and offer suggestions to counsel for preparing the HSR form. This Standard Document should be used for deals involving associates, as defined by the HSR rules, which is often the case in transactions involving an acquisition by a private equity fund or master limited partnership.

Under the Robinson-Patman Act, a seller is prohibited from discriminating in price among competing buyers.  A meeting competition form can provide evidence that the seller attempted to legally verify a competitor's lower price if it is ever subject to a price discrimination claim.  This Standard Document should be used by a sales person who has been asked for a discounted price from a customer.

Federal and state antitrust law can diverge on the legality of minimum resale price maintenance (RPM) agreements. To avoid that conflict, a supplier may issue a resale price policy (also known as a Colgate policy), that unilaterally sets out the minimum resale price for the supplier's products. This sample policy includes drafting notes offering drafting and implementation tips for suppliers to avoid entering into potentially anticompetitive agreements with their resellers. 

This sample notice letter should be used by a buyer making a premerger filing under the HSR Act in a non-negotiated transaction set out under HSR Rule 801.30. This Standard Document has integrated drafting notes with important explanations and drafting tips.

This transaction description may be used by counsel preparing Item 3(a) of the Hart-Scott-Rodino form on behalf of a buyer or seller. This Item 3(a) has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips.

This Standard Clause may be used in a purchase or merger agreement when a buyer and seller wish to define the efforts each will take to cooperate in determining antitrust strategy and to obtain antitrust approval. This Standard Clause has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting and negotiating tips.

This Standard Clause may be used when a seller wants the buyer to provide a representation that no filing is required under the HSR Act's size-of-transaction test. This Standard Clause has integrated notes with important explanations and drafting tips.

This Standard Clause may be used in a purchase or merger agreement when a buyer wishes to limit its obligation to make divestitures in a transaction that may be subject to an enforcement action by an antitrust regulator. This Standard Clause has integrated drafting notes with important explanations and drafting and negotiating tips.

A Checklist of warnings and instructions for competitors involved in a merger, acquisition or joint venture to avoid pre-closing activity that violates the antitrust laws (often referred to as gun-jumping). In particular, this Checklist provides suggestions for counseling clients on information exchanges and integration planning before the deal closes.

A checklist for antitrust attorneys to use when counseling on a horizontal merger with potential anticompetitive effects in the US.

A Checklist of suggestions for creating 4(c) and 4(d) documents to avoid raising unnecessary antitrust concerns during the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) process.

This flowchart sets out how the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA) applies to potential Sherman Act claims. 

A Checklist of the general steps a company should take before, during and after a raid by US government authorities in connection with an antitrust investigation.

This Chart sets out the appropriate measure of a defendant's cost used in each US Circuit Court to analyze a monopolization claim for predatory pricing under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

This Chart provides a comprehensive list of the states that have rejected the Illinois Brick doctrine and the corresponding case law or statute. 

A checklist to use when valuing a transaction for Hart-Scott-Rodino Act purposes.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in Brazil. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As, which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in the EU. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As, which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in Hong Kong. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As, which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in Norway. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel Leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in Switzerland. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel Leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in the Ukraine. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As, which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. 

A Q&A guide to competition law in Austria. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. For a full list of recommended competition law firms and lawyers in Austria, please visit PLC Which lawyer? To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of Competition jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in China. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in France. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Greece. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Israel. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Norway. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in South Korea. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Switzerland. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in the UK (England and Wales). The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Australia. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Bulgaria. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Cyprus. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Germany. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Japan. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in South Korea. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Turkey. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in the Ukraine. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

This table is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of contents visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. Please note this project is currently being updated so will not include all available jurisdictions in this subject area.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Indonesia. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Norway. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in Taiwan. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As, which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in Argentina. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As, which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in Turkey. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As, which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

This tool enables subscribers to search the Country Q&A in the PLC Cartel leniency multi-jurisdictional guide by question and jurisdiction. Simply select the questions and the jurisdictions that you are interested in and click the "submit" button. Please note that the law stated dates for each jurisdiction covered may not be the same. To check the law stated dates for each jurisdiction, please visit the individual article. Please also note this project is currently being updated so the Q&A tool will not include all available jurisdictions in this subject area.

Following substantial amendments to Canada's Competition Act in 2009, the Competition Bureau has undertaken a varied programme of development and revision with a view to updating and improving its framework for merger review. This chapter considers three key aspects of the Bureau's merger modernisation initiative, undertaken throughout 2011: procedural revisions, amended substantive guidance, and renewed enforcement activity. This article is part of the PLC Competition and Cartel Leniency multi-jurisdictional guide. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in Canada. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, whether immunity from civil fines is available for individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As, which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in France. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As, which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in Mexico. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in South Africa. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As, which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to cartel leniency law in Spain. The Q&A gives a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities. In particular, it covers the conditions to be satisfied, the method of making an application, availability of immunity from civil fines to individuals, the scope of leniency, circumstances when leniency may be withdrawn, leniency plus, confidentiality and disclosure, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Cartel leniency Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As, which provide a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Argentina. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Canada. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in the EU. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in India. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Mexico. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in the Russian Federation. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A Q&A guide to competition law in Spain. The Q&A gives a high level overview of merger control, restrictive agreements and practices, monopolies and abuse of market power, and joint ventures. In particular, it covers relevant triggering events and thresholds, notification requirements, procedures and timetables, third party claims, exclusions and exemptions, penalties for breach, and proposals for reform. To compare answers across multiple jurisdictions visit the Competition law Country Q&A tool. This Q&A is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition and cartel leniency. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As, which provide a succinct overview of leniency and immunity, the applicable procedure and the regulatory authorities in multiple jurisdictions, visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

China's influence on global mergers and acquisitions is steadily increasing. The introduction of the Anti-Monopoly Law on 1 August 2008 heralded a new era for merger control enforcement in the country. The article below provides an overview of merger review decisions made in China since the Anti-Monopoly Law took effect, and highlights (with case studies where relevant) some of the key issues that parties to a transaction need to consider when concluding an international deal. This article is part of the PLC Competition and Cartel Leniency multi-jurisdictional guide. For a full list of jurisdictional Competition Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg. For a full list of jurisdictional Cartel Leniency Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/leniency-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Brazil. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in the Czech Republic. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Finland. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Israel. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Mexico. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in the Russian Federation. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Spain. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in the United States. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competition-mjg.

This tool enables subscribers to search the Country Q&A in the PLC Competition multi-jurisdictional guide by question and jurisdiction. Simply select the questions and the jurisdictions that you are interested in and click the "submit" button. Please note that the law stated dates for each jurisdiction covered may not be the same. To check the law stated dates for each jurisdiction, please visit the individual article. Please also note this project is currently being updated so the Q&A tool will not include all available jurisdictions in this subject area.

This chapter is part of the PLC multi-jurisdictional guide to competition. On 14 December 2010 the European Commission (Commission) published its revised Guidelines on the applicability of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to horizontal co-operation agreements (OJ 2011 C11/01) (EU Guidelines). This chapter covers the underlying approach; Focus area A: information exchange; Focus area B: co-marketing and co-selling; other areas of interest; and key areas of convergence and divergence. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competitionhandbook.

A flowchart providing an overview of the merger control notification process. This flowchart is part of the Q&A guide to competition law in Belgium. For a full list of jurisdictional Q&As visit www.practicallaw.com/competitionhandbook.

This article provides an overview of the Brazilian merger control process, outlines Brazilian practitioners' key criticisms of the system and examines the key merger control aspects of the competition reform bill currently pending approval by the Brazilian Congress.

Article 102 of the TFEU (formerly Article 82 of the EC Treaty) prohibits abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within a market in the EU or a substantial part of the EU. There have been recent important developments in Article 102 enforcement, in particular, demonstrating the European Commission's (Commission) move towards an approach based more on the effect of market practices rather than their form. This resulted in the Commission issuing Guidance on the Commission's enforcement priorities in applying Article 102 to abusive exclusionary conduct by dominant undertakings (Guidance), published on 3 December 2008. This article reviews recent developments in the application of Article 102 in the context of the Guidance, and goes on to consider areas not covered by the Guidance. Against this background, the article considers: Dominance. Exclusionary abuses: general framework of the Guidance. Status of the Guidance. Exclusive dealing and rebates (Intel). Tying and bundling. Predation (France Télécom). Refusal to supply and margin squeeze. Areas not covered by the Guidance:  For example:    discrimination (Clearstream); exploitative abuses: DSD and patent licensing cases;  other abuses: EC pharmaceutical inquiry.   Remedies.  

This article reviews Canada's new regime, in comparison to the cartel regimes of the UK, the US and Australia, including: Conduct subject to criminal penalties. Penalties for criminal cartel activity. Criminal versus civil prohibitions. Possible defences and exemptions to criminal prosecution. Reducing exposure to criminal penalties.

This chapter examines: Some of the major challenges that confront multi-jurisdictional filings. How best to manoeuvre around potential pitfalls to get approvals done in an efficient and timely manner

An outline of the principal US anti-trust statutes and regulatory structure.This article is part of the PLC US Special Report, which was published to mark the launch of PLC's first US services.

This chapter considers the main instruments used for implementation of the merger control regime in the EU, and includes an overview of non-horizontal merger guidelines, recent significant European Commission decisions, recent judgments of the Court of First Instance and the European Court of Justice, and the future of merger proceedings.

This chapter gives an update on the latest important developments in European state aid control.

This chapter examines some of the major challenges of making multi-jurisdictional merger control filings and how best to ensure approvals are done in an efficient and timely manner.

This chapter considers recent developments in cartel prosecution in the US and the EU, including attempts to deter cartels, the current status of leniency programmes and developments in the area of private anti-trust litigation.

A list of federal merger enforcement action summaries recently published by PLC What's Market. PLC What's Market provides a continuously updated database of federal merger enforcement action summaries that allows you to analyze and compare key issues like market definitions, HHIs, theories of competitive harm and remedies across multiple enforcement actions.  All summaries contain links to the underlying public documents.

Chief Administrative Law Judge Chappell recently issued his initial decision in the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) case against McWane, Inc.

A list of federal merger enforcement action summaries recently published by PLC What's Market. PLC What's Market provides a continuously updated database of federal merger enforcement action summaries that allows you to analyze and compare key issues like market definitions, HHIs, theories of competitive harm and remedies across multiple enforcement actions.  All summaries contain links to the underlying public documents.

A list of federal merger enforcement action summaries recently published by PLC What's Market. PLC What's Market provides a continuously updated database of federal merger enforcement action summaries that allows you to analyze and compare key issues like market definitions, HHIs, theories of competitive harm and remedies across multiple enforcement actions.  All summaries contain links to the underlying public documents.

Kansas Governor Brownback recently signed into law Senate Bill 124, reversing the State's position on resale price maintenance (RPM) agreements. 

Assistant Attorney General Bill Baer recently announced changes to the Department of Justice's (DOJ) position on employee carve outs in corporate plea agreements.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently settled with Bosley, Inc. over charges that Bosley illegally exchanged competitively sensitive information with its rival, Hair Club, Inc.

The Department of Justice (DOJ), State of Michigan and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBSM) recently filed a joint motion to dismiss their antitrust suit without prejudice regarding most-favored-nation (MFN) clauses in the Eastern District of Michigan.

On February 19, 2013, the US Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit's decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Phoebe Putney Health System, Inc.

The DOJ announced that it filed a complaint objecting to Bazaarvoice, Inc.'s $168.2 million acquisition of PowerReviews, Inc.

The Federal Trade Commission recently announced a settlement with IDEXX Laboratories, Inc. that prohibits IDEXX from maintaining concurrent exclusive dealing agreements with certain distributors.

In Auraria Student Housing at the Regency, LLC v. Campus Village Apartments, LLC, the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, joining an existing circuit split, held that the denial of Parker immunity, also known as state action immunity, is not immediately appealable by private parties in antitrust actions.

The US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in United States v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (BCBS) ordered the government to share a portion of non-party expenses in connection with producing documents for the DOJ's antitrust case against BCBS.

In Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corp, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a district court decision finding that a direct purchaser is not categorically excluded from bringing a Walker Process antitrust claim even if the direct purchaser does not have standing for declaratory relief against the patentee under patent law.  

The FTC recently finalized changes to Parts 2 and 4 of its Rules of Practice. 

The Federal Trade Commission recently announced a settlement with Biglari Holdings, Inc. in connection with Biglari's June 2011 acquisitions of Cracker Barrel Old Country Store, Inc.'s voting stock. Biglari has agreed to pay an $850,000 penalty for its failure to file a Hart-Scott-Rodino form before making these acquisitions. 

The Department of Justice (DOJ) simultaneously filed a complaint and proposed settlement regarding certain commercial agreements between Verizon and four leading cable companies, including agreements to sell each others products and to enter into an exclusive research and development joint venture. The DOJ's objections concerned potential decreased competition in the video and broadband services markets as well as competition for the future development and innovation of wireless services.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently withdrew its 2003 Policy Statement on Monetary Equitable Remedies in Competition Cases.  The FTC reasoned that the policy statement unduly restricted the use of monetary remedies like disgorgement and restitution in competition cases and that following case precedent instead allows for greater flexibility.

In a recent decision, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals expanded the scope of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA). The ruling makes it easier for plaintiffs to survive a motion to dismiss when making a Sherman Act claim against foreign conduct by defendants.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently proposed limiting the ways that holders of standard-essential patents (SEPs) can protect their rights in those patents.  In a recent filing made with the International Trade Commission, the FTC advised against granting SEP holders injunctive relief against infringers because of the potential anticompetitve effects that might result, including higher consumer prices and reduced interoperability.

In O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc., the Kansas Supreme Court held that minimum resale price maintenance (RPM) is per se illegal under Kansas state antitrust law, departing 180 degrees from federal antitrust law. Kansas is the latest state to refuse to follow the 2007 US Supreme Court ruling in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, which overturned the nearly century-old rule that RPM agreements are per se, or automatic, violations of the federal antitrust laws.

The DOJ announced that an executive agreed to plead guilty to obstruction of justice charges related to submitting falsified documents to the DOJ and the FTC during the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger review process. The executive agreed to serve five months in prison.

The Premerger Notification Office (PNO) of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently published a tip sheet interpreting Item 4(c) of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger Notification and Report Form.  The tip sheet provides rare definitive guidance on some controversial Item 4(c) issues.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently released their annual reports and highlights on antitrust enforcement activity for fiscal year 2011.

Sharis Pozen, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division, recently spoke about the DOJ's enforcement priorities in the healthcare sector. In particular, the DOJ continues to focus efforts on the health insurance and healthcare provider markets, scrutinizing potentially anticompetitive mergers as well as exclusionary and collusive conduct.  In addition, Acting AAG Pozen set out some of the processes and theories that the DOJ uses to analyze competition issues in the healthcare sector.

The Federal Trade Commission and Western Digital Corporation agreed to settle the FTC's antitrust investigation of Western Digital's proposed acquisition of rival Hitachi Global Storage Technologies Ltd. The proposed consent decree requires Western Digital to sell certain assets used to manufacture and sell desktop hard drives.

The FTC announced revised thresholds under the Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act.  These thresholds determine whether an HSR filing is necessary.  Also announced were revisions to the thresholds under Section 8 of the Clayton Act that trigger a violation for interlocking directorates. 

On 21 November 2011, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced an agreement containing consent order to cease and desist, reached with Pool Corporation (PoolCorp), in connection with the FTC's investigation into alleged anti-competitive conduct by PoolCorp in the market for the distribution of residential and commercial swimming pool products.

On 5 October 2011, Judge Robert L. Wilkins of the US District Court for the District of Columbia approved the settlement that Google Inc. reached with the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in July 2011 over its acquisition of flight information software company ITA Software, Inc (ITA). To ensure ongoing competition among airfare comparison and booking websites, Google agreed to license flight information software to competitors, arbitrate disputes over licenses, establish an internal firewall, and continue to fund research and development for the software. The settlement will be in effect for five years.

On 15 August 2011, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Automated Teller Machine (ATM) manufacturer Nautilus Hyosung Holdings (NHH), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Korea-based Nautilus Hyosung Inc. (NHI), agreed to plead guilty to obstruction of justice charges for submitting false documents in a merger investigation.  Additionally, NHH agreed to pay US$100,00 per count, for a total of US$200,000, in criminal fines.

An update on the FTC's and the DOJ Antitrust Division's revisions to the Premerger Notification Rules and Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Form.

On 31 March 2011, Christine Varney, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the US Department of Justice's Antitrust Division (DOJ) and Jon Leibowitz, Chairman of the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), together with Felipe Irarrazabal, Chile's National Economic Prosecutor signed an Agreement on Antitrust Cooperation between the US and Chilean antitrust agencies.  The agreement will enable the antitrust agencies in the US and Chile to improve their law enforcement relationship, providing for co-operation and co-ordination, conflict avoidance and confidentiality between the two countries. 

On 25 February 2011, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it had reached a settlement with United Regional Health Care System (United Regional) of Wichita Falls, Texas. If approved by the court, the settlement will resolve a civil antitrust lawsuit alleging a violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act brought by the DOJ Antitrust Division and the State of Texas. The lawsuit alleged that the hospital used its monopoly power to inhibit commercial health insurers from contracting with competing health-care providers.

The US District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that direct and indirect purchasers' class claims for damages arising from an alleged illegal price-fixing conspiracy by static random access memory manufacturers (SRAM) meet the domestic exception test of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (FTAIA). 

On 27 December 2010, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed its opening arguments in the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in an appeal against a District Court ruling that dismissed the FTC's challenge of Lundbeck, Inc's acquisition of the only two drugs used to treat a certain heart condition in premature babies. The FTC is arguing that the lower court had incorrectly determined that the acquisition did not violate antitrust law. Specifically, the FTC contests the lower court's determination that the two drugs were not in the same product market.  

On 7 December 2010, in In re Grand Jury Subpoenas, the Ninth Circuit ruled that the US Department of Justice (DOJ) can subpoena non-privileged documents that originated outside of the country, but were sent to law firms within the United States because of civil discovery. In connection with the civil litigation, the defendants produced documents that originated outside of the United States to the law firms representing them, whereby the documents came to be located within the United States and, according to the Ninth Circuit, within the jurisdiction of the DOJ.

On 18 November 2010, Special Master Hon. Charles A. Legge issued a Report and Recommendation Regarding Discovery Motions (Report and Recommendation) to Hon. Samuel Conti, the judge presiding over In Re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation pending in the Northern District of California. The Report and Recommendation stated that  the defendants' motion to compel the class action plaintiffs to respond to various discovery requests regarding the factual basis for their allegations of conspiracy regarding finished products containing cathode ray tubes, before substantial discovery regarding such allegations could commence, be granted

In Ginsburg v. InBev NV/SA, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the Eastern District of Missouri's grant of judgment on the pleadings dismissing indirect purchasers' claims that the acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by In Bev NV/SA threatens to reduce competition and increase beer prices in the United States in violation of section 7 of the Clayton Act. The Eighth Circuit held that divestiture, the only equitable relief to which plaintiffs would be entitled, would not be appropriate as a matter of law.

On 4 October 2010, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil lawsuit against American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (American Express), MasterCard International Incorporated (MasterCard) and Visa Inc. (Visa) alleging that the companies' rules that prevent merchants from offering consumers discounts, rewards and information about card costs violate section 1 of the Sherman Act in the US markets for general purpose card network services and general purpose card network services for merchants in travel and entertainment. On the same day, the DOJ filed a proposed settlement with MasterCard and Visa that would require them to allow merchants to offer discounts, incentives, and information to consumers to encourage the use of other general purpose cards.

In Princo Corp. v International Trade Commission and U.S. Philips Corp., the Federal Circuit, sitting en banc, was presented with the question of whether an agreement between two collaborators to suppress a competitive technology would constitute patent misuse and so render the patent unenforceable during the period of misuse.  The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, "recognising the narrow scope of the [patent misuse] doctrine", found that an agreement did not constitute patent misuse. In the view of the dissent, this decision "emasculate[d] the doctrine so that it will not provide a meaningful obstacle to patent enforcement".

An update on the revised Horizontal Merger Guidelines.

On 4 August 2010, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it has reached a settlement with Intel Corp relating to FTC charges that Intel violated section 5 of the FTC Act by illegally stifling competition in the market for computer chips by engaging in a course of conduct over a 10-year period for the purpose of, and having the effect of, stalling the widespread adoption of competitors' products.  The proposed consent order provides structural relief designed to restore the competition lost as a result of Intel's past conduct, as well as injunctive relief preventing Intel from engaging in future unfair methods of competition.

On 9 June 2010, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it has reached a settlement with U-Haul International, Inc. (U-Haul) and its parent company, AMERCO, to resolve FTC charges that U-Haul invited its closest competitor, Avis Budget Group, Inc. (Budget) to collude on prices for truck rentals. 

On 24 May 2010, the US Supreme Court, in a unanimous 9-0 decision, denied the National Football League (NFL) broad protection from liability arising from intellectual property licensing which may violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act.  The NFL has long sought immunity from Section 1 of the Sherman Act liability by claiming that it and its 32 teams are a "single entity" incapable of conspiring.  The Supreme Court held that the NFL is not a single entity but rather 32 separate team businesses for purposes of licensing intellectual property, and, therefore, its licensing activities constitute concerted action that is not categorically beyond the coverage of Section 1.  The case was remanded for further examination of the allegations made by the plaintiff ,American Needle, Inc.,  to determine if the restraint of trade is unreasonable and therefore illegal.

An update on the adoption by the International Competition Network of "Recommended Practices" for substantive merger analysis by antitrust regulators.

On 27 April 2010, US Supreme Court (Supreme Court) reversed the decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Second Circuit) which had allowed plaintiff AnimalFeeds International Corp. (AnimalFeeds) to pursue arbitration on behalf of the proposed class of direct purchasers against several shipping companies over alleged price-fixing of parcel tanker shipping services.  In Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v AnimalFeeds International Corp., the Supreme Court held that imposing class arbitration on parties without their consent conflicts with the central principle of the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) that arbitration requires the consent of the parties.

In US Horticultural Supply Inc. v. Scotts Co., the Third Circuit affirmed an order granting summary judgment to The Scotts Company in a suit under Section 1 of the Sherman Act brought by its former distributor, US Horticultural Supply. The Court found that US Horticultural Supply had failed to establish the relevant competitive market.  The Third Circuit required evidence of product interchangeability and cross-elasticity of demand to prove the relevant product market and evidence of buyer behaviour to prove the relevant geographic markets. 

On 8 March 2010, Chief Administrative Law Judge D. Michael Chappell announced that Polypore International Inc. (Polypore) violated US federal antitrust laws when it consummated its acquisition of rival battery separator manufacturer Microporous L.P. (Microporous) in February 2008.  Polypore must divest Microporous to a buyer approved by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) within six months after the divestiture provisions of Judge Chappell's Order become final.  Polypore was also found to have illegally divided up the markets for specific types of battery separators in North America through a 2001 joint marketing agreement with potential rival Hollingsworth & Vose (H&V).

On 4 February 2010, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a second "statement of interest" regarding the proposed amended class action settlement agreement between Google Inc. and the Authors Guild, Inc.  The DOJ recognised that the amended settlement between Google Inc. and the Authors Guild, Inc. addressed several of the antitrust concerns previously voiced by the DOJ. However, the DOJ continues to have concerns about the potential anti-competitive effects of the settlement.

An update on the FTC's revised thresholds for premerger notification and filing fees under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 and for the prohibition of interlocking directorates under Section 8 of the Clayton Act.

On 7 January 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its decision in Feesers, Inc. v. Michael Foods, Inc. and Sodexho, Inc., finding that Feesers, a food distributor, could not satisfy the competitive injury requirement for price discrimination under section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act.  The Third Circuit vacated the district court's judgment that Feesers had successfully proved unlawful price discrimination under section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act. 

On 25 September 2009, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed an amicus brief with the United States Supreme Court urging that it vacate the circuit court's decision in American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League and remand the case to the circuit court for additional analysis. The agencies' brief contends that Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which found for the National Football League (NFL), did not apply the correct legal standard to determine whether the conduct of the sports league constituted concerted action under the antitrust laws.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has dismissed claims that Abbott Laboratories violated section 2 of the Sherman Act by leveraging a monopoly for one pharmaceutical product to attempt to monopolise the market for a second pharmaceutical product. The Court held that the plaintiffs' allegations did not state a claim under section 2 the Sherman Act because the plaintiffs did not allege either any exclusionary practices in the primary market in which Abbott purportedly held a monopoly or below-cost pricing in the secondary market.

On 11 June 2009, United States District Judge Richard W. Story sentenced a former Home Depot, Inc. employee to over six years in federal prison on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and filing false tax returns as part of an illegal vendor-kickback scheme.

On 19 May 2009, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued an order denying a motion by direct purchaser plaintiffs to compel a corporate defendant that had previously applied for antitrust amnesty with the US Department of Justice to disclose its identity and co-operate with the plaintiffs in civil litigation.

On 6 March 2009, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (BMS) will pay US$2.1 million - the maximum civil penalty allowed by law - for failing to disclose certain oral representations it made during the course of patent litigation settlement negotiations with Apotex, Inc. (Apotex) regarding potential generic competition for the BMS drug Plavix. In particular, BMS failed to inform regulators that it had orally indicated that it would not compete with Apotex for the first 180 days after Apotex began marketing a generic version of Plavix.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois has issued a decision examining whether two competing insurance companies had improperly exchanged certain competitively sensitive information during merger negotiations.

On 2 February 2009, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it filed a complaint in the US District Court for the Central District of California alleging that four drug companies violated US federal antitrust laws by providing and accepting monetary payments in exchange for delayed entry of generic versions of a branded medication, AndroGel. The complaint requests that the court enjoin the parties from enforcing these agreements and from engaging in similar conduct in the future.

On 18 December 2008, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a civil lawsuit in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that the acquisition of assets of Semicoa Inc. (Semicoa) by Microsemi Corporation (Microsemi) in July 2008 violated federal US antitrust laws.

On 8 December 2008, Whole Foods Market, Inc. (Whole Foods) filed a complaint in the District Court of the District of Columbia alleging that the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) administrative efforts to challenge Whole Foods' acquisition of Wild Oats Market, Inc. (Wild Oats) violate Whole Foods' due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

On 20 October 2008, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that it had filed a lawsuit in the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking to block the proposed acquisition of National Beef Packing Company LLC by JBS S.A. According to the DOJ, the proposed transaction would substantially lessen competition in violation of US federal antitrust laws and lead to higher prices for USDA-graded boxed beef and lower prices paid to feedlots and other cattle producers.

On 15 September 2008, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that it would challenge a manufacturing, distribution, and supply agreement between Fresenius Medical Care Ag & Co. KGaA (Fresenius) and Daiichi Sankyo Company, Ltd. (Daiichi), alleging that the proposed transaction would violate US federal antitrust laws in the market for the manufacture, distribution, and sale of intravenously-administered iron sucrose. To settle charges that the agreement was anti-competitive, the FTC issued a proposed consent order limiting Fresenius's ability to increase the intra-company transfer price of Venofer, which otherwise allegedly would have increased Medicare reimbursement rates paid to dialysis clinics in the United States

On 29 July 2008, the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit reversed a decision by the US District Court for the District of Columbia denying the Federal Trade Commission's (FTC) request for a preliminary injunction to block Whole Foods Market, Inc.'s (Whole Foods) acquisition of Wild Oats Markets, Inc. (Wild Oats). In a 2-to-1 decision that included both a concurrence and a dissent, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court erroneously rejected the FTC's market definition of "premium, natural, and organic supermarkets". As a result, the District Court mistakenly concluded that the FTC did not show a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court so that it could balance the equities for and against the injunction, and if necessary, determine the appropriate remedy.

On 17 June 2008, the US DOJ announced that The Home City Ice Company plead guilty to allocating packaged-ice customers and territories in the Detroit metropolitan area and southeastern Michigan. As part of the plea agreement, Home City Ice will co-operate with the DOJ in its ongoing investigation into the packaged-ice industry. The plea is the first to result from the DOJ´s investigation into the packaged-ice industry.

On 9 May 2008, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it had issued an administrative complaint seeking to block Inova Health System Foundation´s (Inova) purchase of Prince William Health System (PWHS), alleging that the combination of the two hospital systems would violate federal antitrust laws.

The US District Court for the Northern District of California has dismissed several claims asserted by a South Korean firm against Flexsys and Azko Nobel alleging a conspiracy to restrain trade, foreclose markets, allocate customers, reduce supply, and monopolise trade. The district court held, among other things, that Korea Kumho Petrochemical Company (KKPC) failed to allege facts sufficient to demonstrate antitrust injury.

The US District Court for the Southern District of New York has dismissed with prejudice antitrust claims brought by a purported class of short sellers against major financial brokers after finding "clear incompatibility" between US federal antitrust laws and securities laws. The case was brought on behalf of short sellers alleging a price-fixing conspiracy by the defendant brokers that led to artificially inflated borrowing and other related fees in connection with short sale transactions. The court reached its decision after applying the four-factor test established in the recent 2007 US Supreme Court case, Credit Suisse v Billing.

On 14 January 2008, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed an appeal in the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reverse the District Court's decision and enjoin Whole Foods Market's (Whole Foods) from further closing or rebranding Wild Oats Markets (Wild Oats) stores pending an administrative trial on the merits. The FTC's filing comes after the US District Court for the District of Columbia denied its motion for a preliminary injunction to block Whole Foods' purchase of Wild Oats on 16 August 2007. The parties announced that they closed the transaction on 28 August 2007.