Case & regulation updateBy Kavita PuriMarch 2009Recent updates of interest to antitrust & unfair competition practitioners.
Chair’s commentBy Jennifer M. DixtonDecember 2009I look forward to an exciting new year for the Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law Section and it is with great pleasure that I serve as this year’s Chair of the Section Council.
Chair’s CommentBy Mildred L. CalhounJune 2009A note from Section Chair Millie Calhoun.
Chair’s CommentBy Mildred L. CalhounMarch 2009A message from Section Chair Millie Calhoun.
Chair’s CommentBy Mildred L. CalhounJanuary 2009A message from Section Chair Millie Calhoun.
China’s Antimonopoly Law: The first 100 daysBy Ying DengJanuary 2009An overview of the six civil cases filed in China's People's Courts and China’s planning for antitrust civil litigation. A short background section provides some of the history of AML and its basic functions.
Consumer standing in Walker Process fraud casesBy Jamie ManningJanuary 2009Whether consumers have standing to bring Walker Processclaims is an open question in the federal courts that could soon lead to a circuit split.
Editor’s noteBy Karen SewellDecember 2009This quarter’s issue includes an analysis of Canada’s recent, significant amendments to its Competition Act, which introduced a per se criminal conspiracy offense, revised Canada’s merger review process and decriminalized resale price maintenance.
Editor’s noteBy Karen SewellJune 2009An introduction to the issue from editor Karen Sewell.
Editor’s noteBy Karen SewellMarch 2009An introduction to the issue from editor Karen Sewell.
Editor’s noteBy Karen SewellJanuary 2009An introduction to the issue from editor Karen Sewell.
FTC/DOJ propose changes to the 1992 Horizontal Merger GuidelinesDecember 2009The Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice plan to determine whether the Horizontal Merger Guidelines should be updated to reflect the legal and economical developments since the 1992 Guidelines took effect.
Review of Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkline Comm., Inc.By Jamie ManningJune 2009In Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkline Communications, Inc., the Supreme Court ruled that a plaintiff cannot bring a valid price squeeze claim where the defendant has no antitrust duty to deal with its competitors.