Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law

The newsletter of the ISBA’s Section on Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law

2012 Articles

Chair’s comment By Karen Sewell August 2012 A message from Section Chair Karen Sewell.
Chair’s comment By Jamie Manning March 2012 Learn more about the Section's plans to make membership more valuable.
Editor’s comment By Kate O’Súilleabháin March 2012 An introduction to the issue from Editor Kate Ó Súilleabháin.
Editor’s comments By Kate O’Súilleabháin August 2012 An introduction to the issue from Editor Kate Ó Súilleabháin.
Focus on exclusionary conduct—Recent U.S. antitrust enforcement actions against refusals to deal with customers or suppliers By Lauren N. Norris March 2012 In re Pool Corp. and other recent actions by the United States’ antitrust enforcement agencies have placed an increased focus on conduct by companies with large market shares that forecloses rivals, or potential rivals, from the market by refusing to deal, or incentivizing customers or suppliers to stop dealing, with a rival.
FTC’s recent administrative complaint In the Matter of Omnicare, Inc., PharMerica merger demonstrates continued significance of traditional market structure analysis By Richard R. Falek & Ralph V. Pantony, III August 2012 The Omnicare complaint demonstrates that the FTC may use the most persuasive—and not necessarily the most current—theories to make their case.
Latin America starts to sharpen its competition laws By Francisco Ribeiro Todorov, Tulio Freitas do Egito Coelho, Adriana Franco Giannini, Raymundo Enriquez, Reynaldo Vizcarra, & Luis Amado Cordova March 2012 The new Brazilian and Mexican laws passed this year exemplify Latin America's desire to reform anti-competitive conduct in the region.
News roundup March 2012 Recent updates of interest to antitrust & unfair competition attorneys.
Piercing the FTAIA’s veil after Minn-Chem By Amit Bindra August 2012 The Seventh Circuit’s decision in Minn-Chem Inc. v. Agrium Inc. offers several implications for antitrust practitioners.
Recent developments in litigation on “pay-for-delay” settlements By Kate O’Súilleabháin August 2012 On July 16, a unanimous panel for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that any payment by a pharmaceutical company owning a patent to a generics drug manufacturer who agrees to delay entry into the market is prima facie evidence of an antitrust violation.