Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914

Lowey Dannenberg P.C. and Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP Announce Proposed Class Action Settlements If You Transacted in CBOT Wheat Futures or Options From At Least February 1, 2015 Through May 15, 2015

Retrieved on: 
Monday, January 23, 2023
Sherman, Central Time, KS, Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, Episcopal conference, Person, Clerk, CEA, Defendant, Settlement, COVID-19, Behavior, District court, Class, Independent agencies of the United States government, Cascade, Tax, National Incentive Award (KVS), Plaintiff, Parent, Hearing, Family, Commodity Exchange Act, Notice, Action, Tobacco, Insurance, Road transport, Court, Stipulation

Subject to certain exceptions, the proposed Settlement Class consists of all Persons and entities that transacted in CBOT Wheat Futures or Options from at least February 1, 2015 through May 15, 2015 (the "Class Period").

Key Points: 
  • Subject to certain exceptions, the proposed Settlement Class consists of all Persons and entities that transacted in CBOT Wheat Futures or Options from at least February 1, 2015 through May 15, 2015 (the "Class Period").
  • Plaintiffs allege that Defendants conspired to and successfully manipulated the prices of CBOT Wheat Futures or Options during the Class Period by falsely signaling demand for physical wheat, which caused the prices of CBOT Wheat Futures or Options to be artificial.
  • If you do not want to take part in the proposed Settlements, you must opt out by April 10, 2023.
  • For more information, call toll-free 1-877-234-6578 (if calling from outside the United States or Canada, call 1-414-961-6543) or visit www.2015CBOTWheatFuturesClassActionSettlement.com .

FTC Announces 2023 Update of Size of Transaction Thresholds for Premerger Notification Filings and Interlocking Directorates

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, January 26, 2023
ACT, News, Social media, Labour, Commission, Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, Processor register, Federal Trade Commission, Clayton, Omnibus spending bill, Federal Register, Department, File, Blog, New York State Department of Labor, HSR, Federal, Section 8, FTC, FEE, Health insurance, Pet, Fine chemical

Section 7A(a)(2) of the act requires the Commission to revise the jurisdictional thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product.

Key Points: 
  • Section 7A(a)(2) of the act requires the Commission to revise the jurisdictional thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product.
  • The FTC revises the filing fees annually based on the change in the U.S. consumer price index.
  • The 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act requires the FTC to revise the HSR filing fee thresholds.
  • For the latest news and resources, follow the FTC on social media, subscribe to press releases and read our blog.

FTC Announces 2023 Update of Size of Transaction Thresholds for Premerger Notification Filings and Interlocking Directorates

Retrieved on: 
Thursday, January 26, 2023
ACT, News, Social media, Labour, Commission, Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, Processor register, Federal Trade Commission, Clayton, Omnibus spending bill, Federal Register, Department, File, Blog, New York State Department of Labor, HSR, Federal, Section 8, FTC, FEE, Health insurance, Pet, Fine chemical

Section 7A(a)(2) of the act requires the Commission to revise the jurisdictional thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product.

Key Points: 
  • Section 7A(a)(2) of the act requires the Commission to revise the jurisdictional thresholds annually, based on the change in gross national product.
  • The FTC revises the filing fees annually based on the change in the U.S. consumer price index.
  • The 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act requires the FTC to revise the HSR filing fee thresholds.
  • For the latest news and resources, follow the FTC on social media, subscribe to press releases and read our blog.

Un-consummated merger

Retrieved on: 
Monday, January 16, 2023
Commission, Microporous material, Hart–Scott–Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, Review, HSR, Negotiation, Competition, Membrane, Acquisition, Speech, Supreme court, Golf, Law of the United Kingdom, Bureau, Sale, Airline, Polypore

Polypore was ordered to divest the entire business it had purchased after the Commission determined that the merger had substantially lessened competition in violation of the antitrust laws.

Key Points: 
  • Polypore was ordered to divest the entire business it had purchased after the Commission determined that the merger had substantially lessened competition in violation of the antitrust laws.
  • Although premerger review has contributed to effective and efficient merger enforcement for more than thirty years, there will be times – typically for transactions that do not require premerger notice under the HSR Act -- when the Commission must act after-the-fact to restore competition and protect consumers in markets with proven anticompetitive effects from a consummated merger.
  • Second, an effective remedy in any acquisition is one that most closely replicates the competition that was lost due to the merger.
  • The Bureau of Competition has developed a Statement on Negotiating Merger Remedies that provides guidance for how the Commission fashions effective relief for anticompetitive mergers, including those involving consummated deals.

A few words about Section 5

Retrieved on: 
Saturday, December 17, 2022
Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, Sherman, Speech, Policy, Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, United States antitrust law, Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, Clayton, Supreme court, Association, United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division, DOJ, Letter, Communication, Privacy, Trailer, Section 2, European Union IBM competition cases, FTC, Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, Justice, Commission, Behavior, Department, Equitable remedy, Deception, BCP, Congress, Film, Justice minister, Section 5, Justice Department (animal rights), Risk, American Airlines
Key Points: 

Have a plan to comply with the bar on horizontal interlocks

Retrieved on: 
Monday, November 28, 2022
Marketing, Section 8, Federal Trade Commission, Compliance, IBM, Recurrence, Section 5, Review, Ownership, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, TRW, Google, Risk, CommScope, Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, Acquisition, Sears, Policy, Learning, Apple Inc., TRW Inc., Cross elasticity of demand, EFT, Sale, Industry, Congress, TP ICAP, Tullett, Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Commission, DOJ, ICAP, Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, Board, FTC, Security (finance), Sales, Audit, GNP
Key Points: 

FTC to Ramp Up Enforcement Against Any Illegal Rebate Schemes, Bribes to Prescription Drug Middleman That Block Cheaper Drugs

Retrieved on: 
Monday, October 31, 2022
Robinson–Patman Act, Commission, Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, Face, Section, Insulin, Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, Pharmacy, Federal Trade Commission, Diabetes, Martin PBM Mariner, Policy, Patient, News, Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914, FTC, Formulary, Health insurance, Public relations, Facebook

The Federal Trade Commission announced that it will ramp up enforcement against any illegal bribes and rebate schemes that block patients access to competing lower-cost drugs.

Key Points: 
  • The Federal Trade Commission announced that it will ramp up enforcement against any illegal bribes and rebate schemes that block patients access to competing lower-cost drugs.
  • The agency will use its full range of legal authorities to combat illegal prescription drug practices that foreclose competition and harm patients.
  • Todays action should put the entire prescription drug industry on notice: when we see illegal rebate practices that foreclose competition and raise prescription drug costs for families, we wont hesitate to bring our full authorities to bear, said FTC Chair Lina Khan.
  • These health plans, usually through prescription drug middlemen like pharmacy benefit managers, use formularies to define which medicines they will cover.

Lieff Cabraser and Co-Counsel File Federal Antitrust Class Action Lawsuit Against Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile US, and Softbank Group over T-Mobile/Sprint Merger

Retrieved on: 
Friday, June 17, 2022
Class Action Lawsuit, Professional Services, Legal, Law, LLP, AT&T, Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, View, CEO, Deutsche Telekom, Complaint, Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914, Campbell Hausfeld, DT, Partner, United States antitrust law, Acquisition, AT, History, Small business, SoftBank Group, T-Mobile, DISH, Justice, United States Department of Justice, Airline, Network equipment, Retail, Verizon Communications, Sprint

filed a federal class action complaint against Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile, and Softbank Group challenging the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint as a violation of the antitrust laws, specifically the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act.

Key Points: 
  • filed a federal class action complaint against Deutsche Telekom, T-Mobile, and Softbank Group challenging the merger of T-Mobile and Sprint as a violation of the antitrust laws, specifically the Clayton Act and the Sherman Act.
  • The merger reduced the number of mobile carriers in the U.S. from four to three and eliminated vibrant competition from Sprint.
  • The case alleges that as a result, AT&T and Verizon retail customers have paid higher prices on a quality-adjusted basis.
  • Im hard-pressed to think of a more anti-competitive and damaging acquisition in recent history, said Lieff Cabraser partner Brendan P. Glackin, who represents the plaintiffs in the lawsuit.