Misplaced Pages

#12987

103-700: Prior to the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules the courts of England and Wales had used a number of techniques to manage multiple claims. In particular representative claims permitted a plaintiff (now claimant ) who shared the same interest in a claim as a group to either begin or continue a claim as a representative of that group. The court could also consolidate one or more claims so that they were managed or heard together. The final Access to Justice Report , published in July 1996, concluded that these methods were not sufficiently flexible and recommended that

206-788: A felony .... Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony .... Federal judges quickly began struggling with the broad wording of the Sherman Act, recognizing that interpreting it literally could make even simple business associations such as partnerships illegal. They began developing principles for distinguishing between "naked" trade restraints between rivals that suppressed competition and other restraints that were merely "ancillary" to cooperation agreements that promoted competition. The Sherman Act gave

309-404: A felony , and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $ 100,000,000 if a corporation , or, if any other person, $ 1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court. Preventing collusion and cartels that act in restraint of trade is an essential task of antitrust law. It reflects the view that each business has

412-525: A broad range of legal and economic theory sees the role of antitrust laws as also controlling economic power in the public interest. Surveys of American Economic Association members since the 1970s have shown that professional economists generally agree with the statement: "Antitrust laws should be enforced vigorously." In the United States and Canada , and to a lesser extent in the European Union ,

515-601: A case has been commenced prior to the protocol coming into force, but after publication the protocol is not binding. However, the degree to which a party has attempted to follow it anyway might be persuasive. Section 2 of the Civil Procedure Act 1997 requires that the CPR are made by a committee called the Civil Procedure Rule Committee. Members of the committee consist of: Ex officio : Those appointed by

618-562: A clear precedent, to which the situation is analogous, proof of an anti-competitive effect is more difficult. The reason for this is that the courts have endeavoured to draw a line between practices that restrain trade in a "good" compared to a "bad" way. In the first case, United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Association , the Supreme Court found that railroad companies had acted unlawfully by setting up an organisation to fix transport prices. The railroads had protested that their intention

721-409: A duty to act independently on the market, and so earn its profits solely by providing better priced and quality products than its competitors. The Sherman Act §1 prohibits "[e]very contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce." This targets two or more distinct enterprises acting together in a way that harms third parties. It does not capture

824-465: A legal claim. Pre-action protocols, which entails setting out the claim in full to the defendant in an attempt to negotiate a settlement. The emphasis is placed on co-operation to identify the main issues. Failure to co-operate may lead cost penalties, regardless of the eventual outcomes of the case. Paragraph 1 of the Practice Direction defines the purpose of pre-action protocols as: This list

927-416: A monopoly in any line of commerce. In theory predatory pricing happens when large companies with huge cash reserves and large lines of credit stifle competition by selling their products and services at a loss for a time, to force their smaller competitors out of business. With no competition, they are then free to consolidate control of the industry and charge whatever prices they wish. At this point, there

1030-578: A monopoly. The FTC and the Justice Department both have the authority to file lawsuits seeking to block or invalidate unlawful mergers. The FTC may challenge a merger in its own administrative court instead of filing a lawsuit in a United States district court , although defendants can appeal the FTC's decisions to one of the United States courts of appeals . In addition to the FTC and the Justice Department,

1133-494: A new system of radically different legal terminology in order to bring plain English to the legal system of England and Wales. This was intended to help laypersons comprehend legal terms more easily and to make the judicial process faster and less expensive. However, Bryan A. Garner has noted that the new system seems to have replaced "old jargon with new, even less-comprehensible jargon". United States antitrust law In

SECTION 10

#1733092850013

1236-467: A number of exemptions. Mergers and joint agreements of professional football, hockey, baseball, and basketball leagues are exempt. Major League Baseball was held to be broadly exempt from antitrust law in the Supreme Court case Federal Baseball Club v. National League . The court unanimously held that the baseball league's organization meant that there was no commerce between the states taking place, even though teams traveled across state lines to put on

1339-443: A party must wait 30 days while the FTC or the Justice Department reviews the merger and decides whether to seek to block it. The 30-day period usually ends with the FTC or Justice Department taking one of three actions: declining to challenge the merger, filing a lawsuit to challenge the merger, or issuing a "Second Request" that extends the waiting period and formally asks the party for all its documents and other information relating to

1442-544: A private party may also file a lawsuit under the Clayton Act if an unlawful merger has injured its ability to compete for business. Under the Hart–Scott–Rodino (HSR) Act of 1976 , any party wanting to execute a merger or acquisition must report it in advance to the FTC and the Justice Department, unless the sizes of the transaction and the parties executing it are both below certain thresholds. After filing its HSR report,

1545-598: A proposed merger was illegal even though the resulting company would have controlled only five percent of the relevant market. In a now-famous line from his dissent in the 1966 decision United States v. Von's Grocery Co. , Supreme Court justice Potter Stewart remarked: "The sole consistency that I can find [in U.S. merger law] is that in litigation under [the Clayton Act], the Government always wins." The "structuralist" interpretation of U.S. antitrust law began losing favor in

1648-430: A reading of CPR 44, which contains general rules about costs, it was felt to be clear that "questions of proportionality are to be considered by reference to the specific matters noted in 44.3(5) and, if relevant, any wider circumstances identified under r. 44.4(1). Accordingly, the wider interpretation is correct." Claims with a value of not more than £10,000 (the amount increased on 1 April 2013) are usually allocated to

1751-703: A remedy for harassment or unlawful eviction relating to residential premises will not be allocated to the Small Claims Track even if it meets the financial limits. Claims with a financial value of no more than £25,000 (£15,000 for claims issued before 6 April 2009) for which the Small Claims Track is not the normal track are usually allocated to the Fast Track unless: the trial is likely to last for more than one day; oral expert evidence at trial will be in more than two fields; or there will be more than one expert per party in each field. Any case not allocated to either

1854-524: A result of reforms suggested by Lord Woolf and his committee, one of the innovations of the rules is the "overriding objective" embodied in Part 1 of the Rules, which states: The rules are written to be intelligible not just to lawyers but also to litigants in person . Two approaches to the assessment of proportionality arose in the case of West v Stockport NHS Foundation Trust (2019), in particular on appeal from

1957-416: A small number of competitors or oligopolists , have led to significant controversy over whether or not antitrust authorities should intervene. Fourth, vertical agreements between a business and a supplier or purchaser "up" or " downstream " raise concerns about the exercise of market power , however they are generally subject to a more relaxed standard under the "rule of reason". Some practices are deemed by

2060-546: A system for group litigation be introduced. Group litigation orders were added to the Civil Procedure Rules from 2 May 2000. Any party to a claim may apply for a group litigation order to be made before or after issue of the claim. A single court will be assigned to manage the GLO. A Group Register will then be set up listing all claims which have become part of the GLO. Any party to a case may apply to be added or removed from

2163-420: Is a cartel . It is irrelevant whether or not the businesses succeed in increasing their profits, or whether together they reach the level of having market power as might a monopoly . Such collusion is illegal per se . Bid rigging is a form of price fixing and market allocation that involves an agreement in which one party of a group of bidders will be designated to win the bid. Geographic market allocation

SECTION 20

#1733092850013

2266-426: Is also little motivation for investing in further technological research, since there are no competitors left to gain an advantage over. High barriers to entry such as large upfront investment, notably named sunk costs , requirements in infrastructure and exclusive agreements with distributors, customers, and wholesalers ensure that it will be difficult for any new competitors to enter the market, and that if any do,

2369-411: Is an agreement between competitors not to compete within each other's geographic territories. If an antitrust claim does not fall within a per se illegal category, the plaintiff must show the conduct causes harm in "restraint of trade" under the Sherman Act §1 according to "the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied". This essentially means that unless a plaintiff can point to

2472-458: The Attorney General , to institute proceedings in equity to prevent and restrain such violations. Such proceedings may be by way of petition setting forth the case and praying that such violation shall be enjoined or otherwise prohibited. When the parties complained of shall have been duly notified of such petition the court shall proceed, as soon as may be, to the hearing and determination of

2575-655: The Australian Competition & Consumer Commission announced it was seeking explanations from a US company, Apple In relation to potentially anticompetitive behaviour against an Australian bank in possible relation to Apple Pay . It is not known whether the treaty could influence the enquiry or outcome. In many cases large US companies tend to deal with overseas antitrust within the overseas jurisdiction, autonomous of US laws, such as in Microsoft Corp v Commission and more recently, Google v European Union where

2678-816: The British Post Office scandal . A full list of current GLOs is available on Her Majesty's Courts Service website. Civil Procedure Rules The Civil Procedure Rules ( CPR ) were introduced in 1997 as per the Civil Procedure Act 1997 by the Civil Procedure Rule Committee and are the rules of civil procedure used by the Court of Appeal , High Court of Justice , and County Courts in civil cases in England and Wales . They apply to all cases commenced after 26 April 1999, and largely replace

2781-614: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice , and private parties who have been harmed by an antitrust violation. Criminal antitrust enforcement is done only by the Justice Department's Antitrust Division. Additionally, U.S. state governments may also enforce their own antitrust laws, which mostly mirror federal antitrust laws, regarding commerce occurring solely within their own state's borders. The scope of antitrust laws, and

2884-403: The Federal Trade Commission , can bring civil lawsuits enforcing the laws. The United States Department of Justice alone may bring criminal antitrust suits under federal antitrust laws. Perhaps the most famous antitrust enforcement actions brought by the federal government were the break-up of AT&T's local telephone service monopoly in the early 1980s and its actions against Microsoft in

2987-519: The GTE Sylvania Court ruled that non-price vertical restrictions in contracts were no longer per se illegal and should be analyzed under the rule of reason. Overall, the Supreme Court's antitrust rulings during this era on collusion cases under section 1 of the Sherman Act reflected tension between the older "absolutist" approach and the newer Chicago endorsing the rule of reason and economic analysis. The Justice Department and FTC lost most of

3090-737: The Lord Chief Justice : Those appointed by the Lord Chancellor : The Lord Chancellor's appointments are made in consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and all authorised bodies which have members who are eligible for appointment. Rules must be approved by at least eight members of the committee, and submitted to the Lord Chancellor who may allow or disallow them. Where he decides to disallow, he must express his reasons for doing so in writing. England and Wales began to diverge from

3193-461: The Netscape browser. In 2000, the trial court ordered Microsoft to split in two, preventing it from future misbehavior. Microsoft appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit , which affirmed in part and reversed in part. In addition, it removed the judge from the case for discussing the case with the media while it was still pending. With the case in front of a new judge, Microsoft and

Group litigation order - Misplaced Pages Continue

3296-601: The Noerr-Pennington doctrine . Also, regulations by states may be immune under the Parker immunity doctrine . Fourth, the government may grant monopolies in certain industries such as utilities and infrastructure where multiple players are seen as unfeasible or impractical. Fifth, insurance is allowed limited antitrust exemptions as provided by the McCarran-Ferguson Act of 1945. Sixth, M&A transactions in

3399-518: The Progressive Era prompted public officials to increase enforcement of antitrust laws. The Justice Department sued 45 companies under the Sherman Act during the presidency of Theodore Roosevelt (1901–09) and 90 companies during the presidency of William Howard Taft (1909–13). In 1911, the U.S. Supreme Court reframed U.S. antitrust law as a " rule of reason " in its landmark decision Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey v. United States . At trial,

3502-625: The Rules of the Supreme Court and the County Court Rules. The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 is the statutory instrument listing the rules. The CPR were designed to improve access to justice by making legal proceedings cheaper, quicker, and easier to understand for non-lawyers. As a consequence of this, many former, older legal terms were replaced with ‘plain English’ equivalents, such as "claimant" for "plaintiff" and "witness summons" for "subpoena". Unlike

3605-748: The Sherman Act 1890 §7, these may be trebled, a measure to encourage private litigation to enforce the laws and act as a deterrent. The courts may award penalties under §§1 and 2, which are measured according to the size of the company or the business. In their inherent jurisdiction to prevent violations in future, the courts have additionally exercised the power to break up businesses into competing parts under different owners, although this remedy has rarely been exercised (examples include Standard Oil , Northern Securities Company , American Tobacco Company , AT&T Corporation and, although reversed on appeal, Microsoft ). Three levels of enforcement come from

3708-541: The United States , antitrust law is a collection of mostly federal laws that govern the conduct and organization of businesses in order to promote economic competition and prevent unjustified monopolies . The three main U.S. antitrust statutes are the Sherman Act of 1890 , the Clayton Act of 1914 , and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 . These acts serve three major functions. First, Section 1 of

3811-636: The United States Department of Justice involved nonreportable transactions. Despite considerable effort by the Clinton administration , the Federal government attempted to extend antitrust cooperation with other countries for mutual detection, prosecution and enforcement. A bill was unanimously passed by the US Congress ; however by 2000 only one treaty has been signed with Australia . On 3 July 2017

3914-537: The associationalist view that close collaboration among business leaders and government officials could efficiently guide the economy. Some Americans abandoned faith in free market competition entirely after the Wall Street Crash of 1929 . Advocates of these views championed the passage of the National Industrial Recovery Act of 1933 and the centralized economic planning experiments during

4017-516: The 1970s and 1980s in American courts. On 26 July 1996, Lord Woolf published his final Access to Justice Report 1996 in which he "identified a number of principles the civil justice system should meet to ensure access to justice. The system should – Lord Woolf listed two of the requirements of case management as "fixing timetables for the parties to take particular steps in the case; and limiting disclosure and expert evidence". The second thread of

4120-705: The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) as an independent agency that has shared jurisdiction with the Justice Department over federal civil antitrust enforcement and has the power to prohibit "unfair methods of competition". Despite the passage of the Clayton Act and the FTC Act, U.S. antitrust enforcement was not aggressive between the mid-1910s and the 1930s. Based on their experience with the War Industries Board during World War I , many American economists, government officials, and business leaders adopted

4223-497: The Federal government, primarily through the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, the governments of states, and private parties. Public enforcement of antitrust laws is seen as important, given the cost, complexity and daunting task for private parties to bring litigation, particularly against large corporations. The federal government, via both the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice and

Group litigation order - Misplaced Pages Continue

4326-477: The Justice Department had successfully argued that American petroleum conglomerate Standard Oil had violated the Sherman Act by building a monopoly in the oil refining industry through economic threats against competitors and secret rebate deals with railroads. On appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's verdict, holding that Standard Oil's high market share was proof of its monopoly power and ordering it to break itself up into 34 separate companies. At

4429-622: The Justice Department's Antitrust Division , which had been established in 1919. This intellectual shift influenced American courts to abandon their acceptance of sector-wide cooperation among companies. Instead, American antitrust jurisprudence began following strict "structuralist" rules that focused on markets' structures and their levels of concentration . Judges usually gave little credence to defendant companies' attempts to justify their conduct using economic efficiencies , even when they were supported by economic data and analysis. In its 1940 decision United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. ,

4532-556: The NFL as a "cartel" of 32 independent businesses subject to antitrust law, not a single entity. Third, antitrust laws are modified where they are perceived to encroach upon the media and free speech, or are not strong enough. Newspapers under joint operating agreements are allowed limited antitrust immunity under the Newspaper Preservation Act of 1970 . More generally, and partly because of concerns about media cross-ownership in

4635-452: The Sherman Act outlawed "monopoliz[ation]" and "every contract, combination ... or conspiracy in restraint of trade". Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of

4738-511: The Sherman Act prohibits price fixing and the operation of cartels , and prohibits other collusive practices that unreasonably restrain trade. Second, Section 7 of the Clayton Act restricts the mergers and acquisitions of organizations that may substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Third, Section 2 of the Sherman Act prohibits monopolization. Federal antitrust laws provide for both civil and criminal enforcement. Civil antitrust enforcement occurs through lawsuits filed by

4841-474: The Sherman Act. American courts were even stricter when hearing merger challenges under the Clayton Act during this era, due in part to Congress's passage of the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950 , which banned consolidation of companies' stock or assets even in situations that did not produce market dominance. For example, in its 1962 decision Brown Shoe Co. v. United States , the Supreme Court ruled that

4944-930: The Sherman and Clayton Acts. Much of their economic analysis involved game theory , which showed that some conduct that had been thought uniformly anticompetitive, such as preemptive capacity expansion, could be either pro- or anticompetitive depending on the circumstances. The writings of Yale Law School professor Robert Bork and University of Chicago Law School professors Richard Posner and Frank Easterbrook , who all later became prominent federal appellate judges, translated Chicago economists' analytical advances into legal principles that judges could readily apply. Pointing out that economic analysis showed that some previously condemned practices were actually procompetitive and had economic benefits that outweighed their dangers, they argued that many antitrust bright-line per se rules of illegality were unwarranted and should be replaced by

5047-520: The Small Claims Track or the Fast Track is allocated to the Multi Track. To support the ethos of narrowing the issues prior to the use of proceedings and encapsulate best practice, the CPR introduced "pre-action protocols". They are given force by Practice Direction – Protocols Pre-action protocols outline the steps that parties should take in particular types of disputes to seek information from, and to provide information to, each other prior to making

5150-415: The Small Claims Track unless: the amount claimed for pain, suffering, and loss of amenity is more than £1,000.00; or the cost of the repairs or other work to residential premises claimed against the landlord by a tenant is estimated to be more than £1,000 – whether or not they are also seeking another remedy – or the financial value of any claim in addition to those repairs is more than £1,000. A claim for

5253-782: The Supreme Court refused to apply the rule of reason to an agreement between oil refiners to buy up surplus gasoline from independent refining companies. It ruled that price-fixing agreements between competing companies were illegal per se under section 1 of the Sherman Act and would be treated as crimes even if the companies claimed to be merely recreating past government planning schemes. The Court began applying per se illegality to other business practices such as tying , group boycotts , market allocation agreements, exclusive territory agreements for sales, and vertical restraints limiting retailers to geographic areas. Courts also became more willing to find that dominant companies' business practices constituted illegal monopolization under section 2 of

SECTION 50

#1733092850013

5356-502: The Supreme Court's 1974 decision United States v. General Dynamics Corp. , the federal government lost a merger challenge at the Supreme Court for the first time in over 25 years. In 1999 a coalition of 19 states and the federal Justice Department sued Microsoft . A highly publicized trial in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that Microsoft had strong-armed many companies in an attempt to prevent competition from

5459-532: The Supreme Court's decision in Standard Oil represented an effort by conservative federal judges to "soften" the Sherman Act and narrow its scope. Congress reacted in 1914 by passing two new laws: the Clayton Act, which outlawed using mergers and acquisitions to achieve monopolies and created an antitrust law exemption for collective bargaining ; and the Federal Trade Commission Act, which created

5562-409: The U.S. Department of Justice the authority to enforce it, but the U.S. presidents and U.S. Attorneys General in power during the 1890s and early 1900s showed relatively little interest in doing so. With little interest in enforcing the Sherman Act and courts interpreting it relatively narrowly, a wave of large industrial mergers swept the United States in the late 1890s and early 1900s. The rise of

5665-699: The United States , regulation of media is subject to specific statutes, chiefly the Communications Act of 1934 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 , under the guidance of the Federal Communications Commission . The historical policy has been to use the state's licensing powers over the airwaves to promote plurality. Antitrust laws do not prevent companies from using the legal system or political process to attempt to reduce competition. Most of these activities are considered legal under

5768-443: The case; and pending such petition and before final decree, the court may at any time make such temporary restraining order or prohibition as shall be deemed just in the premises. The remedies for violations of U.S. antitrust laws are as broad as any equitable remedy that a court has the power to make, as well as being able to impose penalties. When private parties have suffered an actionable loss, they may claim compensation. Under

5871-450: The close of business at 2:00   pm each day at any price other than that day's closing price did not violate the Sherman Act. The Court said that although the rule was a restraint on trade, a comprehensive examination of the rule's purposes and effects showed that it "merely regulates, and perhaps thereby promotes competition." During the mid-1930s, confidence in the statist centralized economic planning models that had been popular in

5974-449: The common law (and from other common law jurisdictions) with the Rules of the Supreme Court in 1883, which replaced the traditional "complaint" and "answer" with the "statement of claim" and "defence". The CPR went much further by replacing several dozen traditional legal terms. For example, the "writ of summons" and the "statement of claim" were replaced, respectively, with "claim form" and "particulars of claim". The CPR implemented

6077-620: The concept of proportionality to the costs regime. The Civil Procedure Act 1997 (c. 12) was enacted on 27 February 1997. It conferred the power to make civil procedure rules. It also established the Civil Justice Council , a body composed of members of the judiciary, members of the legal professions and civil servants, and charged with reviewing the civil justice system. The Civil Procedure Rules 1998 (SI 1998/3132) were made on 10 December 1998 and came into force on 26 April 1999. The draft rules of practice formed their core. Implemented as

6180-407: The condition , agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create

6283-461: The course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods , wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on

SECTION 60

#1733092850013

6386-513: The court must ordinarily consider the facts peculiar to the business to which the restraint is applied, its condition before and after the restraint was imposed, the nature of the restraint, and its effect, actual or probable. Section 7 of the Clayton Act makes it illegal to execute a merger or acquisition if the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." No person engaged in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly,

6489-401: The courts to be so obviously detrimental that they are categorized as being automatically unlawful, or illegal per se . The simplest and central case of this is price fixing . This involves an agreement by businesses to set the price or consideration of a good or service which they buy or sell from others at a specific level. If the agreement is durable, the general term for these businesses

6592-411: The decisions of a single enterprise, or a single economic entity, even though the form of an entity may be two or more separate legal persons or companies. In Copperweld Corp. v. Independence Tube Corp. it was held an agreement between a parent company and a wholly owned subsidiary could not be subject to antitrust law, because the decision took place within a single economic entity. This reflects

6695-458: The defense sector are often subject to greater antitrust scrutiny from the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission . The several district courts of the United States are invested with jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of sections 1 to 7 of this title; and it shall be the duty of the several United States attorneys, in their respective districts, under the direction of

6798-454: The degree to which they should interfere in an enterprise's freedom to conduct business, or to protect smaller businesses, communities and consumers, are strongly debated. Some economists argue that antitrust laws actually impede competition, and may discourage businesses from pursuing activities that would be beneficial to society. One view suggests that antitrust laws should focus solely on the benefits to consumers and overall efficiency, while

6901-414: The discretion of the court. The law's treatment of monopolies is potentially the strongest in the field of antitrust law. Judicial remedies can force large organizations to be broken up, subject them to positive obligations , impose massive penalties, and/or sentence implicated employees to jail. Under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, every "person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize ... any part of

7004-533: The early 1970s in the face of harsh criticism by economists and legal scholars from the University of Chicago . Scholars from the Chicago school of economics had long called for reducing price regulation and limiting barriers to entry . Newer Chicago economists like Aaron Director argued that there were economic efficiency explanations for some practices that had been condemned under the structuralist interpretation of

7107-495: The early 20th century as U.S. states passed laws that made it easier to create new corporations . In most other countries, antitrust law is now called " competition law " or "anti-monopoly law". American antitrust law formally began in 1890 with the U.S. Congress 's passage of the Sherman Antitrust Act , although a few U.S. states had passed local antitrust laws during the preceding year. Using broad and general terms,

7210-555: The early stages of the New Deal . The Supreme Court's decisions in antitrust cases during this period reflected these views, and the Court had a "largely tolerant" attitude toward collusion and cooperation between competitors. One prominent example was the 1918 decision Chicago Board of Trade v. United States , in which the Court ruled that a Chicago Board of Trade rule banning commodity brokers from buying or selling grain forwards after

7313-610: The early years of the New Deal era began to wane. At the urging of economists such as Frank Knight and Henry C. Simons , President Franklin D. Roosevelt 's economic advisors began persuading him that free market competition was the key to recovery from the Great Depression . Simons, in particular, argued for robust antitrust enforcement to “de-concentrate” American industries and promote competition. In response, Roosevelt appointed "trustbusting" lawyers like Thurman Arnold to serve in

7416-571: The enactment of a multidistrict litigation statute in 1968 and the creation of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation . In 1969, the Panel published the Manual on Complex Litigation , which proposed that American judges should take a more active role in the management and development of complex cases during the pretrial phase of litigation. This recommendation touched off the case management movement of

7519-528: The games. That travel was merely incidental to a business which took place in each state. It was subsequently held in 1952 in Toolson v. New York Yankees , and then again in 1972 Flood v. Kuhn , that the baseball league's exemption was an "aberration". However Congress had accepted it, and favored it, so retroactively overruling the exemption was no longer a matter for the courts, but the legislature. In United States v. International Boxing Club of New York , it

7622-491: The government settled, with the government dropping the case in return for Microsoft agreeing to cease many of the practices the government challenged. Every contract , combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal. Every person who shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy hereby declared to be illegal shall be deemed guilty of

7725-407: The group register. All claims that from part of a GLO will be automatically allocated to the multi-track and will be moved to the management court. There is great flexibility in how group litigation may be managed and directions should be tailored to the specific needs of a particular set of claims. As a class action , a claimant must explicitly "opt-in" to most claims. In 2015 an "opt-out" basis

7828-424: The industry to sector specific regulation (frequently done, for example, in the cases water , education , energy or health care ). The law on public services and administration goes significantly beyond the realm of antitrust law's treatment of monopolies. When enterprises are not under public ownership, and where regulation does not foreclose the application of antitrust law, two requirements must be shown for

7931-399: The initial trial. The appeal judges referred to a "debate between the parties as to whether a proportionality challenge was limited to the circumstances of the particular case ('the narrower interpretation'), or whether it was to be assessed by reference to all the circumstances, and so encompass matters which were not necessarily related to the case in question ('the wider interpretation')". On

8034-525: The late 1990s . Additionally, the federal government also reviews potential mergers to attempt to prevent market concentration . As outlined by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act , larger companies attempting to merge must first notify the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice's Antitrust Division prior to consummating a merger. These agencies then review the proposed merger first by defining what

8137-475: The law does not seek to prohibit every kind of agreement that hinders freedom of contract , it developed a " rule of reason " where a practice might restrict trade in a way that is seen as positive or beneficial for consumers or society. Third, significant problems of proof and identification of wrongdoing arise where businesses make no overt contact, or simply share information, but appear to act in concert. Tacit collusion , particularly in concentrated markets with

8240-420: The law draws a "basic distinction between concerted and independent action". Multi-firm conduct tends to be seen as more likely than single-firm conduct to have an unambiguously negative effect and "is judged more sternly". Generally the law identifies four main categories of agreement. First, some agreements such as price fixing or sharing markets are automatically unlawful, or illegal per se . Second, because

8343-548: The market is and then determining the market concentration using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) and each company's market share . The government looks to avoid allowing a company to develop market power , which if left unchecked could lead to monopoly power. The United States Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission target nonreportable mergers for enforcement as well. Notably, between 2009 and 2013, 20% of all merger investigations conducted by

8446-538: The market's closing time (and then finalise the deals when it opened the next day). The reason for the Board of Trade having this rule was to ensure that all traders had an equal chance to trade at a transparent market price. It plainly restricted trading, but the Chicago Board of Trade argued this was beneficial. Justice Brandeis, giving judgment for a unanimous Supreme Court, held the rule to be pro-competitive, and comply with

8549-481: The merger. Every person who shall monopolize , or attempt to monopolize, or combine or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, shall be deemed guilty of a felony , and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine not exceeding $ 100,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any other person, $ 1,000,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding 10 years, or by both said punishments, in

8652-409: The modern law governing monopolies and economic competition is known by its original name — "antitrust law". The term "antitrust" came from late 19th-century American industrialists ' practice of using trusts —legal arrangements where one is given ownership of property to hold solely for another's benefit—to consolidate separate companies into large conglomerates. These " corporate trusts " died out in

8755-413: The monopolization cases they brought under section 2 of the Sherman Act during this era. One of the government's few anti-monopoly victories was United States v. AT&T , which led to the breakup of Bell Telephone and its monopoly on U.S. telephone service in 1982. The general "trimming back" of antitrust law in the face of economic analysis also resulted in more permissive standards for mergers. In

8858-543: The offense of monopolization. First, the alleged monopolist must possess sufficient power in an accurately defined market for its products or services. Second, the monopolist must have used its power in a prohibited way. The categories of prohibited conduct are not closed, and are contested in theory. Historically they have been held to include exclusive dealing , price discrimination , refusing to supply an essential facility , product tying and predatory pricing . It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in

8961-568: The other party(s) then the Court might disallow interest for the period prior to the information being provided. In addition, the protocol might provide grounds to show a party had or had not behaved so unreasonably as to merit penalty under another Rule (for instance CPR 44.3). Where no protocol has been published Paragraph 4 states that parties should conform to CPR 1 and the Overriding Objective. It also sets out what would normally be considered reasonable behaviour prior to issue. Where

9064-531: The previous rules of civil procedure , the CPR commence with a statement of their "overriding objective", both to aid in the application of specific provisions and to guide behaviour where no specific rule applies. In 1994, the Lord Chancellor instructed the then Master of the Rolls , Lord Woolf , to report on options to consolidate the existing rules of civil procedure. On 16 June 1995, Lord Woolf published an interim report on Access to Justice . The interim report

9167-497: The report was to control the cost of litigation, both in time and money, by focusing on key issues rather than every possible issue and limiting the amount of work that has to be done on the case. The report was accompanied by draft rules of practice designed to implement Lord Woolf's proposals. These rules granted wide management powers to the court, proposed that cases be allocated to one of three tracks depending on their nature, limiting or requiring specific actions, and introduced

9270-458: The rule of reason. Judges increasingly accepted their ideas from the mid-1970s on, motivated in part by the United States' declining economic dominance amidst the 1973–1975 recession and rising competition from East Asian and European countries. The "pivotal event" in this shift was the Supreme Court's 1977 decision Continental Television, Inc. v. GTE Sylvania, Inc . In a decision that prominently cited Chicago school of economics scholarship,

9373-417: The rule of reason. It did not violate the Sherman Act §1. As he put it, Every agreement concerning trade, every regulation of trade, restrains. To bind, to restrain, is of their very essence. The true test of legality is whether the restraint imposed is such as merely regulates and perhaps thereby promotes competition or whether it is such as may suppress or even destroy competition. To determine that question,

9476-471: The same time, however, the Court also held that although the Sherman Act prohibited "every" restraint of trade, it actually banned only those that were "unreasonable". It ruled that the Sherman Act was to be interpreted as a "rule of reason" under which the legality of most business practices would be evaluated on a case-by-case basis according to their effect on competition, with only the most egregious practices being illegal per se . Many observers thought

9579-479: The theory of predatory pricing ). Antitrust laws do not apply to, or are modified in, several specific categories of enterprise (including sports, media, utilities, health care , insurance , banks , and financial markets ) and for several kinds of actor (such as employees or consumers taking collective action ). First, since the Clayton Act 1914 §6, there is no application of antitrust laws to agreements between employees to form or act in labor unions . This

9682-426: The trade or commerce among the several States" commits an offence. The courts have interpreted this to mean that monopoly is not unlawful per se , but only if acquired through prohibited conduct. Historically, where the ability of judicial remedies to combat market power have ended, the legislature of states or the Federal government have still intervened by taking public ownership of an enterprise, or subjecting

9785-399: The trust will have ample advance warning and time in which to either buy the competitor out, or engage in its own research and return to predatory pricing long enough to force the competitor out of business. Critics argue that the empirical evidence shows that "predatory pricing" does not work in practice and is better defeated by a truly free market than by antitrust laws (see Criticism of

9888-474: The view that if the enterprise (as an economic entity) has not acquired a monopoly position, or has significant market power , then no harm is done. The same rationale has been extended to joint ventures , where corporate shareholders make a decision through a new company they form. In Texaco Inc. v. Dagher the Supreme Court held unanimously that a price set by a joint venture between Texaco and Shell Oil did not count as making an unlawful agreement. Thus

9991-458: The whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no person subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another person engaged also in commerce or in any activity affecting commerce, where in any line of commerce or in any activity affecting commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create

10094-685: Was established for violations of the Competition Act 1998 and Consumer Rights Act 2015 . Notable cases in which such an order has been issued include the McDonald's hot drinks litigation in the High Court of Justice Queen's Bench Division , proceedings against the Royal Liverpool Children's Hospital over the removal of organs, and the case brought by subpostmasters against the Post Office in

10197-682: Was held that, unlike baseball, boxing was not exempt, and in Radovich v. National Football League (NFL) , professional football is generally subject to antitrust laws. As a result of the AFL-NFL merger , the National Football League was also given exemptions in exchange for certain conditions, such as not directly competing with college or high school football. However, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in American Needle Inc. v. NFL characterised

10300-424: Was last updated on 6 September 2007. Paragraph 2 indicates that the Court may add terms to any order if it feels a party has breached a protocol. These will place parties in the same position as if the breach had not occurred (or as close as possible). The court may, amongst other remedies, order that the party in breach: For instance, where a party commences proceedings prior to supplying important information to

10403-611: Was seen as the "Bill of Rights" for labor, as the Act laid down that the "labor of a human being is not a commodity or article of commerce". The purpose was to ensure that employees with unequal bargaining power were not prevented from combining in the same way that their employers could combine in corporations , subject to the restrictions on mergers that the Clayton Act set out. However, sufficiently autonomous workers, such as professional sports players have been held to fall within antitrust provisions. Second, professional sports leagues enjoy

10506-446: Was the subject of extensive academic commentary. For example, American law professor Richard Marcus Jr. pointed out that the interim report was clearly inspired by the experience of the US federal courts with case management, which grew out of their experience with managing complex litigation. During the 1960s, a massive antitrust scandal in the American electrical equipment industry had led to

10609-462: Was to keep prices low, not high. The court found that this was not true, but stated that not every "restraint of trade" in a literal sense could be unlawful. Just as under the common law, the restraint of trade had to be "unreasonable". In Chicago Board of Trade v. United States the Supreme Court found a "good" restraint of trade. The Chicago Board of Trade had a rule that commodities traders were not allowed to privately agree to sell or buy after

#12987