antitrust laws means: Federal legislation to stop the creation of monopolies, and regulate commerce. (in Stock Market Dictionary)

What else does antitrust laws mean?

  • If it is not required by law, a company does not generally have to do business with its competitors. Aspen Skiing and Aspen Highlands Skiing decided that the defendant must deal with plaintiff as the defendant previously had dealt with plaintiff. The court also ruled in Aspen Skiing and Aspen Skiing that there was no business reason why the defendant should refuse to do so. (in Legal Dictionary)
  • Tying arrangements are agreements between two parties to make one product available for sale, but the buyer must agree to either buy other products from the seller (or not) and to purchase the same product from another seller. The Rule of Reason is usually used to analyze tying agreements. (in Legal Dictionary)
  • Exclusive dealing agreements require that a distributor or retailer only purchases from the manufacturer. This arrangement makes it hard for potential buyers to find new sellers and reduces competition. Because requirements contracts are essentially exclusive deals agreements that companies use to promote competition, however, exclusivity in dealing arrangements is subject only the rule of reason. (in Legal Dictionary)
  • Predatory pricing is a form of pricing that lowers the cost of goods and services to certain competitors. Brooke Group Ltd. in Brown Williamson Tobacco. The U.S. Supreme Court created a test that would determine whether predatory pricing occurred. The plaintiff has to prove that defendant’s production cost exceeds a measure of the cost normally average on the market. The plaintiff should also prove that there is a danger that defendant will not recover investment in high-cost inputs. (in Legal Dictionary)
  • Parallel conduct by companies without express agreements is not necessarily illegal. Antitrust law makes it illegal to engage in parallel conduct if the defendant acts in a way that is different from what was agreed upon previously. If the parallel conduct of the defendant is business-friendly, it will be considered legal. (in Legal Dictionary)
  • The FTC and DOJ must be notified of mergers by corporations. One agency will clear the other for the review. The “cleared agency” will have access to the non-public information of the parties as well as other participants in the industry to help make a preliminary decision. Many times, the agency will request additional information to confirm its intent to contest the merger. They will file a request for additional information in the federal court. This is to prevent the whole transaction from continuing while they conduct an administrative investigation on its merits. This review includes an agency’s assessment of current market conditions and any potential anti-competitive effects of the merger. (in Legal Dictionary)
  • In 2010, DOJ issued a horizontal merger guidanceline. DOJ published a horizontal merger guideline in 2010. A unilateral effect refers to the ability of a merged firm to raise its price independently. After a merger, the coordination effect allows the company to work with other companies more efficiently. FTC and DOJ issued joint Proposed Vertical Merger guidelines in 2020. They provided a safe harbour and clarified certain points regarding the economic analysis and implications of vertical mergers. The Proposed Guidelines were closed to comment on February 20, 2020, and the final form will not be available until then. (in Legal Dictionary)
  • Agreements between rivals are called horizontal agreements. Vertical agreements are agreements between distributors and manufacturers. (in Legal Dictionary)
  • Horizontal agreements vs. vertical agreements: (in Legal Dictionary)
  • FTC/DOJ will review mergers that “may substantially lessen competition” or tend to make a monopoly. (in Legal Dictionary)
  • The Per Se Rule and the Rule of Reason (in Legal Dictionary)
  • Three key federal statutes that are relevant to Antitrust Law include Sherman Act Section 1 and Sherman Act Section 2. The Clayton Act is also an important Federal statute. (in Legal Dictionary)
  • Any agreements which restrict competition are illegal under Sherman Act Section 1. The Rule of Reason applies to all vertical agreements. It is illegal to make horizontal agreements that have the potential of fixing, stabilizing, raising, depressing or fixing the commodity’s price in international or interstate commerce. The court will however, review the case according to Rule of Reason, if the agreement has an ancillary effect or creates a new product. Agreements where defendants are sub-companies or professionals who have learned the trade, e.g. Rule of Reason also analyzes dentists, lawyers, and leagues. It is also illegal to enter into horizontal agreements with competitors in order to defame another competitor. This exception is only applicable if the defendant is part of a joint venture. Joint ventures cannot refuse admission to another member of the group unless they have a significant market share or legitimate business reasons. The Sherman Act does not apply to labor unions or agreements which are covered by the First Amendment. (in Legal Dictionary)
  • Sherman Act Section 2 makes it illegal to attempt or monopolize. To prove that a defendant violates Sherman Act Section 2, the plaintiff must show that defendant holds market power in the relative markets and engages in competitive behavior. These competitive behavior include refusal to negotiate, predatory pricing and tying arrangements. (in Legal Dictionary)
  • One of two types of violation under Sherman Act can be made: a per se or a violation to the rule of reason. Per se violations do not require further investigation into the actual market impact or intentions of the individuals involved. There are some business practices that have both anti-competitive and pro-competitive benefits. In these instances, the court will apply a “totality of the circumstances” test and determine if the practice is promoting or suppressing market competition. Courts frequently consider intent and motive when determining future outcomes during rule of reason analyses. (in Legal Dictionary)