Wednesday, August 14, 2019
Anti-trust Law Case Study
Anti-trust Law Case Study Landmark: Antitrust Case Study Question 1: Write a 100- word abstract of the case, including the date of the case The essay gives a brief analysis and review of a case in which the government of the United States led to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the defense of the claim appeal 384 U.S. competition 270 presented by the U.S. government against VON Grocery Co. (Von) in 1966 in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California No. 303. Duration was March 22, 1966 and the delivery of a verdict was the May 31, 1966. It was in favor of the defendant. This just reminded demand, government regulators were ignoring situations that occur within its jurisdiction. It was despite his knowledge of the changing developments in market structures that controlled processes. Government regulators failed to switch to a relaxed mood compared to previous legislative procedures necessary reacted to the threats and opportunities of his time. As a result, this led to the p revention of unfair trade practices or disposal of similar economic activities of small-scale business. Key words: VONÃ¢â¬â¢S GROCERY CO, 384 U.S. 270, Shopping Bag Food Stores and 7 of the Clayton Act. Question 2: Describe the provision of the US Antirust Law invoked to judge the presence of anti-competitive behavior or potential of for moving the industry in that direction. The 1960 merger of Von Grocery Company with competitor Shopping Bag Food Stores (Shopping Bag) whose locations are in Los Angeles, California violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act (n. P Thomson Reuter). Its amendment in 1950 regulates the reasonable termination through the prohibition of mergers and acquisitions, which decreased competition. Even after a new amendment in 1980, remains the main reference point for antitrust law mergers that threatened the United States (Fox CR4, CR8 and HHI, specially in cases of mergers. The claim of the United States had other modifications as support for their arguments. They were the 1950 amendment to Section 7 of the Celler-Kefauver and Congress sought to preserve competition for small businesses. Was also intended to help companies focus. The court was the agent that was against large companies that use concentrations in markets with increasing centralization of business. He succeeded in divesting after United States v. Philadelphia National. . Bank, 374 U.S. 321 Celler-Kefauver 362 Anti-Merger Act 1950 as amended provides relevant information: Ã¢â¬Å"That no company engaged in commerce Ã¢â¬ ¦ shall acquire all or part of the assets of another company also engaged in commerce, where in any line of commerce in any part of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. Ã¢â¬Å" Question 4: Describe the Ã¢â¬Å"conductÃ¢â¬ in question that has been considered Ã¢â¬Å"anticompetitive:Ã¢â¬ Determine if the defendant had used an anticompetitive Price Strategy and explain how. Likewise, describe any Non-price Strategies the defendant had used and describe how.