1 1914 Clayton Antitrust Act
1914 Federal Trade Commission Act 1936 Robinson-Patman Act 1950 Celler-Kefauver Act 1954 Kodak antitrust lawsuit 1974 United States v.
At the time of the affiliation, the Clayton Antitrust Act
did not extend to bank mergers, and neither the Bank Merger Act nor the Bank Holding Company Act, which both include antitrust provisions, had been enacted.
The limitations period the court decided on was the four-year limitations period from the Clayton Antitrust Act
. (34) The Court chose this particular limitations period because RICO was in large part modeled on the Clayton Act, (35) and therefore the Clayton Act provided a far better analogy to RICO than any other federal or state alternative.
Therefore, we have mutually decided that now is the right time for Eric to resign his position on Apple's Board." <p>The Clayton Antitrust Act
of 1914 prohibits a person's presence on the board of two rival companies when it would reduce competition between them.
Sonotone Corp., (25) the Supreme Court considered a class action brought under the Clayton Antitrust Act
of 1914 by plaintiffs who had purchased hearing aids from a manufacturer that they alleged had fixed prices with its rivals and its retailers.
Additionally, the complaint claims the airline is in violation of both the Sherman Antitrust Act and the Clayton Antitrust Act
, the first of which Korean Air has reportedly admitted guilt to in a deal with the U.S.
* The Clayton Antitrust Act
passes, creating the Federal Trade Commission.
Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act
makes it illegal for one business to acquire, directly or indirectly, the stock of another business, where the effect of the acquisition may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly.
A US District Court has decided to block the merger between UPM-Kymmene's Raflatac and Bemis Company's MACtac, citing a violation of the Clayton Antitrust Act
. Both companies have stated that they do not plan to appeal the court decision.
This article analyzes the implications of the Clayton Antitrust Act
In retrospect, the Orlando case seems to be the last gasp of Justice Department enforcement of the Clayton Antitrust Act
in the area of newspaper monopoly.
Minnesota's attorney general had filed suit against the proposed merger of Health One and LifeSpan, arguing that the postmerger market share resulting from the proposed merger was unacceptably high and that the proposed merger violated Section One of the Sherman Antitrust Act and Section Seven of the Clayton Antitrust Act
. The Minnesota attorney general and the defendants settled the suit by agreeing to a consent decree that shifted the decision to the Minnesota Department of Health.