by William Markham | Oct 5, 2016 | Antitrust Litigation and Counseling
The Third Circuit recently issued a brilliant decision on the issue of determining the relevant geographic market in hospital cases (FTC v. Penn State Hershey Medical Center (3rd Cir. 2016, Case No. 16-2365). Hershey specifically concerns the antitrust challenge...
by William Markham | Sep 7, 2016 | Antitrust Litigation and Counseling
Exclusive-dealing can constitute an antitrust violation under certain circumstances. If a firm becomes the exclusive dealer of a good, it can be held liable under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, which condemns only practices that have already harmed competititve...
by William Markham | Sep 7, 2016 | Antitrust Litigation and Counseling
Here is a succinct statement of the modern doctrine on group boycotts, which is a term of art in antitrust jurisprudence. A “group boycott” is a business practice by which two or more companies (the “boycotting companies”) agree not to do business with one or more...
by William Markham | Aug 2, 2016 | Antitrust Litigation and Counseling
The antitrust pendulum is swinging back in the right direction. This development, long in the making and now more and more in evidence, is the culmination of our long experiment with lax antitrust enforcement, or even thinly disguised hostility to antitrust...
by William Markham | Jan 3, 2016 | Antitrust Litigation and Counseling
I wrote a short while ago in this column about the Libor case. I write about it again to explain the distinction between “naked restraints of trade” and “ancillary restraints of trade.” Naked trade restraints are presumptively unlawful under the Sherman Act and are...