Unveiling the Antitrust Litigator Series: Landmark Publications That Shaped History

Are you fascinated by the legal world and the impact it has on society? Antitrust law has played a significant role in shaping the competitive landscape for decades. In this article, we explore the Antitrust Litigator Series, a collection of landmark publications that every legal enthusiast should know about.

to Antitrust Law

Antitrust law, also known as competition law, is a set of legal principles and regulations that aim to promote fair competition, prevent monopolies, and protect consumer interests. It originated in the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, with laws such as the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, and the Federal Trade Commission Act. These laws formed the basis for antitrust regulation and have since been adopted by many countries worldwide.

Antitrust litigation involves legal actions taken against corporations or individuals accused of practicing anti-competitive behavior, such as price-fixing, bid-rigging, market allocation, and abusing dominant market positions.

Antitrust (Litigator Series)

by LandMark Publications(Kindle Edition)

5 out of 5

FREE

The Antitrust Litigator Series

The Antitrust Litigator Series is a collection of influential publications that have shaped antitrust law and influenced landmark court decisions. These publications have been authored by renowned lawyers, economists, and scholars who have devoted their careers to studying and fighting against anti-competitive practices.

1. "The Antitrust Paradox" by Robert H. Bork

Published in 1978, "The Antitrust Paradox" by Robert H. Bork is considered a seminal work in antitrust law. Bork challenges the prevailing economic analysis of antitrust law, arguing for a strict adherence to consumer welfare as the guiding principle. This publication sparked intense debates and helped shape the current framework of antitrust jurisprudence.

2. "The Rule of Reason in Antitrust Law" by Phillip Areeda and Herbert Hovenkamp

First published in 1978 and recently updated in its 4th edition, "The Rule of Reason in Antitrust Law" is a comprehensive treatise that analyzes the rule of reason, a critical concept in antitrust analysis. Areeda and Hovenkamp provide a detailed framework for evaluating the legality of anti-competitive behavior and offer invaluable insights for antitrust litigators.

3. "Antitrust Law: Interpretation and Implementation" by Phillip E. Areeda and Donald F. Turner

This widely acclaimed publication is a leading treatise on antitrust law. First published in 1978 and now in its 4th edition, this comprehensive work covers all aspects of antitrust law, including substantive rules, procedural issues, and enforcement mechanisms. It has become a go-to resource for lawyers, judges, and scholars interested in antitrust law.

Impact and Significance

The publications included in the Antitrust Litigator Series have had a lasting impact on antitrust law and legal practice. They have shaped the thinking of judges, influenced policy decisions, and provided invaluable guidance to attorneys handling antitrust cases.

Legal enthusiasts and professionals who wish to delve into the intricacies of antitrust law can benefit greatly from studying these landmark publications. Packed with insights, analyses, and case studies, these works provide a deep understanding of the legal principles that underpin competition law.

The Antitrust Litigator Series offers a treasure trove of knowledge for individuals interested in antitrust law and its historical context. From seminal works like "The Antitrust Paradox" to comprehensive treatises like "The Rule of Reason in Antitrust Law" and "Antitrust Law: Interpretation and Implementation," these publications have shaped the discipline and continue to shape the way we approach competition law litigation.

Whether you are a law student, legal professional, or simply someone intrigued by the complexities of antitrust law, exploring the Antitrust Litigator Series is a journey worth embarking on. Discover the legal minds that have influenced and continue to influence the development of antitrust law, and gain a deeper understanding of the dynamics that shape the competitive landscape.

Antitrust (Litigator Series)

by LandMark Publications(Kindle Edition)

5 out of 5

FREE

THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 180 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that analyze, discuss and interpret antitrust doctrine. The selection of decisions spans from 2004 to the date of publication.

The antitrust laws of the United States aim to protect consumers by maintaining competitive markets. To that end, § 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits agreements that unreasonably restrain trade by restricting production, raising prices, or otherwise manipulating markets to the detriment of consumers. See 15 U.S.C. § 1; State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3, 10, 118 S.Ct. 275, 139 L.Ed.2d 199 (1997); Apex Hosiery Co. v. Leader, 310 U.S. 469, 493, 60 S.Ct. 982, 84 L.Ed. 1311 (1940). In Re Musical Instruments & Equip. Antitrust Litigation, 798 F. 3d 1186 (9th Cir. 2015).

Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits "[e]very contract, combination ... or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce," 15 U.S.C. § 1, "though courts have long restricted its reach to agreements that unreasonably restrain trade," Omnicare, Inc. v. UnitedHealth Grp., Inc., 629 F.3d 697, 705 (7th Cir.2011). Agreements to fix prices unambiguously fall within the ambit of § 1. Id. To prove a § 1 claim, plaintiffs must prove three things: (1) defendants had a contract, combination, or conspiracy ("an agreement"); (2) as a result, trade in the relevant market was unreasonably restrained; and (3) they were injured. Id. In Re Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., 801 F. 3d 758 (7th Cir. 2015).

"To show concerted action, antitrust plaintiffs must produce evidence that would allow a jury to infer that the alleged conspirators 'had a conscious commitment to a common scheme designed to achieve an unlawful objective.'" Id. at 706 (quoting Monsanto Co. v. Spray-Rite Serv. Corp., 465 U.S. 752, 764, 104 S.Ct. 1464, 79 L.Ed.2d 775 (1984)). The evidence must "reveal 'a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of minds in an unlawful arrangement.'" Id. (quoting Am. Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U.S. 781, 810, 66 S.Ct. 1125, 90 L.Ed. 1575 (1946)). In Re Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., ibid.

The Sherman Antitrust Act is based on an often-difficult distinction between concerted and independent, unilateral action. Concerted activity is scrutinized more closely than unilateral behavior because "'[c]oncerted activity inherently is fraught with anticompetitive risk' insofar as it 'deprives the marketplace of independent centers of decisionmaking that competition assumes and demands.'" Am. Needle, 560 U.S. at 190 (quoting Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 768-69 (1984)). Specifically, Section 1 regulates concerted activity between two or more entities, outlawing "[e]very contract, combination . . . or conspiracy, in restraint of trade," 15 U.S.C. § 1, a provision that has subsequently been limited to target only "unreasonable" restraints of trade. To prevail on a claim under § 1, a plaintiff must prove: (1) a contract, combination, or conspiracy; (2) producing adverse, anticompetitive effects in the relevant market; and (3) resulting in injury. See Expert Masonry, Inc. v. Boone Cty., Ky., 440 F.3d 336, 342 (6th Cir. 2006). The Medical Center At Elizabeth Place, LLC v. Atrium Health System, (6th Cir. 2016).