The chairmen of the House and Senate antitrust subcommittees are just saying no to the Supreme Court’s decision in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 887 (2007).  Leegin overturned the Supreme Court’s 1911 Dr. Miles decision holding that resale price maintenance was per se illegal.  Both bills seek to reinstitute the per se rule by statute.

On January 6, 2009, Chairman Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights introduced S. 148, the “Discount Pricing Consumer Protection Act.”  The Committee held a hearing on the bill on May 19, but it has not taken further action.  click here for more »

The Chairmen of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees have joined forces to open a new – antitrust – front in the war for healthcare reform.  The two leading Democrats are seeking to boost healthcare reform with a partial repeal of an antitrust exemption that’s about as old as Democrats’ efforts to enact universal healthcare.

On September 17, 2009, Chairman John Conyers (D.-Mich.) of the House Judiciary Committee and Chairman Pat Leahy (D.-Vt.) of the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced legislation to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act’s exemption from the federal antitrust laws for health and medical malpractice insurers.  The Act dates back to 1945, the same year that President Harry Truman asked Congress to enact a national health insurance program.   click here for more »

In the 2000 Presidential election, Americans became painfully aware of the dirty secret of their democracy — that the integrity of our elections depends on a messy patchwork of voting machines that use disparate and often archaic systems.  Since then, efforts have been made to improve and standardize the system but the weaknesses of the system remain and are particularly apparent in contested close elections.  Now the integrity of our election systems is being raised in a surprising new context — antitrust merger enforcement.  click here for more »

Being a parent means great responsibilities – especially if you’re a corporate parent with subsidiaries active in the European Union.  As a result of the European Commission’s Akzo Nobel case, such corporate parents now face greater antitrust liability for the conduct of their 100%-owned subsidiaries.

On September 10, 2009, the European Court of Justice dismissed Akzo Nobel’s appeal of a 2007 judgment of the Court of First Instance.  The 2007 judgment confirmed a 2004 European Commission decision that fined Akzo Nobel subsidiaries for their participation in a cartel.  What makes this decision particularly noteworthy is that the subsidiaries’ parent company, Akzo Nobel, NV, was held jointly and severally liable on the basis of its 100% ownership of those subsidiaries. click here for more »