Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal Criminal Antitrust Enforcement
We last reviewed the performance of the Obama Administration's criminal antitrust enforcement during the second year of the first Obama administration. Laing, D.: Criminal Antitrust Enforcement Under the Obama Administration, Business Crimes Bulletin, September 2010. Now three years later and well into the second Obama Administration, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has undergone a sufficient number of structural changes, announced certain important policy changes, and has had three more years of activity for us to review whether the Antitrust Division has fulfilled Candidate Obama's campaign promise to “reinvigorate antitrust enforcement” and take “aggressive action to curb the growth of international cartels.” Candidate Obama famously stated that, in comparison with antitrust enforcement under the supervision of George H.W. Bush, “Under my administration, the antitrust laws will mean something again.”
Enforcement and Workload Statistics
We begin with a review of the statistical evidence. In terms of antitrust fines imposed by U.S. District Courts, the Obama Antitrust Division has continued to obtain substantial financial penalties in its criminal antitrust prosecutions. The $1.1 billion in fines imposed in FY 2012 (the U.S. government fiscal year begins Oct. 1) represents the highest annual antitrust fines amount imposed to date. However, nearly 95% of this record antitrust penalty figure resulted from two fines ' the $500 million imposed against Taiwanese display manufacturer AU Optronics after a trial to verdict, which is under appeal; and a $470 million fine imposed against Japanese auto parts manufacturer Yazaki Corporation through plea agreement.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?