Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Recent DOJ Losses In Antitrust Cases Don't Tell the Whole Story
Many of the Biden Administration's antitrust enforcement actions have involved attempts to regulate anticompetitive conduct in labor markets by means of the antitrust laws. Recently, for example, DOJ has criminally prosecuted defendants for allegedly engaging in wage-fixing and using "no-poach" agreements to restrict competition. And it has successfully blocked a proposed merger using a novel, labor-centric theory. See, "Judge Blocks a Merger of Penguin Random House and Simon & Shuster," Biden's FTC, meanwhile, has proposed a rule restricting the use of noncompete agreements.
But some recent labor-market enforcement attempts have floundered: High-profile criminal prosecutions keep resulting in acquittals. So the question becomes: "What do those losses mean for labor-side antitrust law?"
Less than you might think. Although some commentators have wondered whether the acquittals mean DOJ will stop prosecuting labor-side antitrust cases (see, "Is 'No Poach' No More?," Miller & Chevalier), criminal prosecutions are only a small piece of the Administration's antitrust agenda. And even in cases where defendants have been acquitted, the government has won on significant legal issues along the way. Such wins — combined with other antitrust-revitalization initiatives — may well be pushing both civil and criminal antitrust law in exactly the direction, if not quite the distance, the Biden Administration hopes to move it.
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.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.