<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>USLegal Reporter &#187; Antitrust Law</title>
	<atom:link href="http://reporter.uslegal.com/category/antitrust-law/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com</link>
	<description>Just another USLegal Blogs weblog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 15:47:29 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.2</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>Federal Court Denies Cable Company Exclusive Rights</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/05/27/federal-court-denies-cable-company-exclusive-rights/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/05/27/federal-court-denies-cable-company-exclusive-rights/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 May 2009 16:30:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antitrust Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cable providers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exclusive service provider]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fcc]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=855</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Washington Court of Appeals held that a cable company can&#8217;t force all residents of a multi-unit apartment building to use its services if it wires the building. The decision upheld a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision that such exclusive provider agreements are anticompetitive.
Banning exclusive agreements could help promote competition and reduce cable rates for [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Washington Court of Appeals held that a cable company can&#8217;t force all residents of a multi-unit apartment building to use its services if it wires the building. The decision upheld a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision that such exclusive provider agreements are anticompetitive.</p>
<p>Banning exclusive agreements could help promote competition and reduce cable rates for an estimated 100 million consumers, FCC members said in interviews. About a quarter of the U.S. population lives in apartments, and industry experts estimate that 5 to 10 percent of those buildings have exclusive contracts. Many contracts last 5 to 10 years, while a few can last indefinitely.</p>
<p>The move will open the door for telephone giants Verizon and AT&amp;T, which now offer video services, and smaller cable competitors such as RCN. Those companies have argued that long-term cable contracts lock them out of key markets.</p>
<p>Source:<br />
<a href="http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Court-says-no-exclusive-cable-rights-in-apartments">http://www.breakinglegalnews.com/entry/Court-says-no-exclusive-cable-rights-in-apartments</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2009/05/27/federal-court-denies-cable-company-exclusive-rights/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>DOJ Files Suit to Block Beef Merger</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/10/22/doj-files-suit-to-block-beef-merger/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/10/22/doj-files-suit-to-block-beef-merger/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Oct 2008 21:51:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>carrie</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antitrust Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DOJ]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[JBS S.A.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Beef Packing Company]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/?p=560</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The US Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit to stop JBS S.A. from acquiring National Beef Packing Company, LLC. The merger would combine the 3rd and 4th largest beef packing plants in the country. However, in its civil antitrust suit filed on Monday, DOJ says the move would result in higher prices for consumers.
Attorneys [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The US Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit to stop JBS S.A. from acquiring National Beef Packing Company, LLC. The merger would combine the 3rd and 4th largest beef packing plants in the country. However, in its civil antitrust suit filed on Monday, DOJ says the move would result in higher prices for consumers.</p>
<p>Attorneys General of Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas and Wyoming are joining the Departments lawsuit.</p>
<p>Source: http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/October/08-at-936.html<a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/October/08-at-936.html"></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/10/22/doj-files-suit-to-block-beef-merger/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Cell Phone Fees Head to Trial</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/06/23/cell-phone-fees-head-to-trial/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/06/23/cell-phone-fees-head-to-trial/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 23 Jun 2008 18:56:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Dana Altman</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antitrust Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contract]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/06/23/cell-phone-fees-head-to-trial/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A lawsuit which is part of four coordinated class action lawsuits against cell phone providers, involving early termination fees, has begun arguments in a California court today. At issue is a California law covering liquidated damages. California Civil Code §1671(d), governing how to collect liquidated damages when someone breaks a contract, requires cell phone companies [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A lawsuit which is part of four coordinated class action lawsuits against cell phone providers, involving early termination fees, has begun arguments in a California court today. At issue is a California law covering liquidated damages. California Civil Code §1671(d), governing how to collect liquidated damages when someone breaks a contract, requires cell phone companies to prove that the fee reasonably reflects the money they lost by losing the customer. If the FCC decides to regulate early termination fees, it is possible that the fees would become part of the cell phone companies&#8217; rate structure, which federal law pre-empts from state regulation.The first case, against Sprint, resulted in a pro-Sprint verdict. Sprint&#8217;s vice president of marketing testified that the company set its early termination fees by comparing the rates competitors used to keep more customers from leaving. The current case being heard is against Verizon.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422467192&#38;pos=ataglance">http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202422467192&amp;pos=ataglance</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/06/23/cell-phone-fees-head-to-trial/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Settlement between US Department of Justice and National Association of Realtors</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/05/28/settlement-between-us-department-of-justice-and-national-association-of-realtors/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/05/28/settlement-between-us-department-of-justice-and-national-association-of-realtors/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 20:58:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Della Sellers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antitrust Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/05/28/settlement-between-us-department-of-justice-and-national-association-of-realtors/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The US Department of Justice and the National Association of Realtors agreed Tuesday to settle an antitrust case filed by the Department in 2005, which alleged that the Association&#8217;s policies and rules limited competition between traditional and online real estate brokers and agents. The settlement, which is subject to approval by a federal judge, allows internet [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The US Department of Justice and the National Association of Realtors <a href="http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2008/May/08-at-467.html">agreed </a>Tuesday to settle an antitrust case filed by the Department in 2005, which alleged that the Association&#8217;s policies and rules limited competition between traditional and online real estate brokers and agents. The settlement, which is subject to approval by a federal judge, allows internet brokers and agents who frequently offer discounted commission rates to fully access affiliated multiple listing services. After the lawsuit was initially filed, the Association&#8217;s policy of excluding internet brokers from listing service membership was suspended.</p>
<p>Although the Association did not admit fault, it agreed to the binding ten-year settlement that prohibits discrimination and exclusion of online brokers and agents from listing service membership. The settlement is expected to bring about reduced sales commissions, while increasing consumer choice and quality of service.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.lexisone.com/news/nlibrary/n052808c.html">http://www.lexisone.com/news/nlibrary/n052808c.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2008/05/28/settlement-between-us-department-of-justice-and-national-association-of-realtors/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whole Foods/Wild Oats Merger to Go Forward</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/24/whole-foodswild-oats-merger-to-go-forward-2/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/24/whole-foodswild-oats-merger-to-go-forward-2/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 14:47:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Della Sellers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antitrust Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/24/whole-foodswild-oats-merger-to-go-forward-2/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Thursday denied the Federal Trade Commission&#8217;s (FTC) request to delay the merger of Whole Foods Market, Inc. and Wild Oats Markets, Inc pending its appeal based on claims of antitrust violations relating to the transaction. The court held that the FTC failed to prove [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Thursday denied the Federal Trade Commission&#8217;s (FTC) request to delay the merger of Whole Foods Market, Inc. and Wild Oats Markets, Inc pending its appeal based on claims of antitrust violations relating to the transaction. The court held that the FTC failed to prove that an earlier decision by U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman refusing to block the acquisition was in error.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/08/federal-appeals-court-allows-whole.php">http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/08/federal-appeals-court-allows-whole.php</a>; <a href="http://www.wholefoods.com/investor/pr07_08-23.html">http://www.wholefoods.com/investor/pr07_08-23.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/24/whole-foodswild-oats-merger-to-go-forward-2/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Whole Food/Wild Oats Merger Delayed</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/20/whole-foodwild-oats-merger-delayed/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/20/whole-foodwild-oats-merger-delayed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 Aug 2007 22:15:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Della Sellers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antitrust Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/20/whole-foodwild-oats-merger-delayed/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia today delayed the merger of Whole Foods Market, Inc. and Wild Oats Markets, Inc. to further review the transaction and its antitrust implications. In issuing the temporary stay, the court noted that its actions should not be interpreted as a ruling on the merits of [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia today delayed the merger of Whole Foods Market, Inc. and Wild Oats Markets, Inc. to further review the transaction and its antitrust implications. In issuing the temporary stay, the court noted that its actions should not be interpreted as a ruling on the merits of the acquisition.</p>
<p>On Friday, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0710114/070817noa0710114.pdf">appealed</a> a district court&#8217;s decision to allow the transaction to go forward. Whole Foods must respond by Wednesday to the FTC&#8217;s request and the FTC must in turn respond by Thursday.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/08/federal-appeals-court-puts-hold-on.php">http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2007/08/federal-appeals-court-puts-hold-on.php</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/20/whole-foodwild-oats-merger-delayed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>FTC&#8217;s Appeal of Ruling Regarding Whole Foods and Wild Oats Merger</title>
		<link>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/17/ftcs-appeal-of-ruling-regarding-whole-foods-and-wild-oats-merger/</link>
		<comments>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/17/ftcs-appeal-of-ruling-regarding-whole-foods-and-wild-oats-merger/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:50:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Della Sellers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antitrust Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/17/ftcs-appeal-of-ruling-regarding-whole-foods-and-wild-oats-merger/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Federal Trade Commission today filed an appeal of the D.C. District Court ruling that allowed Whole Foods Market, Inc. to purchase Wild Oats Markets, Inc. The FTC contends that the merger of the two rival organic food stores would increase prices due to less competition.
According to Whole Foods, it must offer prices competitive with other [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Federal Trade Commission today filed an <a href="http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0710114/070817noa0710114.pdf">appeal</a> of the D.C. District Court <a href="https://ecf.dcd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_public_doc?2007cv1021-163">ruling</a> that allowed Whole Foods Market, Inc. to purchase Wild Oats Markets, Inc. The FTC contends that the merger of the two rival organic food stores would increase prices due to less competition.</p>
<p>According to Whole Foods, it must offer prices competitive with other grocery stores that now offer organic food products. U.S. District Judge Paul Friedman denied the FTC&#8217;s previous request to prevent the purchase, finding no antitrust violations. Whole Foods has agreed to delay closing until August 20th.</p>
<p>Source: <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081701074.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/17/AR2007081701074.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://reporter.uslegal.com/2007/08/17/ftcs-appeal-of-ruling-regarding-whole-foods-and-wild-oats-merger/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
