Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Criminal Antitrust Violations: Current Limits
The two federal statutes that create criminal liability for antitrust violations are arguably the broadest and most poorly defined of all federal criminal statutes, even recognizing the tortured draftsmanship of the RICO statute and the securities laws' criminal provisions. Section 1 of the Sherman Act of 1890 makes all 'contracts in restraint of trade' a felony, and Section 2 criminalizes 'monopolies or attempts to monopolize' without providing any definition of these terms. 15 U.S.C. ” 1-2. The antitrust statutes are much less clear than some of the broadest criminal provisions, such as the mail fraud statute's prohibition of 'any scheme or artifice to defraud.' The Sherman Act's breadth and lack of clarity has often been described as 'constitutional' ' a comparison to sweeping but ambiguous phrases like 'due process' and 'equal protection.'
According to the Sherman Act, all violations are felonies. However, only a very limited number of violations are prosecuted criminally. Of approximately 30 kinds of conduct listed in an authoritative publication as possible antitrust violations, the Department of Justice treats only three as indictable, despite the Sherman Act's unequivocal declaration that '[e]very contract ' in restraint of trade ' shall be ' a felony.' See Antitrust Law Developments (ABA, 5th ed. 2002).
The Department of Justice could charge any violation of the Sherman Act criminally, but DOJ does so with only a few categories of conduct. There is very little public explanation of this choice by federal prosecutors, and even less by state authorities for comparable state statutes. Counsel advising clients under investigation should know the categories and be ready to argue that the conduct is at worst a civil antitrust violation.
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 Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?