Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Antitrust Extradition
In April 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) completed extradition of the first defendant of an antitrust violation in the 124-year history of the Sherman Act of 1890. The extradition involved an Italian national extradited after his arrest in Germany in June 2013. The charge for which the Italian citizen was extradited was a single-count felony indictment alleging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. ' 1. The charge was related to a group of rubber manufacturers that had agreed on prices to be charged for flexible hose used to transfer oil between production platforms, oil tankers, and storage facilities (the Marine Hose Cartel), the standard description of a competitor's agreement that DOJ would routinely charge as a criminal violation of Section 1. The DOJ stated in a press release announcing the completed extradition that this “first of its kind extradition on an antitrust charge ' marks a significant step forward in our ongoing efforts to work with our international antitrust colleagues to ensure that those who subvert U.S. law are brought to justice.”
The single event of the extradition is not by itself a watershed event. Rather, it is an indication of developments in global antitrust enforcement, and most notably in international cooperation in global antitrust enforcement. Attorneys need to understand this extradition in order to provide informed advice to clients involved in the myriad multinational cartels now under investigation, and potential investigations in the not too distant future ' particularly counsel for individual defendants in these multinational cartel investigations. This article summarizes the development of U.S. criminal antitrust enforcement that culminated in this extradition.
The Prior Reality
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?