Antitrust Remedies Reform: Hearings of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-ninth Congress, Second Session, on S. 2022 ... and S. 2162 ... March 21, April 15, and May 7, 1986, Volume 4
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986 - Antitrust law - 375 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
abuse actions actual Administration Administration's proposal alleged amount anticompetitive antitrust laws antitrust litigation antitrust remedies antitrust violations approach appropriate attorneys award believe bill bring brought caused Chairman claim reduction clear Committee companies competition competitors concern conduct Congress conspiracy consumers contribution costs courts deal defendants deterrence economic effect eliminating enforcement example existing fact fair Federal fees filed fixing give horizontal incentive increase injury interest involving joint Judge judgment lawsuits legislation less liability limited litigation Metzenbaum overcharge parties person plaintiffs possible potential practices present price-fixing private antitrust problem profits purchases questions reason recent recover reform require response result rule Senator settle settlement share situation statement substantial suggest suits termination Thank Title tort treble damages United vertical victim
Page 305 - ... to the best of the signer's knowledge, information, and belief formed after reasonable inquiry it is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law...
Page 86 - Antitrust laws in general, and the Sherman Act in particular, are the Magna Carta of free enterprise. They are as important to the preservation of economic freedom and our free-enterprise system as the Bill of Rights is to the protection of our fundamental personal freedoms.
Page 102 - ... was undertaken, holds out the distinct possibility of overdeterrence; salutary and procompetitive conduct lying close to the borderline of impermissible conduct might be shunned by businessmen who chose to be excessively cautious in the face of uncertainty regarding possible exposure to criminal punishment for even a good-faith error of judgment.
Page 272 - [W]e must be concerned lest a rule or precedent that authorizes a search for a particular type of undesirable pricing behavior end up by discouraging legitimate price competition.
Page 114 - The question is not how much better off the complainant would be today if it had paid a lower rate. The question is how much worse off it is because others have paid less.
Page 85 - Parliament recognized that it was "one thing to pass statutes and . . . quite another thing to insure that [they were] actually enforced." 4 W. Holdsworth, A History of English Law 335 (3rd ed. 1945) . Accordingly, "it was a common expedient [in the Middle Ages and beyond] to give the public at large an interest in seeing that a statute was enforced ....
Page 367 - Jefferson Parish Hosp. Dist. No. 2 v. Hyde, 466 US 2 (1984) 3:48 Jessel v.
Page 370 - ... to penalize those whose conduct may be deemed to warrant such a sanction, but to deter those who might be tempted to such conduct in the absence of such a deterrent.
Page 104 - There is reason to believe that the practical effect of these procedures, and the fact that possible recoveries run into astronomical amounts, generate more leverage and pressure on defendants to settle, even for millions of dollars, and in cases where the merits of the class representatives...