and

Subscribe to and via RSS

On July 27, 2011, the US and China signed an antitrust memorandum of understanding (“MOU”) in an effort to promote communication and cooperation among the antitrust agencies of the two countries. The MOU was signed by the US Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice, together with China’s Ministry of Commerce (“MOFCOM”), National Development and Reform Commission (“NDRC”), and State Administration for Industry and Commerce (“SAIC”).
Continue Reading US & China Sign Antitrust Memorandum of Understanding

On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10-277, holding that 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees around the nation could not bring discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Wal-Mart on a classwide basis, because the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) were not satisfied. The decision is yet another major decision from the Court this term relating to class actions. (See, e.g., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2011)). The Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart clarifies the "rigorous analysis" that courts must conduct under Rule 23, and reaffirms that the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. section 2072(b), cannot be applied in a way that changes substantive rights. Wal-Mart gives antitrust defendants additional potential ammunition to defeat class certification, but it remains to be seen how courts will apply Wal-Mart to a Rule 23(b)(3) antitrust class action instead of a Rule 23(b)(2) Title VII discrimination class action.
 Continue Reading Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Implications For Antitrust Class Actions

On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10-277, holding that 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees around the nation could not bring discrimination claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against Wal-Mart on a classwide basis, because the requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2) were not satisfied. The decision is yet another major decision from the Court this term relating to class actions. (See, e.g., AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, No. 09-893 (U.S. Apr. 27, 2011)). The Supreme Court’s decision in Wal-Mart clarifies the "rigorous analysis" that courts must conduct under Rule 23, and reaffirms that the Rules Enabling Act, 28 U.S.C. section 2072(b), cannot be applied in a way that changes substantive rights. Wal-Mart gives antitrust defendants additional potential ammunition to defeat class certification, but it remains to be seen how courts will apply Wal-Mart to a Rule 23(b)(3) antitrust class action instead of a Rule 23(b)(2) Title VII discrimination class action.
 Continue Reading Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Implications For Antitrust Class Actions

On July 7, 2011, the Federal Trade Commission announced a final rule amending the Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger Notification Rules (the "Rules") and the Premerger Notification and Report Form (the "Form") and associated Instructions to streamline the Form and obtain new information that the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (the "Agencies") believe will help them in evaluating a proposed transaction’s competitive impact.
 Continue Reading New Amendments To Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger Notification Rules