Topic: Libra, the Racist BroCoin (Read 524 times)

Here are some of the issues

MM Steel, LP v. Reliance Steel & Aluminum Co. et al, No. 4:2012cv01227 - Document 504 (S.D. Tex. 2014)
2 Companies conspiring against Competitor(s)

Tunica Web Advertising v. TUNICA CASINO OPERATORS, 496 F.3d 403 (5th Cir. 2007)
Section 1 of the Sherman Act

Spectators’ Comm. Network, Inc. v. Colonial Country Club, et al., 253 F.3d 215 (5 th Cir. 2001)
Engaged in Conspiracy;
That restrained trade;
In a particular market

 NW Wholesale Stationers v. Pac. Stationery 472 U.S. 284 (1985)
“Disadvantage competitors by directly denying… relationships the competitor needs in the competitive struggle”

 Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962)
On December 20, 1960, petitioner filed motions to vacate the judgment and to amend the complaint to assert a right of recovery in quantum meruit for performance of the obligations which were the consideration for the assertedly unenforceable oral contract. On January 17, 1961, petitioner filed a notice of appeal from the judgment of December 19, 1960. On January 23, 1961, the District Court denied petitioner's motions to vacate the judgment and to amend the complaint. On January 26, 1961, petitioner filed a notice of appeal from denial of the motions.
On appeal, the parties briefed and argued the merits of dismissal of the complaint and denial of petitioner's motions by the District Court. Notwithstanding, the Court of Appeals, of its own accord, dismissed the appeal insofar as taken from the District Court judgment of December 19, 1960, and affirmed the orders of the District Court entered January 23, 1961. 292 F.2d 85. This Court granted certiorari. 368 U.S. 951.


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION
 In the Matter of
JOHNSON MATTHEY, INC.          

|

|

|

|

|

|        

Docket Number 99-27

MEMORANDUM OF THE ANTITRUST DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION OF JOHNSON MATTHEY, INC.

>Competition is a rough, often inelegant process by which winners and losers (whether products, firms, or technologies) are chosen by decisions made in the marketplace. In that process, economic actors are constantly challenged to improve on price, cost, and technology, or exit. The end result is economic efficiency and increased technological innovation. Properly understood, the various challenges to the application of Johnson Matthey, Inc. ("Johnson Matthey") raised by Mallinckrodt, Inc. ("Mallinckrodt") and Noramco of Delaware, Inc. ("Noramco") rest on one ground: their fervid desire to avoid such competition and the challenges it would pose to them. Should their efforts to block Johnson Matthey's entry into the market succeed, the result will almost certainly be a less efficient and less innovative market and, ultimately, higher prices for consumers.

For that reason, assuming that the DEA can appropriately regulate Johnson Matthey's facilities to avoid illegal diversion, the Antitrust Division (the "Division") supports this application for registration.(1) More importantly, the Division strongly recommends that the DEA avail itself of this opportunity to clarify yet again its commitment to competition by lowering the regulatory barriers to entry consistent with the need to prevent unlawful diversion. As discussed below, where a market cannot sustain numerous participants -- whether because of production requirements, economies of scale, or government regulation -- its competitiveness depends significantly on facilitating the potential for entry. By clearly articulating the appropriate standard to be used in these proceedings, and by placing the burden of proof where it properly belongs, the DEA will be able to discourage the continuing use of its procedures by those who seek to hinder the development of competition

Noramco of Delaware, Inc., v. Drug Enforcement Administration, 375 F.3d 1148 (D.C. Cir. 2004)