Companies do not have the freedom to merge and acquire as they please do. All have to meet the requirements and essentially be approved by regulatory bodies. In the context of regulations, antitrust laws and security laws are commonly referred to by regulator to determine whether a merger or acquisition should be allowed or rejected. Antitrust laws prohibit mergers and acquisitions that impede competition. The point is very simple where antitrust is referred to as competition. The goal is to increase competition because more competition in economics means that consumers get more at a fairer or lower price. Anytime a regulator believes that a merger or acquisition will make an industry or market less competitive, the business transaction might …show more content…
Assuming that each of the hundred biggest companies in the industry has a market share of one percent we would take one squared plus one squared plus one squared and so forth for the hundred companies and get an HHI of one hundred. If the scenario exists where the HHI is relatively low for an industry then regulators would not be particularly concerned with mergers and acquisitions in that industry. Relatively low is anything that is less than one thousand HHI and would not land on a regulator’s radar. The next step up is anything between one thousand and eighteen hundred which the industry is considered to moderately concentrated. Here, if a merger or acquisition results in a change in HHI of hundred or more than the regulator might take action. In a highly concentrated industry where competition is low, a change in HHI of fifty or more and the regulator will take action. In the U.S., any merger or acquisition that results in an increase greater than 100 points raises antitrust concerns under the Horizontal Merger Guidelines of the Department of
1. Give an example of a case that would fall under diversity jurisdiction. Explain all of the key elements of such a case.
In the case in the text where someone purchased a used safe at an auction for $50, but
On July 15, 1994, the United States sued Microsoft for unlawfully maintaining its monopoly in the market for PC operating system software. The lawsuit alleged that Microsoft engaged in anti-competitive marketing practices directed at PC manufacturers that distributed Microsoft operating system software preinstalled on its PCs. Microsoft began to levy fines against original equipment manufacturing (OEM) companies who distributed or promoted operating systems other than Microsoft. On August 21, 1995, Microsoft "consented" to a "Final Judgement" against them.
case brief---Gregory, a comedy writer, entered into a contract with Wessel, a comedian. The contract provided that Gregory would provide Wessel with a 15 minute monologue for his upcoming appearance on the comedy hour and Wessel will pay $250 to Gregory. All performers could make $500 per appearance on the comedy hour. and when Wessel was scheduled to aper on the comedy hour, Gregory informed him that he was unable to provide the monologue, because last time Wessel was asked to make special guest appearances at three local comedy clubs performance during the comedy hour. and Wessel bought lawsuit to Gregory for beach of contract and request damages of $1250.
3. For a crime to be committed, the prosecutor must be able to prove a criminal intent and an overt act to carry out that intent. Jack and Mary agreed to rob a series of banks. Prior to beginning their bank robbery spree, they were arrested and charged with criminal conspiracy. What act did Jack and Mary do that justifies a finding that they committed the crime? Explain.
Furthermore, in Standard Oil Co., the Supreme Court stated that “The term "monopoly,"… as used in the Sherman Act was intended to cover such monopolies or attempts to monopolize as were known to exist in this country; those which were defined as illegal at common law by the States, when applied to intrastate commerce.” The Supreme Court went on to further state that “the principles of the common law applied to interstate as well as to intrastate commerce.”
Merging with another organization has downfalls of destroying wealth from the merger. Considering the buying price is important when merging, spending too much on the merger will impound the value after the merger. Some mergers do not create wealth so capital is lost through the merger. There is no guarantee of financial gain and every formula considered with focus, just as with an acquisition. The final decision dictated by the variables. One company merging with another company takes the debt and losses of those companies in the new formed company.
6. In an era of global competition, what is the case for antitrust authorities to permit the formation of large domestic firms through mergers and acquisitions?
It is necessary for a firm to expand in order to gain profits or leverage in a market place. One of the ways firms can do this is by executing a merger. There are two types of mergers, horizontal and vertical mergers. There are many incentives for companies to perform either type of merger; however, both types of mergers will always raise suspicion when being executed because they are usually perceived as anticompetitive. In order to prevent an anticompetitive environment, our government established a federal agency called the Federal Trade Commission. Their job is to review the activity of any given firm and decide whether or not to allow them to continue. Presently, CVS and Etna are currently undergoing a vertical merger to gain profits and
America's century-old antitrust law is increasingly irrelevant to our current worldwide information technology market. This law is outdated, in accordance to the modern Microsoft situation, because in the past there wasn't technology as there is now. Recently the government has been accusing Microsoft as being a monopoly. "Techno-Optimists" claim that "efforts by government to promote competition by restraining high-tech firms that acquire market power will only stifle competition." Some analysts disagree. They concede that dynamic technology makes it tough to sustain market power. Still, consumers will want compatible equipment, which will lead them to buy whatever product other consumers are using,
The U.S. government charged that Microsoft had violated antitrust law. Microsoft disagreed. Do you agree with the U.S. government, or with Microsoft? In answering this question, you may wish to address two issues. Was Microsoft a monopoly? Did it use its monopoly to compete unfairly against other companies?
The Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 was passed to prohibit trusts, this was the first law passed by U.S. Congress to enforce this. This act was named after Senator John Sherman. Before this act was put into place, many other states had enforced laws very similar to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. These laws were not perfect though, the large corporations had the majority of the economic power. Congress was not pleased with this, thus making the Sherman Anti-Trust Act. This act allowed Congress to regulate interstate commerce, outlawing monopolistic practices. If a person were to violate this act, he or she could be imprisoned for a year and fined five-thousand dollars. This law was successfully used to help Theodore Roosevelt during his campaign, “trust-busting”. Also, President Taft used the law to back himself up against the Standard Oil Trust and American Tobacco Company. The Standard Oil trust was when a board of nine trustees was set up to make all of the company decisions , allowing the company to run as a monopoly. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act allowed both presidents to dissolve the trusts that were creating problems. On the other hand, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act had many holes, it did not have exact wording, therefore allowing companies to still control the majority of the producing and still get away with it. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act had substantial success, but was put to rest and replaced with the Clayton Anti-Trust
The case against Microsoft was brought buy the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as several state Attorneys General. Microsoft is accused of using and maintaining monopoly power to gain an unfair advantage in the market. The case has been under observation for a long time, but the Justice department is having trouble coming up with substantial evidence against Microsoft. Specifically, the Department must prove:That Microsoft has monopoly power and is using it to gain unfair leverage in the market.And that Microsoft has maintained this monopoly power through "exclusionary" or "predatory" acts(Rule).Some say that Microsoft is only taking advantage of its position in the market and using innovative marketing strategies
Competition in economics is rivalry in supplying or acquiring an economic service or good. Sellers compete with other sellers, and buyers with other buyers. In its perfect form, there is competition among many small buyers and sellers, none of whom is too large to affect the market as a whole; in practice, competition is often reduced by a great variety of limitations, including monopolies. The monopoly, a limit on competition, is an example of market failure. Competition among merchants in foreign trade was common in ancient times, and it has been a characteristic of mercantile and industrial expansion since the Middle Ages. By the 19th century, classical economic theorists had come to regard
There are several barriers that cause anti-competitive effects when merging two companies. Such as the brand name barrier and sunk cost barriers will make it tough for new companies to get immediate recognition to compete among established companies. It restricts the current firms from expanding and seems to exclude new firms from entering into the market. Also, the effect in networking appears to allow only a few businesses to dominate in telecommunications and Internet backbone markets. Due to this, the argument of WorldCom, Inc. and Sprint’s excess capacity in these markets makes them far from achieving the theory of contestable markets, which is having no barriers to entry and exit. Such ability is highly concentrated between few