We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.
Lexology logo
  Request new password

Ronald S Rauchberg Proskauer Rose LLP

Results 1 to 5 of 16



Exchange of employee wage information: what is permitted under the antitrust laws? *

USA - October 12 2012
The exchange of wage-related information between two competitors may not be a per se violation of antitrust laws, according to a Federal court in Michigan.

Co-authors: Alan R Kusinitz, Alicia J Batts, Colin Kass, Helene D Jaffe, Scott P Cooper.


7th Circuit clarifies standing to challenge "interlock" violations *

USA - October 12 2012
Company shareholders do not suffer "antitrust injuries" because of an alleged violation of Section 8 of the Clayton Act, prohibiting officers and directors from serving on the boards of competing corporations, according to a new Seventh Circuit decision in Robert F. Booth Trust v. Crowley.

Co-authors: Alan R Kusinitz, Alicia J Batts, Colin Kass, Helene D Jaffe, Scott P Cooper.


Minn-Chem maximizes Sherman Act's reach *

USA - October 12 2012
The long arm of American antitrust law can reach across oceans and penalize actions by foreign corporations, so long as those actions have a "reasonably proximate causal nexus" to effects in the United States.

Co-authors: Alan R Kusinitz, Alicia J Batts, Colin Kass, Helene D Jaffe, Scott P Cooper.


The FTC goes retro to win down south *

USA - October 12 2012
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) scored a victory in the Eleventh Circuit this summer when the court upheld a divestiture order based on violations of the Clayton and FTC Acts.

Co-authors: Alan R Kusinitz, Alicia J Batts, Colin Kass, Helene D Jaffe, Scott P Cooper.


Family dining meets value investing – proxy battle spills over into antitrust arena and lands investor $850,000 penalty *

USA - October 1 2012
The Department of Justice's ("DOJ") imposition of an $850,000 penalty against Biglari Holdings, Inc. for violating the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (the "HSR Act") illustrates both the agency's view of the limited scope of the passive investor exemption as well as their continued zeal for taking a hard line on HSR violations, even where it does not challenge the underlying bona fides of a transaction.

Co-authors: Alan R Kusinitz, Alicia J Batts, Colin Kass, Helene D Jaffe, Scott P Cooper.


Next »