Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T18:37:39.186Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Remarks by Mark R. Joelson

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Mark R. Joelson
Mark R. Joelson*
Affiliation:
Of the District of Columbia Bar
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Sovereign Compulsion Defense in Antitrust Litigation: New Life for the Act of State Doctrine?
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 72 , 1978 , pp. 100 - 104
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 28 U.S.C. § § 1330, 1602-11 (1976), Pub.L. No. 94-583, 90 Stat. 1891-98.

2 Alfred Dunhill, Inc. v. Republic of Cuba, 425 U.S. 682 (1976).

3 Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of America, 549 F.2d 597 (9th Cir. 1976).

4 ANTITRUST DIVISION, U.S. DEP't OF JUSTICE, ANTITRUST GUIDE FOR INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS (1977).

5 City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light, Co. 98 S.Ct. 1123 (1978).

6 ANTITRUST DIVISION, supra n. 4, at 54 (footnotes and citations omitted).

* Assistant General Counsel, Sperry-Rand Corporation.

1 Brunswick Corp. v. Pueblo Bowl-O-Mat, Inc., 429 U.S. 477 (1977).

2 Columbia Broadcasting Sys., Inc. v. ASCAP, 562 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1977), petition for cert, filed, 46 U.S.L.W. 3710 (No. 77-1583, 1978).

3 Export Administration Act of 1969, 50 U.S.C. app. §§ 2401-13 (Supp. VII 1977) including policy in § 2042(2) “to use export controls (A) to the extent necessary to protect the domestic economy from the excessive drain of scarce materials and to reduce the serious inflationary impact of foreign demand.”

4 Lonergan v. Buford, 148 U.S. 588 (1892).

5 Union Pac. R. R. v. Missouri Public Serv. Comm'n, 248 U.S. 67, 70 (1918).

6 Treaty Establishing The European Economic Community, Mar. 25, 1957, art. 85, 298 UNTS 3, English text annexed to the Act concerning the Conditions of Accession and the Adjustments to the Treaties that accompanies the Treaty concerning the Accession to the European Economic Community and to the European Atomic Energy Community, Jan. 23, 1972, [1973] 2 Gr. Brit. T. S. No. 1 (Cmd. 5179 I and II).

7 Re Christiani and Nielsen, [1969] J.O. Comm. Eur. (No. L 165) 12, [1969] Comm. Mkt. L.R. D36.

8 Case 22/71, Beguelin Import Co. v. G.L. Import Export S.A., [1971] C.J. Comm. E. Rec. 949, [1972] Comm. Mkt. L.R. 81.

9 Case 48/69, Imperial Chem. Indus. Ltd. v. E.E.C. Commission, [1972] C.J. Comm. E. Rec. 619, [1972] Comm. Mkt. L.R. 557.

10 Franco-Japanese Bail-Bearings Agreement, [1974] O.J. Eur. Comm. (No. L 343) 19, [1973-1975 New Dev. Transfer Binder] COMM. MKT. REP. (CCH) 11 9697.

11 Law of July 27, 1957, [1957] Bundesgesetzblatt I 1081.

12 “Beer Delivery,” Decision of Nov. 25, 1965, 3 BGHZ 286 Ger. [1966].

13 For example, §15: “Agreements between enterprises… .”;§ 25 “(1) Concerted action of enterprises … (3) Enterprises … shall not coerce other enterprises: … 3…. to act uniformly with intent to restrain competition”; § 26(1) “Enterprises … shall not incite another enterprise … to refuse to sell or purchase with intent unfairly to harm certain competitors.”

14 Spectrofuge Corp. v. Beckman Instruments, Inc., 575 F.2d 256 (5th Cir. 1978).