DOJ’s Remarks on Leegin Sample Clauses

DOJ’s Remarks on Leegin. The Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice has also been active in addressing Leegin. It expresses a support for Xxxxxx, analyzes the standards by Xxxxxx, and proposes a new structured rule-of- reason approach for RPM. For example, Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx, who headed the Antitrust Division when the Supreme Court declared the departure from per se condemnation for RPM in Leegin, addressed the Federalist Society highlighting that economic scholarship and the Court’s more recent decisions had thoroughly undermined the bases for Dr. Miles opinion.45）The former Assistant Attorney General also pointed out the importance of the interbrand competition, which can be promoted by RPM, observing that 阪南論集 社会科学編 Vol. 47 No. 2 the per se rule is appropriate only for conduct that is almost invariably anticompetitive. Then there are the comments of Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx who was in charge of the Antitrust Division. In her remarks before the National Association of Attorneys General, Xxxxxx explained how the courts might apply a structured rule-of-reason analysis, stating that a careful reading of Xxxxxx suggests a structured application of the rule of reason tailored to the plaintiff’s theory of how RPM is anticompetitive in the case at hand.46）According to her argument, a preliminary showing of the existence of the arrangement, scope of its operation, and the presence of structural conditions under which RPM is likely to be anticompetitive might well be sufficient to establish the illegality.47）She maintained that under this approach, the burden of proof would shift to the defendant to demonstrate either that its RPM was actually procompetitive or that the plaintiff’s characterizations of the marketplace were erroneous. At least, the defendant would have to establish that it adopted RPM to enhance its success in competing with rivals and that RPM was a reasonable method for accomplishing its procompetitive purposes.48）The remarks were that the use of a structured rule of reason was consistent with NCAA49） and Indiana Federation of Dentists,50）in which the Supreme Court made clear that the rule of reason did not open the field widely to include any argument in favor of a challenged restraint, but permitted the Court to engage in a truncated review when the practice at issue was plainly anticompetitive and did not appear to have any countervailing competitive virtue.51） Keeping in mind that the structured rule-of-reason approach for RPM is consistent with modern development of a...
Sample 1
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs

Related to DOJ’s Remarks on Leegin

  • Provisions for Covered Entity to Inform Business Associate of Privacy Practices and Restrictions (a) Covered Entity shall notify Business Associate of any limitation(s) in the notice of privacy practices of Covered Entity under 45 CFR 164.520, to the extent that such limitation may affect Business Associate’s use or disclosure of protected health information.

  • Certification of Meeting or Exceeding Tobacco-Free Workplace Policy Minimum Standards A. Grantee certifies that it has adopted and enforces a Tobacco-Free Workplace Policy that meets or exceeds all of the following minimum standards of:

  • Sale of Note; Change of Loan Servicer; Notice of Grievance The Note or a partial interest in the Note (together with this Security Instrument) can be sold one or more times without prior notice to Borrower. A sale might result in a change in the entity (known as the “Loan Servicer”) that collects Periodic Payments due under the Note and this Security Instrument and performs other mortgage loan servicing obligations under the Note, this Security Instrument, and Applicable Law. There also might be one or more changes of the Loan Servicer unrelated to a sale of the Note. If there is a change of the Loan Servicer, Borrower will be given written notice of the change which will state the name and address of the new Loan Servicer, the address to which payments should be made and any other information RESPA requires in connection with a notice of transfer of servicing. If the Note is sold and thereafter the Loan is serviced by a Loan Servicer other than the purchaser of the Note, the mortgage loan servicing obligations to Borrower will remain with the Loan Servicer or be transferred to a successor Loan Servicer and are not assumed by the Note purchaser unless otherwise provided by the Note purchaser. Neither Borrower nor Lender may commence, join, or be joined to any judicial action (as either an individual litigant or the member of a class) that arises from the other party’s actions pursuant to this Security Instrument or that alleges that the other party has breached any provision of, or any duty owed by reason of, this Security Instrument, until such Borrower or Lender has notified the other party (with such notice given in compliance with the requirements of Section 15) of such alleged breach and afforded the other party hereto a reasonable period after the giving of such notice to take corrective action. If Applicable Law provides a time period which must elapse before certain action can be taken, that time period will be deemed to be reasonable for purposes of this paragraph. The notice of acceleration and opportunity to cure given to Borrower pursuant to Section 22 and the notice of acceleration given to Borrower pursuant to Section 18 shall be deemed to satisfy the notice and opportunity to take corrective action provisions of this Section 20.

  • Concluding Remarks This chapter explored whether multiple concepts related to slot coordination offer scope for finding solutions for the specific issues experienced at super-congested airports relating to this dissertation’s research questions, primarily in the field of reflecting the public value associated with slots in coordination decisions and safeguarding airport access for the purposes of a competitive air transport market safeguarded by EU Regulation 1008/2008. The concepts discussed include the debate on who holds the legal title to a slot, the functionally and financially independent coordinator, the application of the new entrant rule, the implementation of a secondary market for slots and the relationship between the allocation of slots and competition law. In my view, slots are allocated to airlines as entitlements to use available infrastructure, subject to conditions such as utilization thresholds or allocation criteria. Indeed, they represent relevant operational, economic, legal and social interests and functions.1342 Inter alia, according to the Commission, slots are “critical inputs” for any entrant wishing to operate or expand services.1343 Although airlines, airports and governments alike have claimed they should be regarded as the legal owners of slots,1344 they cannot, in my view, be identified as property rights. At super-congested airports in particular, slots are valuable concepts to society at large as they safeguard public functions such as connectivity and airport access, as discussed in Chapter 2, sections 2.3 and 2.4. Accordingly, Chapter 6 recommends that the coordinator should ensure that scarce slots are declared, allocated and used in a way that is reflective of these public functions. Solving the debate on slot ownership by clarifying that slots are essentially public goods could contribute to making this recommendation work. Furthermore, a future slot regime should be cognizant of the shifted role of the coordinator from performing merely technical functions to that of a policymaker, so to say. At super-congested airports, slot allocation ultimately comes down to making decisions which airlines can and cannot operate to and from an airport.1345 With slot scarcity levels and the risk of judicial reviews of allocation decisions rising, coordinators play an increasingly important role in the correct application of the slot allocation rules. After all, airlines are all in the same ‘game’ for the last available slot pair and the coordinator continuously has to make trade-offs between competing slot requests. Though the coordinator has been delegated public functions, by no means was the slot coordinator intended to perform the task of policy making. Arguably, the coordinator has been handed a role it was never intended to perform.1346 In a constrained environment where the overall number of slots is largely fixed and there is no outlook for capacity increases, the possibilities for airlines to start or expand services requires incumbent airlines to exit or downscale their services at a particular airport.1347 Given the high value of slots at super-congested airports, it is unlikely that airlines will simply hand back the slots they hold to the coordinator, even in times of economic downturn. Instead, they may capitalize the slots they hold to pay off creditors in case of a bankruptcy or insolvency, or they may engage in slot transfers or lease agreements, as discussed in sections 5.3 and 5.6 above. Hence, airport access becomes foreclosed in its entirety to airlines wanting to expand or 1342 See European Commission, supra note 54, paragraph 11. 1343 See Case M.3770 – Lufthansa/Swiss, supra note 274, paragraph 27. 1344 See Abeyratne, supra note 55, at 36; Xxxx XxxXxxxxx, supra note 63, at 2-2. 1345 See ICAO, supra note 256. 1346 See Xxxxxx et al., supra note 18, at 9. 1347 See Xxxx XxxXxxxxx(II), supra note 113, at 111. start operations at super-congested airports with no slots freely available, or at peak times at other congested airports.

  • Exceptional Access to Thick Registration Data In case of a registrar failure, deaccreditation, court order, etc. that prompts the temporary or definitive transfer of its domain names to another registrar, at the request of ICANN, Registry Operator will provide ICANN with up-­‐to-­‐date data for the domain names of the losing registrar. The data will be provided in the format specified in Specification 2 for Data Escrow. The file will only contain data related to the domain names of the losing registrar. Registry Operator will provide the data as soon as commercially practicable, but in no event later than five (5) calendar days following ICANN’s request. Unless otherwise agreed by Registry Operator and ICANN, the file will be made available for download by ICANN in the same manner as the data specified in Section 3.1 of this Specification.

  • CERTAIN TERMINATIONS PROHIBITED; CERTAIN CANCELLATIONS NON-APPEALABLE The following circumstances will not be considered a valid basis for termination of this agreement, and will be considered non- appealable or irrelevant to an appeal of a cancellation fee assessment:

  • Incorporation of Prompt Payment Policy Statement into Contracts The provisions of this Exhibit shall apply to all Payments as they become due and owing pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement, notwithstanding that NYSERDA may subsequently amend its Prompt Payment Policy by further rulemaking.

  • Withdrawal of Property from Market or Termination of Discussions Potential Investor acknowledges that the Property has been offered for sale subject to withdrawal of the Property from the market at any time or rejection of any offer because of the terms thereof, or for any other reason whatsoever, without notice, as well as the termination of discussions with any party at any time without notice for any reason whatsoever.

  • MFMP Transaction Fee Reports The Contractor shall submit complete monthly MFMP Transaction Fee Reports to the Department. Reports are due 15 calendar days after the end of each month. Information on how to submit MFMP Transaction Fee Reports online can be located at xxxxx://xxx.xxx.xxxxxxxxx.xxx/business_operations/state_ purchasing/myfloridamarketplace/mfmp_vendors/transaction_fee_and_reporting. Assistance with transaction fee reporting is also available by email at xxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx or telephone at 866-FLA-EPRO (866-352- 3776) from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time.

  • Certification of Funds; Budget and Fiscal Provisions; Termination in the Event of Non-Appropriation This Agreement is subject to the budget and fiscal provisions of the City’s Charter. Charges will accrue only after prior written authorization certified by the Controller, and the amount of City’s obligation hereunder shall not at any time exceed the amount certified for the purpose and period stated in such advance authorization. This Agreement will terminate without penalty, liability or expense of any kind to City at the end of any fiscal year if funds are not appropriated for the next succeeding fiscal year. If funds are appropriated for a portion of the fiscal year, this Agreement will terminate, without penalty, liability or expense of any kind at the end of the term for which funds are appropriated. City has no obligation to make appropriations for this Agreement in lieu of appropriations for new or other agreements. City budget decisions are subject to the discretion of the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. Contractor’s assumption of risk of possible non-appropriation is part of the consideration for this Agreement. THIS SECTION CONTROLS AGAINST ANY AND ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS AGREEMENT.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.