Normas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financiera

Normas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financiera

El presente artículo de investigación estudia el fenómeno de la reducción de las normas antimonopolio en los últimos años en los Estados Unidos de América, donde existía una fuerte tradición antimonopolística por vía del ejercicio de acciones de carácter privado para prevenir y sancionar estos comportamientos anticompetitivos. Para esos efectos, en el artículo se estudian los antecedentes más relevantes del origen de las normas antimonopolio y su auge, y se concreta con su reciente declive. Finalmente, se hace un análisis de las posibles causas del declive regulatorio y sus implicaciones negativas en el contexto nacional e internacional de los Estados Unidos.

Guardado en:

Derecho Penal y Criminología

0121-0483

2346-2108

Bartholomew , Christine P.

UNIVERSIDAD EXTERNADO DE COLOMBIA

10.18601/01210483.v45n118.06

45

2023-12-06

175

207

Colombia

acciones privadas en defensa de la competencia y corrupción

acciones de grupo,

leyes antimonopolio,

http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2

info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess

Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.

Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023

id 4f66b5ac1e0b8b74a29fb01592c82654
record_format ojs
spelling Normas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financiera
Suzette M. Malveaux, Symposium, Clearing Civil Procedural Hurdles in the Quest of Justice, 37 Ohio N. U. L. Rev. 621, 624 (2011).
FTC V. Ind. Fed’n of Dentists, 476 U. S. 477 (1986).
Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 (1911).
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544 (2007).
Atl. City Elec. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 226 F. Supp. 59, 60-61 (S. D. N. Y. 1964).
Animal Sci. Prod., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 34 F. Supp. 3d 465, 499 (D. N. J. 2014).
Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013).
Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U. S. 145 (1968).
Yeazell, Stephen C. From Medieval Group Litigation to The Modern Class Action 264 (1987).
Wu, Tim. The Curse of Bigness 78-79 (2018).
Willging, Thomas E. & Shannon R. Wheatman, Attorney Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation: What Difference Does It Make?, 81 Notre Dame L. Rev. 591, 645, 652-54 (2006).
Watkins, Myron W. Electrical Equipment Antitrust Cases: Their Implications for Government and for Business, 97 U. Chicago L. Rev. 97, 104 (1961).
Wasserman, Howard M. The Roberts Court and the Civil Procedure Revival, 31 Rev. Litig. 313 (2012).
Thorelli, Hans B. The Federal Antitrust Policy 206-210 (1955).
Sternlight, Jean R. As Mandatory Binding Arbitration Meets the Class Action, Will the Class Action Survive?, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1, 35 (2000).
In re Auto. Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 177 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (E. D. Pa. 2001).
Specter Proposes Return to Prior Pleading Standard, Blog of Legal Times (July 23, 2009) http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/07/specter-proposes-return-toprior-pleading-standard.html
Singh, Rahu. The Teeter-Totter of Regulation and Competition: Balancing the Indian Competition Commission with Sectoral Regulators, 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 71, 96 (2009).
Silver, Charles. “We’re Scared to Death”: Class Certification and Blackmail, 78 n. y. u. l. Rev. 1357, 1361-62 (2003).
Silver, Charles. “We’re Scared to Death”: Class Certification and Blackmail, 78 n. y. u. l. Rev. 1357, 1430 (2003).
Segmento uno: enero 18, 1995 Cartel Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia—The Lysine Cartel Members Show Disdain for Customers and Antitrust Enforcement, disponible en https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/caught-act-inside-international-cartel
Rutherglen, G. Wal-Mart, AT&T Mobility, and the Decline of the Deterrent Class Action, 98 Va. L. Rev. In Brief 24, 25 (2012).
Phillips Sawyer, Laura. U. S. Antitrust Law and Policy in Historical Perspective, Working Paper 19-110, Harvard Business School (2019).
Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 168 n.8 (3rd Cir. 2001)
Neal, Phil C. and Perry Goldberg, The Electrical Equipment Antitrust Cases: Novel Judicial Administration, 50 Am. Bar Assoc. J. 621, 622 (July 1964).
Nasar, Sylvia & Milton Handler, 95, Is Dead; Antitrust Expert Wrote Laws, NY Times, nov. 12, 1998, disponible en http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/12/business/milton-handler-95-is-dead-antitrust-expert-wrote-laws.html
Luff, Patrick A. Bad Bargains: The Mistake of Allowing Cost-Benefit Analyses in Class Action Certification Decisions, 41 U. Mem. L. Rev. 65, 68 (2010).
London v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 340 F.3d 1246, 1255 n.5 (11th Cir. 2003).
Loffi, Kathryn G. Suppliers of aids-Contaminated Blood Now Face Liability, 34 How. L.J. 183, 187-88 (1991).
Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U. S. 251, 262 (1972).
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard I), n. 1261, 2000 WL 1475559, en *1-3 (E. D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2000).
Lehman, James K. Blood Suppliers’ Liability for aids Contaminated Blood, 41 S. C. L. Rev. 107, 109 n.14 (1989).
Transam. Refining Corp. v. Dravo Corp., n. 4:88CV00789 (S. D. Tex. filed Mar.10, 1988).
Text
http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREF
http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
info:eu-repo/semantics/article
Judiciary Comm. Report on Class Action Fairness Act, S. Rep. n. 109-14, at 27, reimpreso en 2005 u. s. c. c. a. n. en 27.
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. n. 109-2, § 3, 119 Stat. 4, 5-9.
Act of July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (1890).
Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pac. Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U. S. 284 (1985).
Wadleigh v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 157 f. r. d. 410, 413 (N. D. Ill. 1994).
Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U. S. 1 (2006).
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard ii), 203 f. r. d. 197, 201-04 (E. D. Pa. 2001).
State Oil Co. v. Khan, 552 U. S. 3 (1997).
Omnicare, Inc. v. Unitedhealth Grp., Inc., 524 F. Supp. 2d 1031, 1037 (N. D. Ill. 2007).
Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 165 (3d Cir. 2001).
Newton v. Merrill Lynch, 259 F.3d 154 (3rd Cir. 2001).
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U. S. 877 (2007).
Leegin Creative Leather Prods, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007).
Jeff Wright, Note, Bad Blood: Wadleigh v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., Mandamus Uncabined, 23 W. St. U. L. Rev. 549, 550-52 (1996).
Jeff Lyon, A Matter of Life or Death, Chi. Trib. Sunday Mag., April 23, 1989.
In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1299 (7th Cir. 1995).
In re Relafen Antitrust Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Mass. 2004).
In re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litig., 93 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (N. D. Ga. 2000).
In re Matter of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1304 (7th Cir. 1995).
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 321 F. Supp. 2d 619 (E. D. Pa. 2004).
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard iii), 305 F.3d 145, 147-49 (3d Cir. 2002).
Letter from Albert A. Foer, President, The American Antitrust Institute, to Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal, Chair, The Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (May 27, 2010).
Legge v. Nextel Commc’ns, Inc., CV 02-8676dsf(VNKX), 2004 WL 5235587, en **13-17 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2004).
Lees, Gail E. et al., Year in Review on Class Actions, 13 Class Action Litig. Rep. (BNA) n.4, Feb. 24, 2012, en 225.
Instituto de Ciencias Penales y Criminológicas
Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 746 (5th Cir. 1996).
Cohen, Andrew. No Class: The Supreme Court’s Arbitration Ruling, The Atlantic (Apr. 27, 2011, 5:33 AM), http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/no-class-the-supreme-courts-arbitration-ruling/237967
Carrillo Zuluaga, Paola Andrea. Colombia: Superintendency of Industry and Commerce, The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2019 (sept. 3, 2018).
Calabresi, Steven G. & Larissa C. Leibowitz, Monopolies and the Constitution: A History of Crony Capitalism, 36 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 983, 1012-13 (2013).
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
Español
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/view/9150
Derecho Penal y Criminología
text/html
Coffee, John C. Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 1343, 1465 (1995).
application/pdf
Artículo de revista
Núm. 118 , Año 2024 : Enero-Junio
118
45
acciones privadas en defensa de la competencia y corrupción
acciones de grupo,
leyes antimonopolio,
Bartholomew , Christine P.
El presente artículo de investigación estudia el fenómeno de la reducción de las normas antimonopolio en los últimos años en los Estados Unidos de América, donde existía una fuerte tradición antimonopolística por vía del ejercicio de acciones de carácter privado para prevenir y sancionar estos comportamientos anticompetitivos. Para esos efectos, en el artículo se estudian los antecedentes más relevantes del origen de las normas antimonopolio y su auge, y se concreta con su reciente declive. Finalmente, se hace un análisis de las posibles causas del declive regulatorio y sus implicaciones negativas en el contexto nacional e internacional de los Estados Unidos.
Cavanagh, Edward D. Twombly: The Demise of Notice Pleading, the Triumph of Milton Handler, and the Uncertain Future of Private Antitrust Enforcement, 28 Rev. Litig. 1, 17–27 (2008).
Publication
Congress Watch, Pub. Citizen, Class Action “Judicial Hellholes”: Empirical Evidence Is Lacking (2005), disponible en http:// www.citizen.org/documents/OutlierReport.pdf.
Handler, Milton. Recent Antitrust Developments, 112 U. Pa. L. Rev. 159, 188 (1963).
Lazaroff, Daniel E. Entry Barriers and Contemporary Antitrust Litigation, 7 U. C. Davis Bus. L. J. 1, 46-51 (2006).
Lande, Robert H.; Joshua P. Davis, Benefits from Private Antitrust Enforcement: An Analysis of Forty Cases, 42 U. S. F. L. Rev. 879, 906 (2008).
Lamberg Kafele, Heather & Mario M. Meeks. Developing Trends and Patterns in Federal Antitrust Cases after Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Aschroft v. Iqbal, Shearman & Sterling llp Antitrust Digest (Apr. 2010).
Klonoff, Robert H. The Decline of Class Actions, 90 Wash. U. L. Rev. 729, 736 (2013).
Kaplow, Louis. Antitrust, Law & Economics, and the Courts, 50 Law & Contemporary Problems 181, 184 (1987).
Kanner, Allan & Tibor Nagy. Exploding the Blackmail Myth: A New Perspective on Class Action Settlements, 57 Baylor L. Rev. 681, 697 (2005).
“Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing”, Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates (sept. 9, 2015), disponible en The Department of Justice Archives https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/individual-accountability.
Hovenkamp, Herbert. The Pleading Problem in Antitrust Cases and Beyond, 95 Iowa L. Rev. Bull. 55, 56–58 (2010).
Hewitt Pate, R Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General, “International Anti-Cartel Enforcement” (nov. 21, 2004) disponible en http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/206428.html
Deborah R. Hensler et al., Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain 471 (2000).
Hatamyar, Patricia W. The Tao of Pleading: Do Twombly and Iqbal Matter Empirically?, 59 Am. U. L. Rev. 553, 607 (2010).
Handler, Milton. The Shift from Substantive to Procedural Innovations in Antitrust Suits-the Twenty-Third Annual Antitrust Review, 71 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 9 (1971).
Hawthorne, Donald. Recent Trends in Federal Antitrust Class Actions, Antitrust 60 (verano 2010).
Handler, Milton. Foreword, 75 Cal. L. Rev. 787 (1987).
Epstein, Lee; William M. Landes, & Richard A. Posner, Is the Roberts Court Pro Business?, sec. 3, n. 3 (Dec. 17, 2010) (unpublished manuscript), www.scribd.com/doc/50720643/EPSTEIN-LANDES-POSNER-Is-the-Roberts-ourt-Pro-Business
Dep’t of Justice Antitrust Resource Manual, disponible en https://www.justice.gov/jm/antitrust-resource-manual-1-attorney-generals-policy-statement.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford, “Antitrust Enforcement and the Fight Against Corruption”, Remarks as Prepared for the Conference on Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption Challenges, (San Paolo, Brazil Oct. 3, 2017).
Glass, Ira. The Fix is In, This American Life (sept. 15, 2000).
Friendly, Henry J. Federal Jurisdiction: A General View 120 (1973).
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Scott D. Hammond, “Caught in the Act: Inside an International Cartel”, oecd Competition Committee, Working Party n.3 Public Prosecutors Program (Oct. 18, 2005 Paris, France), disponible en https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/caught-act-inside-international-cartel
Glinskies, Emmalina. By the Numbers: The Rise of Monopolies, The Nation (Feb. 15, 2018).
Federal Class Actions: A Suggested Revision of Rule 23, 46 Colum. L. Rev. 818, 822-23 (1946).
Eichenwald, Kurt. The Informant 12 (2000)
This research article studies the phenomenon of the reduction of antitrust rules in recent years in the United States of America. In the United States there was a strong antitrust tradition through the exercise of private actions to prevent and sanction anticompetitive behaviors. For these purposes, the article studies the most relevant antecedents of the origin of antitrust regulations, their rise, and their recent decline. Finally, the article analyses the possible causes of the regulatory decline and its negative implications in the national and international context of the United States.
antitrust laws,
class actions,
private antitrust actions and corruption
Antitrust Norms in the United States and Financial Corruption
Journal article
207
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/9150/15781
https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/9150/15782
2346-2108
2023-12-06T14:31:05Z
2023-12-06T14:31:05Z
2023-12-06
https://doi.org/10.18601/01210483.v45n118.06
10.18601/01210483.v45n118.06
0121-0483
175
institution UNIVERSIDAD EXTERNADO DE COLOMBIA
thumbnail https://nuevo.metarevistas.org/UNIVERSIDADEXTERNADODECOLOMBIA/logo.png
country_str Colombia
collection Derecho Penal y Criminología
title Normas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financiera
spellingShingle Normas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financiera
Bartholomew , Christine P.
acciones privadas en defensa de la competencia y corrupción
acciones de grupo,
leyes antimonopolio,
antitrust laws,
class actions,
private antitrust actions and corruption
title_short Normas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financiera
title_full Normas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financiera
title_fullStr Normas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financiera
title_full_unstemmed Normas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financiera
title_sort normas antimonopolio en estados unidos y corrupción financiera
title_eng Antitrust Norms in the United States and Financial Corruption
description El presente artículo de investigación estudia el fenómeno de la reducción de las normas antimonopolio en los últimos años en los Estados Unidos de América, donde existía una fuerte tradición antimonopolística por vía del ejercicio de acciones de carácter privado para prevenir y sancionar estos comportamientos anticompetitivos. Para esos efectos, en el artículo se estudian los antecedentes más relevantes del origen de las normas antimonopolio y su auge, y se concreta con su reciente declive. Finalmente, se hace un análisis de las posibles causas del declive regulatorio y sus implicaciones negativas en el contexto nacional e internacional de los Estados Unidos.
description_eng This research article studies the phenomenon of the reduction of antitrust rules in recent years in the United States of America. In the United States there was a strong antitrust tradition through the exercise of private actions to prevent and sanction anticompetitive behaviors. For these purposes, the article studies the most relevant antecedents of the origin of antitrust regulations, their rise, and their recent decline. Finally, the article analyses the possible causes of the regulatory decline and its negative implications in the national and international context of the United States.
author Bartholomew , Christine P.
author_facet Bartholomew , Christine P.
topicspa_str_mv acciones privadas en defensa de la competencia y corrupción
acciones de grupo,
leyes antimonopolio,
topic acciones privadas en defensa de la competencia y corrupción
acciones de grupo,
leyes antimonopolio,
antitrust laws,
class actions,
private antitrust actions and corruption
topic_facet acciones privadas en defensa de la competencia y corrupción
acciones de grupo,
leyes antimonopolio,
antitrust laws,
class actions,
private antitrust actions and corruption
citationvolume 45
citationissue 118
citationedition Núm. 118 , Año 2024 : Enero-Junio
publisher Instituto de Ciencias Penales y Criminológicas
ispartofjournal Derecho Penal y Criminología
source https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/view/9150
language Español
format Article
rights http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.
Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
references Suzette M. Malveaux, Symposium, Clearing Civil Procedural Hurdles in the Quest of Justice, 37 Ohio N. U. L. Rev. 621, 624 (2011).
FTC V. Ind. Fed’n of Dentists, 476 U. S. 477 (1986).
Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 (1911).
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544 (2007).
Atl. City Elec. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 226 F. Supp. 59, 60-61 (S. D. N. Y. 1964).
Animal Sci. Prod., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 34 F. Supp. 3d 465, 499 (D. N. J. 2014).
Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013).
Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U. S. 145 (1968).
Yeazell, Stephen C. From Medieval Group Litigation to The Modern Class Action 264 (1987).
Wu, Tim. The Curse of Bigness 78-79 (2018).
Willging, Thomas E. & Shannon R. Wheatman, Attorney Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation: What Difference Does It Make?, 81 Notre Dame L. Rev. 591, 645, 652-54 (2006).
Watkins, Myron W. Electrical Equipment Antitrust Cases: Their Implications for Government and for Business, 97 U. Chicago L. Rev. 97, 104 (1961).
Wasserman, Howard M. The Roberts Court and the Civil Procedure Revival, 31 Rev. Litig. 313 (2012).
Thorelli, Hans B. The Federal Antitrust Policy 206-210 (1955).
Sternlight, Jean R. As Mandatory Binding Arbitration Meets the Class Action, Will the Class Action Survive?, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1, 35 (2000).
In re Auto. Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 177 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (E. D. Pa. 2001).
Specter Proposes Return to Prior Pleading Standard, Blog of Legal Times (July 23, 2009) http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2009/07/specter-proposes-return-toprior-pleading-standard.html
Singh, Rahu. The Teeter-Totter of Regulation and Competition: Balancing the Indian Competition Commission with Sectoral Regulators, 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 71, 96 (2009).
Silver, Charles. “We’re Scared to Death”: Class Certification and Blackmail, 78 n. y. u. l. Rev. 1357, 1361-62 (2003).
Silver, Charles. “We’re Scared to Death”: Class Certification and Blackmail, 78 n. y. u. l. Rev. 1357, 1430 (2003).
Segmento uno: enero 18, 1995 Cartel Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia—The Lysine Cartel Members Show Disdain for Customers and Antitrust Enforcement, disponible en https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/caught-act-inside-international-cartel
Rutherglen, G. Wal-Mart, AT&T Mobility, and the Decline of the Deterrent Class Action, 98 Va. L. Rev. In Brief 24, 25 (2012).
Phillips Sawyer, Laura. U. S. Antitrust Law and Policy in Historical Perspective, Working Paper 19-110, Harvard Business School (2019).
Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 168 n.8 (3rd Cir. 2001)
Neal, Phil C. and Perry Goldberg, The Electrical Equipment Antitrust Cases: Novel Judicial Administration, 50 Am. Bar Assoc. J. 621, 622 (July 1964).
Nasar, Sylvia & Milton Handler, 95, Is Dead; Antitrust Expert Wrote Laws, NY Times, nov. 12, 1998, disponible en http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/12/business/milton-handler-95-is-dead-antitrust-expert-wrote-laws.html
Luff, Patrick A. Bad Bargains: The Mistake of Allowing Cost-Benefit Analyses in Class Action Certification Decisions, 41 U. Mem. L. Rev. 65, 68 (2010).
London v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 340 F.3d 1246, 1255 n.5 (11th Cir. 2003).
Loffi, Kathryn G. Suppliers of aids-Contaminated Blood Now Face Liability, 34 How. L.J. 183, 187-88 (1991).
Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U. S. 251, 262 (1972).
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard I), n. 1261, 2000 WL 1475559, en *1-3 (E. D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2000).
Lehman, James K. Blood Suppliers’ Liability for aids Contaminated Blood, 41 S. C. L. Rev. 107, 109 n.14 (1989).
Transam. Refining Corp. v. Dravo Corp., n. 4:88CV00789 (S. D. Tex. filed Mar.10, 1988).
Judiciary Comm. Report on Class Action Fairness Act, S. Rep. n. 109-14, at 27, reimpreso en 2005 u. s. c. c. a. n. en 27.
Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. n. 109-2, § 3, 119 Stat. 4, 5-9.
Act of July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (1890).
Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pac. Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U. S. 284 (1985).
Wadleigh v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 157 f. r. d. 410, 413 (N. D. Ill. 1994).
Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U. S. 1 (2006).
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard ii), 203 f. r. d. 197, 201-04 (E. D. Pa. 2001).
State Oil Co. v. Khan, 552 U. S. 3 (1997).
Omnicare, Inc. v. Unitedhealth Grp., Inc., 524 F. Supp. 2d 1031, 1037 (N. D. Ill. 2007).
Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 165 (3d Cir. 2001).
Newton v. Merrill Lynch, 259 F.3d 154 (3rd Cir. 2001).
Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U. S. 877 (2007).
Leegin Creative Leather Prods, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007).
Jeff Wright, Note, Bad Blood: Wadleigh v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., Mandamus Uncabined, 23 W. St. U. L. Rev. 549, 550-52 (1996).
Jeff Lyon, A Matter of Life or Death, Chi. Trib. Sunday Mag., April 23, 1989.
In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1299 (7th Cir. 1995).
In re Relafen Antitrust Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Mass. 2004).
In re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litig., 93 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (N. D. Ga. 2000).
In re Matter of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1304 (7th Cir. 1995).
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 321 F. Supp. 2d 619 (E. D. Pa. 2004).
In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard iii), 305 F.3d 145, 147-49 (3d Cir. 2002).
Letter from Albert A. Foer, President, The American Antitrust Institute, to Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal, Chair, The Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (May 27, 2010).
Legge v. Nextel Commc’ns, Inc., CV 02-8676dsf(VNKX), 2004 WL 5235587, en **13-17 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2004).
Lees, Gail E. et al., Year in Review on Class Actions, 13 Class Action Litig. Rep. (BNA) n.4, Feb. 24, 2012, en 225.
Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 746 (5th Cir. 1996).
Cohen, Andrew. No Class: The Supreme Court’s Arbitration Ruling, The Atlantic (Apr. 27, 2011, 5:33 AM), http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/04/no-class-the-supreme-courts-arbitration-ruling/237967
Carrillo Zuluaga, Paola Andrea. Colombia: Superintendency of Industry and Commerce, The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2019 (sept. 3, 2018).
Calabresi, Steven G. & Larissa C. Leibowitz, Monopolies and the Constitution: A History of Crony Capitalism, 36 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 983, 1012-13 (2013).
Coffee, John C. Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 1343, 1465 (1995).
Cavanagh, Edward D. Twombly: The Demise of Notice Pleading, the Triumph of Milton Handler, and the Uncertain Future of Private Antitrust Enforcement, 28 Rev. Litig. 1, 17–27 (2008).
Congress Watch, Pub. Citizen, Class Action “Judicial Hellholes”: Empirical Evidence Is Lacking (2005), disponible en http:// www.citizen.org/documents/OutlierReport.pdf.
Handler, Milton. Recent Antitrust Developments, 112 U. Pa. L. Rev. 159, 188 (1963).
Lazaroff, Daniel E. Entry Barriers and Contemporary Antitrust Litigation, 7 U. C. Davis Bus. L. J. 1, 46-51 (2006).
Lande, Robert H.; Joshua P. Davis, Benefits from Private Antitrust Enforcement: An Analysis of Forty Cases, 42 U. S. F. L. Rev. 879, 906 (2008).
Lamberg Kafele, Heather & Mario M. Meeks. Developing Trends and Patterns in Federal Antitrust Cases after Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Aschroft v. Iqbal, Shearman & Sterling llp Antitrust Digest (Apr. 2010).
Klonoff, Robert H. The Decline of Class Actions, 90 Wash. U. L. Rev. 729, 736 (2013).
Kaplow, Louis. Antitrust, Law & Economics, and the Courts, 50 Law & Contemporary Problems 181, 184 (1987).
Kanner, Allan & Tibor Nagy. Exploding the Blackmail Myth: A New Perspective on Class Action Settlements, 57 Baylor L. Rev. 681, 697 (2005).
“Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing”, Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates (sept. 9, 2015), disponible en The Department of Justice Archives https://www.justice.gov/archives/dag/individual-accountability.
Hovenkamp, Herbert. The Pleading Problem in Antitrust Cases and Beyond, 95 Iowa L. Rev. Bull. 55, 56–58 (2010).
Hewitt Pate, R Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General, “International Anti-Cartel Enforcement” (nov. 21, 2004) disponible en http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/speeches/206428.html
Deborah R. Hensler et al., Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain 471 (2000).
Hatamyar, Patricia W. The Tao of Pleading: Do Twombly and Iqbal Matter Empirically?, 59 Am. U. L. Rev. 553, 607 (2010).
Handler, Milton. The Shift from Substantive to Procedural Innovations in Antitrust Suits-the Twenty-Third Annual Antitrust Review, 71 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 9 (1971).
Hawthorne, Donald. Recent Trends in Federal Antitrust Class Actions, Antitrust 60 (verano 2010).
Handler, Milton. Foreword, 75 Cal. L. Rev. 787 (1987).
Epstein, Lee; William M. Landes, & Richard A. Posner, Is the Roberts Court Pro Business?, sec. 3, n. 3 (Dec. 17, 2010) (unpublished manuscript), www.scribd.com/doc/50720643/EPSTEIN-LANDES-POSNER-Is-the-Roberts-ourt-Pro-Business
Dep’t of Justice Antitrust Resource Manual, disponible en https://www.justice.gov/jm/antitrust-resource-manual-1-attorney-generals-policy-statement.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford, “Antitrust Enforcement and the Fight Against Corruption”, Remarks as Prepared for the Conference on Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption Challenges, (San Paolo, Brazil Oct. 3, 2017).
Glass, Ira. The Fix is In, This American Life (sept. 15, 2000).
Friendly, Henry J. Federal Jurisdiction: A General View 120 (1973).
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Scott D. Hammond, “Caught in the Act: Inside an International Cartel”, oecd Competition Committee, Working Party n.3 Public Prosecutors Program (Oct. 18, 2005 Paris, France), disponible en https://www.justice.gov/atr/speech/caught-act-inside-international-cartel
Glinskies, Emmalina. By the Numbers: The Rise of Monopolies, The Nation (Feb. 15, 2018).
Federal Class Actions: A Suggested Revision of Rule 23, 46 Colum. L. Rev. 818, 822-23 (1946).
Eichenwald, Kurt. The Informant 12 (2000)
type_driver info:eu-repo/semantics/article
type_coar http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
type_version info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
type_coarversion http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
type_content Text
publishDate 2023-12-06
date_accessioned 2023-12-06T14:31:05Z
date_available 2023-12-06T14:31:05Z
url https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/view/9150
url_doi https://doi.org/10.18601/01210483.v45n118.06
issn 0121-0483
eissn 2346-2108
doi 10.18601/01210483.v45n118.06
citationstartpage 175
citationendpage 207
url2_str_mv https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/9150/15781
url3_str_mv https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/9150/15782
_version_ 1797157824104497152

Código QR

Estadísticas y Métricas Alternativas

Títulos similares