如何修正不合理的并购监管

Sheldon Kimmel
{"title":"如何修正不合理的并购监管","authors":"Sheldon Kimmel","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2663097","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The 1914 Clayton Act prohibited any acquisition whose effect may be to “substantially” lessen competition. International Shoe defined § 7’s word “substantially” by saying that an acquisition’s effect is “substantial” only if it “will injuriously affect the public.” This paper shows that Standard Stations agreed: International Shoe’s definition of the Act’s word “substantially” was the only definition that Standard Stations offered. Although Standard Stations found that Congress had “authoritatively determined” that § 3 was exceptional, it never disputed International Shoe’s definition, which remained the well-known meaning of § 7’s word “substantially” when Congress reenacted § 7 in 1950. Since the context of Congress’ action is consistent with International Shoe’s definition, Congress was “presumed” to have adopted it, producing a better policy than what has been proposed since later Courts misread that history.","PeriodicalId":345107,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Antitrust (Topic)","volume":"131 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-09-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"How to Fix Unreasonable Merger Regulation\",\"authors\":\"Sheldon Kimmel\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/ssrn.2663097\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The 1914 Clayton Act prohibited any acquisition whose effect may be to “substantially” lessen competition. International Shoe defined § 7’s word “substantially” by saying that an acquisition’s effect is “substantial” only if it “will injuriously affect the public.” This paper shows that Standard Stations agreed: International Shoe’s definition of the Act’s word “substantially” was the only definition that Standard Stations offered. Although Standard Stations found that Congress had “authoritatively determined” that § 3 was exceptional, it never disputed International Shoe’s definition, which remained the well-known meaning of § 7’s word “substantially” when Congress reenacted § 7 in 1950. Since the context of Congress’ action is consistent with International Shoe’s definition, Congress was “presumed” to have adopted it, producing a better policy than what has been proposed since later Courts misread that history.\",\"PeriodicalId\":345107,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LSN: Antitrust (Topic)\",\"volume\":\"131 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-09-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LSN: Antitrust (Topic)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2663097\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Antitrust (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2663097","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1914年的《克莱顿法》禁止任何可能“实质性”减少竞争的收购。国际制鞋公司对第7条“实质性”一词的定义是,只有当一项收购“会对公众造成有害影响”时,它的影响才是“实质性的”。本文表明,标准电台同意:国际鞋类公司对法案中“实质上”一词的定义是标准电台提供的唯一定义。尽管标准电台发现国会已经“权威地确定”第3条是例外,但它从未对国际鞋业的定义提出异议,当国会于1950年重新制定第7条时,该定义仍然是第7条中“实质上”一词的众所周知的含义。由于国会行动的背景与国际鞋业的定义一致,国会被“假定”采纳了这一定义,从而制定了一项比后来法院误读历史后提出的更好的政策。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
How to Fix Unreasonable Merger Regulation
The 1914 Clayton Act prohibited any acquisition whose effect may be to “substantially” lessen competition. International Shoe defined § 7’s word “substantially” by saying that an acquisition’s effect is “substantial” only if it “will injuriously affect the public.” This paper shows that Standard Stations agreed: International Shoe’s definition of the Act’s word “substantially” was the only definition that Standard Stations offered. Although Standard Stations found that Congress had “authoritatively determined” that § 3 was exceptional, it never disputed International Shoe’s definition, which remained the well-known meaning of § 7’s word “substantially” when Congress reenacted § 7 in 1950. Since the context of Congress’ action is consistent with International Shoe’s definition, Congress was “presumed” to have adopted it, producing a better policy than what has been proposed since later Courts misread that history.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Can Collusion Promote Sustainable Consumption and Production? Private Enforcement of EU Competition Law: A Comparison with, and Lessons from, the US Worlds Colliding: Competition Policy and Bankruptcy Asset Sales The Passing-On of Price Overcharges in European Competition Damages Actions: A Matter of Causation and an Issue of Policy How to Fix Unreasonable Merger Regulation
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1