与司法部/联邦贸易委员会(M&A)指南修订相关的十三组意见/建议

Q2 Social Sciences Antitrust Bulletin Pub Date : 2023-04-10 DOI:10.1177/0003603X231162997
Richard S. Markovits
{"title":"与司法部/联邦贸易委员会(M&A)指南修订相关的十三组意见/建议","authors":"Richard S. Markovits","doi":"10.1177/0003603X231162997","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This Article provides recommendations both for improving the accuracy of applications of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act to mergers and acquisitions (M&A)s and for creating morally-desirable (M&A) policies. It defines the specific-anticompetitive-intent and lessening-competition tests of illegality that current U.S. antitrust law applies to (M&A)s; explains why neither classical economic markets nor antitrust markets can be defined non-arbitrarily, and why it is therefore inaccurate and unconstitutional to use market-oriented approaches to analyzing the illegality of (M&A)s under current U.S. antitrust law; outlines appropriate non-market-oriented protocols for determining the illegality of (M&A)s under the Sherman and Clayton Acts—whether the (M or A) was motivated by specific anticompetitive intent or would tend to lessen competition; delineates the liberal conception of justice and various egalitarian conceptions of the moral good and argues that in the U.S. those moral norms should be used to evaluate antitrust policies; outlines the protocol that is economically efficient to use to predict the economic efficiency of particular (M or A)s or particular (M&A) policies; and considers the relevance of the economic efficiency and competitive impact of any (M or A) or any (M&A)-focused antitrust policy for its moral desirability.","PeriodicalId":36832,"journal":{"name":"Antitrust Bulletin","volume":"68 1","pages":"318 - 358"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Thirteen Sets of Observations/Recommendations Pertinent to the Revision of the DOJ/FTC (M&A) Guidelines\",\"authors\":\"Richard S. Markovits\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0003603X231162997\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This Article provides recommendations both for improving the accuracy of applications of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act to mergers and acquisitions (M&A)s and for creating morally-desirable (M&A) policies. It defines the specific-anticompetitive-intent and lessening-competition tests of illegality that current U.S. antitrust law applies to (M&A)s; explains why neither classical economic markets nor antitrust markets can be defined non-arbitrarily, and why it is therefore inaccurate and unconstitutional to use market-oriented approaches to analyzing the illegality of (M&A)s under current U.S. antitrust law; outlines appropriate non-market-oriented protocols for determining the illegality of (M&A)s under the Sherman and Clayton Acts—whether the (M or A) was motivated by specific anticompetitive intent or would tend to lessen competition; delineates the liberal conception of justice and various egalitarian conceptions of the moral good and argues that in the U.S. those moral norms should be used to evaluate antitrust policies; outlines the protocol that is economically efficient to use to predict the economic efficiency of particular (M or A)s or particular (M&A) policies; and considers the relevance of the economic efficiency and competitive impact of any (M or A) or any (M&A)-focused antitrust policy for its moral desirability.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36832,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"volume\":\"68 1\",\"pages\":\"318 - 358\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Antitrust Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X231162997\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Antitrust Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0003603X231162997","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本条为提高《谢尔曼法案》和《克莱顿法案》在并购中的适用准确性以及制定道德上可取的并购政策提供了建议。它定义了当前美国反垄断法适用于(并购)的具体反竞争意图和减少对非法性的竞争测试;解释了为什么古典经济市场和反垄断市场都不能被非任意地定义,以及为什么根据现行美国反垄断法,使用市场导向的方法来分析(并购)的非法性是不准确和违宪的;概述了根据《谢尔曼法案》和《克莱顿法案》确定(并购)非法性的适当非市场导向协议——(并购)是出于特定的反竞争意图还是倾向于减少竞争;阐述了自由主义的正义观和各种平等主义的道德善观,并认为在美国,这些道德规范应该用于评估反垄断政策;概述了经济高效的协议,用于预测特定(并购)或特定(M&A)政策的经济效率;并考虑任何(并购)或任何以并购为重点的反垄断政策的经济效率和竞争影响与其道德可取性的相关性。
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
Thirteen Sets of Observations/Recommendations Pertinent to the Revision of the DOJ/FTC (M&A) Guidelines
This Article provides recommendations both for improving the accuracy of applications of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act to mergers and acquisitions (M&A)s and for creating morally-desirable (M&A) policies. It defines the specific-anticompetitive-intent and lessening-competition tests of illegality that current U.S. antitrust law applies to (M&A)s; explains why neither classical economic markets nor antitrust markets can be defined non-arbitrarily, and why it is therefore inaccurate and unconstitutional to use market-oriented approaches to analyzing the illegality of (M&A)s under current U.S. antitrust law; outlines appropriate non-market-oriented protocols for determining the illegality of (M&A)s under the Sherman and Clayton Acts—whether the (M or A) was motivated by specific anticompetitive intent or would tend to lessen competition; delineates the liberal conception of justice and various egalitarian conceptions of the moral good and argues that in the U.S. those moral norms should be used to evaluate antitrust policies; outlines the protocol that is economically efficient to use to predict the economic efficiency of particular (M or A)s or particular (M&A) policies; and considers the relevance of the economic efficiency and competitive impact of any (M or A) or any (M&A)-focused antitrust policy for its moral desirability.
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
Antitrust Bulletin
Antitrust Bulletin Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
Geographic Market Definition in Commercial Health Insurer Matters: A Unified Approach for Merger Review, Monopolization Claims, and Monopsonization Claims Do EU and U.K. Antitrust “Bite”?: A Hard Look at “Soft” Enforcement and Negotiated Penalty Settlements Wall Street’s Practice of Compelling Confidentiality of Private Underwriting Fees: An Antitrust Violation? Two Challenges for Neo-Brandeisian Antitrust Epic Battles in Two-Sided Markets
×
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