| Monopolization Under the Sherman Act |
| Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 2, prohibits monopolies and attempts or conspiracies to monopolize. The statute provides for prison terms and fines in actions brought by the U.S. Department Justice and for injunctions and damages in civil actions brought by the Department of Justice, states, and private parties. More... |
| Enhanced Antitrust Criminal Penalty and Leniency Provisions |
| The Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004, signed into law on June 22, 2004, as part of H.R. 1086, increased penalties for violations of the Sherman Act while increasing incentives for participation in the leniency program of the U.S. Department of Justice. More... |
| Overview of Corporate Opportunity |
| Corporate directors are fiduciaries and must exercise the utmost good faith when managing the corporation's affairs. Under the corporate opportunity doctrine, corporate directors cannot divert business to themselves and reap personal gains or profits if the business legitimately belongs to the corporation. As fiduciaries, directors cannot appropriate opportunities that were developed through use of corporate assets. More... |
| Injunctive Relief Under Federal Antitrust Laws |
| Injunctions may be sought to prevent a violation of federal antitrust laws from occurring or to halt an ongoing violation of the federal antitrust laws. Section 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 25, provides for injunctions sought by the government. The section gives U.S. District Courts jurisdiction to prevent and restrain violations of the Clayton Act and directs U.S. Attorneys, under the supervision of the Attorney General, to file actions seeking to prevent and restrain the violations. Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.S. § 26, authorizes "any person, firm, corporation, or association" to seek injunctive relief against threatened loss or damage by a violation of the antitrust laws.More... |
| Sarbanes-Oxley Act |
| Most states recognize that corporate directors and upper-level officers owe the corporation the duties of care, loyalty, and obedience. The duty to act in good faith has emerged in some jurisdictions as an equally important fiduciary duty imposed upon directors and officers. Historically, directors and officers were frequently exonerated of personal liability for business decisions because of courts' long-standing deference to the business decision under the business judgment rule or because the transaction was deemed fair to the corporation and its shareholders overall. In the wake of recent corporate scandals, however, officers and directors are under ever-increasing scrutiny by shareholders, the courts, state governments, and the federal government. Many corporate commentators bemoan the fact that conduct once protected under the business judgment rule may not be viewed with such deference in the future. More... |
|
||
|
|
