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 compo...

Full description

Autores:: Bartholomew , Christine P.

Tipo de recurso:: Article of journal

Fecha de publicación:: 2023

Institución:: Universidad Externado de Colombia

Repositorio:: Biblioteca Digital Universidad Externado de Colombia

Idioma:: spa

id	uexternad2_f87213f95f973d176d4f5a9f76c03743
oai_identifier_str	oai:bdigital.uexternado.edu.co:001/15315
network_acronym_str	uexternad2
network_name_str	Biblioteca Digital Universidad Externado de Colombia
repository_id_str
dc.title.spa.fl_str_mv	Normas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financiera
dc.title.translated.eng.fl_str_mv	Antitrust Norms in the United States and Financial Corruption
title	Normas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financiera
spellingShingle	Normas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financiera antitrust laws, class actions, private antitrust actions and corruption leyes antimonopolio, acciones de grupo, acciones privadas en defensa de la competencia y corrupción
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
dc.creator.fl_str_mv	Bartholomew , Christine P.
dc.contributor.author.spa.fl_str_mv	Bartholomew , Christine P.
dc.subject.eng.fl_str_mv	antitrust laws, class actions, private antitrust actions and corruption
topic	antitrust laws, class actions, private antitrust actions and corruption leyes antimonopolio, acciones de grupo, acciones privadas en defensa de la competencia y corrupción
dc.subject.spa.fl_str_mv	leyes antimonopolio, acciones de grupo, acciones privadas en defensa de la competencia y corrupción
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.
publishDate	2023
dc.date.accessioned.none.fl_str_mv	2023-12-06T14:31:05Z 2024-06-07T06:47:38Z
dc.date.available.none.fl_str_mv	2023-12-06T14:31:05Z 2024-06-07T06:47:38Z
dc.date.issued.none.fl_str_mv	2023-12-06
dc.type.spa.fl_str_mv	Artículo de revista
dc.type.coar.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1
dc.type.coar.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
dc.type.coarversion.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85
dc.type.content.spa.fl_str_mv	Text
dc.type.driver.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.local.eng.fl_str_mv	Journal article
dc.type.redcol.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREF
dc.type.version.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format	http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501
status_str	publishedVersion
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv	10.18601/01210483.v45n118.06
dc.identifier.eissn.none.fl_str_mv	2346-2108
dc.identifier.issn.none.fl_str_mv	0121-0483
dc.identifier.uri.none.fl_str_mv	https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/handle/001/15315
dc.identifier.url.none.fl_str_mv	https://doi.org/10.18601/01210483.v45n118.06
identifier_str_mv	10.18601/01210483.v45n118.06 2346-2108 0121-0483
url	https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/handle/001/15315 https://doi.org/10.18601/01210483.v45n118.06
dc.language.iso.spa.fl_str_mv	spa
language	spa
dc.relation.bitstream.none.fl_str_mv	https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/9150/15781 https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/9150/15782
dc.relation.citationedition.spa.fl_str_mv	Núm. 118 , Año 2024 : Enero-Junio
dc.relation.citationendpage.none.fl_str_mv	207
dc.relation.citationissue.spa.fl_str_mv	118
dc.relation.citationstartpage.none.fl_str_mv	175
dc.relation.citationvolume.spa.fl_str_mv	45
dc.relation.ispartofjournal.spa.fl_str_mv	Derecho Penal y Criminología
dc.relation.references.spa.fl_str_mv	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). Carrillo Zuluaga, Paola Andrea. Colombia: Superintendency of Industry and Commerce, The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2019 (sept. 3, 2018). 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 Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 746 (5th Cir. 1996). 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). Coffee, John C. Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 1343, 1465 (1995). Congress Watch, Pub. Citizen, Class Action “Judicial Hellholes”: Empirical Evidence Is Lacking (2005), disponible en http:// www.citizen.org/documents/OutlierReport.pdf. Deborah R. Hensler et al., Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain 471 (2000). 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). 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 Eichenwald, Kurt. The Informant 12 (2000) 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 Federal Class Actions: A Suggested Revision of Rule 23, 46 Colum. L. Rev. 818, 822-23 (1946). Glinskies, Emmalina. By the Numbers: The Rise of Monopolies, The Nation (Feb. 15, 2018). Friendly, Henry J. Federal Jurisdiction: A General View 120 (1973). Glass, Ira. The Fix is In, This American Life (sept. 15, 2000). Handler, Milton. Foreword, 75 Cal. L. Rev. 787 (1987). Handler, Milton. Recent Antitrust Developments, 112 U. Pa. L. Rev. 159, 188 (1963). 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). Hatamyar, Patricia W. The Tao of Pleading: Do Twombly and Iqbal Matter Empirically?, 59 Am. U. L. Rev. 553, 607 (2010). Hawthorne, Donald. Recent Trends in Federal Antitrust Class Actions, Antitrust 60 (verano 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 Hovenkamp, Herbert. The Pleading Problem in Antitrust Cases and Beyond, 95 Iowa L. Rev. Bull. 55, 56–58 (2010). “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. Kanner, Allan & Tibor Nagy. Exploding the Blackmail Myth: A New Perspective on Class Action Settlements, 57 Baylor L. Rev. 681, 697 (2005). Kaplow, Louis. Antitrust, Law & Economics, and the Courts, 50 Law & Contemporary Problems 181, 184 (1987). Klonoff, Robert H. The Decline of Class Actions, 90 Wash. U. L. Rev. 729, 736 (2013). 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). 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). Lazaroff, Daniel E. Entry Barriers and Contemporary Antitrust Litigation, 7 U. C. Davis Bus. L. J. 1, 46-51 (2006). Lees, Gail E. et al., Year in Review on Class Actions, 13 Class Action Litig. Rep. (BNA) n.4, Feb. 24, 2012, en 225. Legge v. Nextel Commc’ns, Inc., CV 02-8676dsf(VNKX), 2004 WL 5235587, en *13-17 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2004). Lehman, James K. Blood Suppliers’ Liability for aids Contaminated Blood, 41 S. C. L. Rev. 107, 109 n.14 (1989). 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). Loffi, Kathryn G. Suppliers of aids-Contaminated Blood Now Face Liability, 34 How. L.J. 183, 187-88 (1991). London v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 340 F.3d 1246, 1255 n.5 (11th Cir. 2003). 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). 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 Neal, Phil C. and Perry Goldberg, The Electrical Equipment Antitrust Cases: Novel Judicial Administration, 50 Am. Bar Assoc. J. 621, 622 (July 1964). Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 168 n.8 (3rd Cir. 2001) Phillips Sawyer, Laura. U. S. Antitrust Law and Policy in Historical Perspective, Working Paper 19-110, Harvard Business School (2019). Rutherglen, G. Wal-Mart, AT&T Mobility, and the Decline of the Deterrent Class Action, 98 Va. L. Rev. In Brief 24, 25 (2012). 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 Silver, Charles. “We’re Scared to Death”: Class Certification and Blackmail, 78 n. y. u. l. Rev. 1357, 1430 (2003). Silver, Charles. “We’re Scared to Death”: Class Certification and Blackmail, 78 n. y. u. l. Rev. 1357, 1361-62 (2003). 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). 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 Sternlight, Jean R. As Mandatory Binding Arbitration Meets the Class Action, Will the Class Action Survive?, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1, 35 (2000). Suzette M. Malveaux, Symposium, Clearing Civil Procedural Hurdles in the Quest of Justice, 37 Ohio N. U. L. Rev. 621, 624 (2011). Thorelli, Hans B. The Federal Antitrust Policy 206-210 (1955). Wasserman, Howard M. The Roberts Court and the Civil Procedure Revival, 31 Rev. Litig. 313 (2012). Watkins, Myron W. Electrical Equipment Antitrust Cases: Their Implications for Government and for Business, 97 U. Chicago L. Rev. 97, 104 (1961). 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). Wu, Tim. The Curse of Bigness 78-79 (2018). Yeazell, Stephen C. From Medieval Group Litigation to The Modern Class Action 264 (1987). Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U. S. 145 (1968). Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013). Animal Sci. Prod., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 34 F. Supp. 3d 465, 499 (D. N. J. 2014). Atl. City Elec. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 226 F. Supp. 59, 60-61 (S. D. N. Y. 1964). Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544 (2007). Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 (1911). FTC V. Ind. Fed’n of Dentists, 476 U. S. 477 (1986). Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U. S. 251, 262 (1972). In re Auto. Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 177 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (E. D. Pa. 2001). In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard I), n. 1261, 2000 WL 1475559, en 1-3 (E. D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2000). In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard ii), 203 f. r. d. 197, 201-04 (E. D. Pa. 2001). In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard iii), 305 F.3d 145, 147-49 (3d Cir. 2002). In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 321 F. Supp. 2d 619 (E. D. Pa. 2004). In re Matter of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1304 (7th Cir. 1995). In re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litig., 93 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (N. D. Ga. 2000). In re Relafen Antitrust Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Mass. 2004). In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1299 (7th Cir. 1995). Jeff Lyon, A Matter of Life or Death, Chi. Trib. Sunday Mag., April 23, 1989. Jeff Wright, Note, Bad Blood: Wadleigh v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., Mandamus Uncabined, 23 W. St. U. L. Rev. 549, 550-52 (1996). Leegin Creative Leather Prods, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007). Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U. S. 877 (2007). Newton v. Merrill Lynch, 259 F.3d 154 (3rd Cir. 2001). Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 165 (3d Cir. 2001). Omnicare, Inc. v. Unitedhealth Grp., Inc., 524 F. Supp. 2d 1031, 1037 (N. D. Ill. 2007). State Oil Co. v. Khan, 552 U. S. 3 (1997). Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U. S. 1 (2006). Transam. Refining Corp. v. Dravo Corp., n. 4:88CV00789 (S. D. Tex. filed Mar.10, 1988). Wadleigh v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 157 f. r. d. 410, 413 (N. D. Ill. 1994). Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pac. Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U. S. 284 (1985). Act of July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (1890). Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. n. 109-2, § 3, 119 Stat. 4, 5-9. 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.
dc.rights.spa.fl_str_mv	Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023
dc.rights.accessrights.spa.fl_str_mv	info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.rights.coar.spa.fl_str_mv	http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2
dc.rights.uri.spa.fl_str_mv	http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
rights_invalid_str_mv	Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023 http://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv	openAccess
dc.format.mimetype.spa.fl_str_mv	application/pdf text/html
dc.publisher.spa.fl_str_mv	Instituto de Ciencias Penales y Criminológicas
dc.source.spa.fl_str_mv	https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/view/9150
institution	Universidad Externado de Colombia
bitstream.url.fl_str_mv	https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/bitstreams/de880902-efa3-4c7a-af6f-bb03db9c62f0/download
bitstream.checksum.fl_str_mv	7554c55933c496d42268aabb79900e01
bitstream.checksumAlgorithm.fl_str_mv	MD5
repository.name.fl_str_mv	Universidad Externado de Colombia
repository.mail.fl_str_mv	metabiblioteca@metabiblioteca.org
_version_	1814100362247798784
spelling	Bartholomew , Christine P.2023-12-06T14:31:05Z2024-06-07T06:47:38Z2023-12-06T14:31:05Z2024-06-07T06:47:38Z2023-12-06El 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.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.application/pdftext/html10.18601/01210483.v45n118.062346-21080121-0483https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/handle/001/15315https://doi.org/10.18601/01210483.v45n118.06spaInstituto de Ciencias Penales y Criminológicashttps://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/9150/15781https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/download/9150/15782Núm. 118 , Año 2024 : Enero-Junio20711817545Derecho Penal y CriminologíaCalabresi, 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).Carrillo Zuluaga, Paola Andrea. Colombia: Superintendency of Industry and Commerce, The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2019 (sept. 3, 2018).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/237967Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 746 (5th Cir. 1996).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).Coffee, John C. Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 1343, 1465 (1995).Congress Watch, Pub. Citizen, Class Action “Judicial Hellholes”: Empirical Evidence Is Lacking (2005), disponible en http:// www.citizen.org/documents/OutlierReport.pdf.Deborah R. Hensler et al., Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain 471 (2000).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).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-cartelEichenwald, Kurt. The Informant 12 (2000)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-BusinessFederal Class Actions: A Suggested Revision of Rule 23, 46 Colum. L. Rev. 818, 822-23 (1946).Glinskies, Emmalina. By the Numbers: The Rise of Monopolies, The Nation (Feb. 15, 2018).Friendly, Henry J. Federal Jurisdiction: A General View 120 (1973).Glass, Ira. The Fix is In, This American Life (sept. 15, 2000).Handler, Milton. Foreword, 75 Cal. L. Rev. 787 (1987).Handler, Milton. Recent Antitrust Developments, 112 U. Pa. L. Rev. 159, 188 (1963).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).Hatamyar, Patricia W. The Tao of Pleading: Do Twombly and Iqbal Matter Empirically?, 59 Am. U. L. Rev. 553, 607 (2010).Hawthorne, Donald. Recent Trends in Federal Antitrust Class Actions, Antitrust 60 (verano 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.htmlHovenkamp, Herbert. The Pleading Problem in Antitrust Cases and Beyond, 95 Iowa L. Rev. Bull. 55, 56–58 (2010).“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.Kanner, Allan & Tibor Nagy. Exploding the Blackmail Myth: A New Perspective on Class Action Settlements, 57 Baylor L. Rev. 681, 697 (2005).Kaplow, Louis. Antitrust, Law & Economics, and the Courts, 50 Law & Contemporary Problems 181, 184 (1987).Klonoff, Robert H. The Decline of Class Actions, 90 Wash. U. L. Rev. 729, 736 (2013).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).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).Lazaroff, Daniel E. Entry Barriers and Contemporary Antitrust Litigation, 7 U. C. Davis Bus. L. J. 1, 46-51 (2006).Lees, Gail E. et al., Year in Review on Class Actions, 13 Class Action Litig. Rep. (BNA) n.4, Feb. 24, 2012, en 225.Legge v. Nextel Commc’ns, Inc., CV 02-8676dsf(VNKX), 2004 WL 5235587, en *13-17 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2004).Lehman, James K. Blood Suppliers’ Liability for aids Contaminated Blood, 41 S. C. L. Rev. 107, 109 n.14 (1989).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).Loffi, Kathryn G. Suppliers of aids-Contaminated Blood Now Face Liability, 34 How. L.J. 183, 187-88 (1991).London v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 340 F.3d 1246, 1255 n.5 (11th Cir. 2003).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).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.htmlNeal, Phil C. and Perry Goldberg, The Electrical Equipment Antitrust Cases: Novel Judicial Administration, 50 Am. Bar Assoc. J. 621, 622 (July 1964).Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 168 n.8 (3rd Cir. 2001)Phillips Sawyer, Laura. U. S. Antitrust Law and Policy in Historical Perspective, Working Paper 19-110, Harvard Business School (2019).Rutherglen, G. Wal-Mart, AT&T Mobility, and the Decline of the Deterrent Class Action, 98 Va. L. Rev. In Brief 24, 25 (2012).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-cartelSilver, Charles. “We’re Scared to Death”: Class Certification and Blackmail, 78 n. y. u. l. Rev. 1357, 1430 (2003).Silver, Charles. “We’re Scared to Death”: Class Certification and Blackmail, 78 n. y. u. l. Rev. 1357, 1361-62 (2003).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).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.htmlSternlight, Jean R. As Mandatory Binding Arbitration Meets the Class Action, Will the Class Action Survive?, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1, 35 (2000).Suzette M. Malveaux, Symposium, Clearing Civil Procedural Hurdles in the Quest of Justice, 37 Ohio N. U. L. Rev. 621, 624 (2011).Thorelli, Hans B. The Federal Antitrust Policy 206-210 (1955).Wasserman, Howard M. The Roberts Court and the Civil Procedure Revival, 31 Rev. Litig. 313 (2012).Watkins, Myron W. Electrical Equipment Antitrust Cases: Their Implications for Government and for Business, 97 U. Chicago L. Rev. 97, 104 (1961).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).Wu, Tim. The Curse of Bigness 78-79 (2018).Yeazell, Stephen C. From Medieval Group Litigation to The Modern Class Action 264 (1987).Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U. S. 145 (1968).Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013).Animal Sci. Prod., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 34 F. Supp. 3d 465, 499 (D. N. J. 2014).Atl. City Elec. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 226 F. Supp. 59, 60-61 (S. D. N. Y. 1964).Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544 (2007).Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 (1911).FTC V. Ind. Fed’n of Dentists, 476 U. S. 477 (1986).Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U. S. 251, 262 (1972).In re Auto. Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 177 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (E. D. Pa. 2001).In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard I), n. 1261, 2000 WL 1475559, en 1-3 (E. D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2000).In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard ii), 203 f. r. d. 197, 201-04 (E. D. Pa. 2001).In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard iii), 305 F.3d 145, 147-49 (3d Cir. 2002).In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 321 F. Supp. 2d 619 (E. D. Pa. 2004).In re Matter of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1304 (7th Cir. 1995).In re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litig., 93 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (N. D. Ga. 2000).In re Relafen Antitrust Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Mass. 2004).In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1299 (7th Cir. 1995).Jeff Lyon, A Matter of Life or Death, Chi. Trib. Sunday Mag., April 23, 1989.Jeff Wright, Note, Bad Blood: Wadleigh v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., Mandamus Uncabined, 23 W. St. U. L. Rev. 549, 550-52 (1996).Leegin Creative Leather Prods, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007).Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U. S. 877 (2007).Newton v. Merrill Lynch, 259 F.3d 154 (3rd Cir. 2001).Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 165 (3d Cir. 2001).Omnicare, Inc. v. Unitedhealth Grp., Inc., 524 F. Supp. 2d 1031, 1037 (N. D. Ill. 2007).State Oil Co. v. Khan, 552 U. S. 3 (1997).Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U. S. 1 (2006).Transam. Refining Corp. v. Dravo Corp., n. 4:88CV00789 (S. D. Tex. filed Mar.10, 1988).Wadleigh v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 157 f. r. d. 410, 413 (N. D. Ill. 1994).Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pac. Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U. S. 284 (1985).Act of July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (1890).Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. n. 109-2, § 3, 119 Stat. 4, 5-9.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.Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccesshttp://purl.org/coar/access_right/c_abf2Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0.http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0https://revistas.uexternado.edu.co/index.php/derpen/article/view/9150antitrust laws,class actions,private antitrust actions and corruptionleyes antimonopolio,acciones de grupo,acciones privadas en defensa de la competencia y corrupciónNormas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financieraAntitrust Norms in the United States and Financial CorruptionArtículo de revistahttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_6501http://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_2df8fbb1http://purl.org/coar/version/c_970fb48d4fbd8a85Textinfo:eu-repo/semantics/articleJournal articlehttp://purl.org/redcol/resource_type/ARTREFinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionPublicationOREORE.xmltext/xml2527https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.co/bitstreams/de880902-efa3-4c7a-af6f-bb03db9c62f0/download7554c55933c496d42268aabb79900e01MD51001/15315oai:bdigital.uexternado.edu.co:001/153152024-06-07 01:47:39.182http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0Christine P. Bartholomew - 2023https://bdigital.uexternado.edu.coUniversidad Externado de Colombiametabiblioteca@metabiblioteca.org

Normas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financiera

Publicaciones similares