Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: competition amendment act 2007 section 4 amendment of section 5 Page 5 of about 247,969 results (0.766 seconds)

Standard Oil Co. Vs. Ftc

Court : US Supreme Court

..... and equally low price of a competitor -- even though the effect of such price discrimination was to injure, destroy or prevent competition. pp. 340 u. s. 233 -251. (a) the amendments made by the robinson-patman act restricted the scope of the defense now provided by 2(b) to a price reduction made to meet in good faith ..... a conclusion seems erroneous. what follows in this dissent demonstrates, we think, that congress intended so to amend the clayton act that the avenue of escape given price discriminators by its "meeting competition" clause should be narrowed. the court's interpretation leaves what the seller can do almost as wide open as before. see p. 340 u. s. 263 , ..... these words at 324 u. s. 752 -753: "prior to the robinson-patman amendments, 2 of the clayton act provided that nothing contained in page 340 u. s. 266 it 'shall prevent' discriminations in price 'made in good faith to meet competition.' the change in language of this exception was for the purpose of making the defense a .....

United States Vs. Citizens and Southern Nat'l Bank

Court : US Supreme Court

..... it observed, "new acquisitions of nonaffiliated banks in the same market [by c&s;] would raise the most serious competitive problems under the bank merger act as amended and under section 7 of the clayton act." but the fdic reasoned that the acquisitions proposed by c&s; did not raise such problems, because the banks involved ..... litigation in a federal district court for injunctive relief, alleging that the five acquisitions authorized by the fdic would lessen competition in relevant banking markets, and thus violate 7 of the clayton act, 38 stat. 731, as amended, 64 stat. 1125, 15 u.s.c. 18, and that the historic " de facto branch" relations ..... antitrust standards with the regulatory process, but rather to expanding the federal reserve board's jurisdiction and regulatory powers. the antitrust provisions of the holding company act amendments received little legislative attention; the brief reference to them in the legislative history indicates that their purpose page 422 u. s. 134 was to " .....

Jefferson Cty. Pharm. Ass'n Vs. Abbott Labs.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... ] see standard oil co. v. ftc, 340 u.s. at 340 u. s. 246 -247 (reliance on widespread understanding that the meeting-competition proviso of 2(b) of the clayton act, as amended by the robinson-patman act, provides a complete defense to a charge of price discrimination). [ footnote 2/16 ] see champaign-urbana news agency, inc. v. j. l ..... when they resell purchased goods to consumers who might otherwise have patronized a private retailer. both before and after the 1936 statute amended 2 of the clayton act, the requirement of proving an adverse effect on "competition" played an important part in limiting the coverage of the statute. it is universally agreed that federal purchases are not covered ..... has prompted the court to achieve a partial reconciliation of the two by liberal interpretation of the "meeting competition" defense under 2(b) of the clayton act, as amended by the robinson-patman act, 15 u.s.c. 13(b). see standard oil co. v. ftc, 340 u.s. at 340 u. s. 251 . [ footnote 2/8 ] h.r.rep. .....

Coal India Ltd Vs. Competition Commission Of India

Court : Supreme Court of India

..... to abide by such other orders as the commission may pass and comply with the directions, including payment of costs, if any; (f) omitted by competition (amendment) act, 2007 (g) pass such other order or issue such directions as it may deem fit. provided that while passing orders under this section, if the commission comes ..... continuance of such agreement or ten percent. of its turnover for each year of the continuance of such agreement, whichever is higher. (c) omitted by competition (amendment) act, 2007 (d) direct that the agreements shall stand modified to the extent and in the manner as may be specified in the order by the commission; ..... ; (c) the creation, allotment, surrender or cancellation of any shares, stocks or securities; 48(d) [omitted by competition (amendment) act, 2007]. (e) the formation or winding up of an enterprise or the amendment of the memorandum of association or articles of association or any other instruments regulating the business of any enterprise; (f) the .....

Corn Products Refining Co. Vs. Ftc

Court : US Supreme Court

..... that petitioners' basing point system resulted in discriminations in price among purchasers of glucose, and that the discriminations result in substantial harm to competition among such purchasers. petitioners challenge each conclusion. first. section 2(a) of the clayton act, as amended, makes it unlawful for any person "either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade ..... pass to the question whether these discriminations had the prescribed effect on competition. page 324 u. s. 738 second. section 2(a) of the clayton act, as amended, prohibits only discriminations whose "effect . . . may be substantially to lessen competition . . . in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination .....

Ftc Vs. Sun Oil Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

..... . the "conduit" theory contains no inherent limitations, and its acceptance would so expand the 2(b) defense as to effect a return to the broader "meeting competition" provision of the clayton act, which the robinson-patman act amendments superseded. sun also argues that the effect of a decision holding the 2(b) defense unavailable to it in these circumstances will be to prolong and ..... .no.2287, 74th cong., 2d sess. 3-6; rowe, price discrimination under the robinson-patman act (1962), pp. 3-24. not only was 2(a) amended to eliminate certain page 371 u. s. 517 asserted weaknesses, but the 2(b) proviso legitimatizing discriminations made to "meet competition" was limited to protect only discriminations made "to meet an equally low price of a competitor .....

Ftc Vs. Superior Ct. Tla

Court : US Supreme Court

..... could in fact be anticompetitive ignores the command of [united states v.] o'brien that restrictions on activity protected by the first amendment be ' no greater than is essential ' to preserve competition from the sclerotic effects of combination." 272 u.s.app.d.c. 272, 295, 856 f.2d 226, 249 (quoting ..... ] section 5(a)(1) of the federal trade commission act, 38 stat. 719, as amended, 15 u.s.c. 45(a)(1), provides: "unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful." the first amendment to the constitution provides: "congress shall make no law ..... the social justifications proffered for respondents' restraint of trade thus do not make it any less unlawful. the statutory policy underlying the sherman act "precludes inquiry into the question whether competition is good or bad." ibid. respondents' argument, like that made by the petitioners in professional engineers, ultimately asks us to find that .....

Maharashtra General Kamgar Union Vs. Hindustan Lever Ltd. and anr.

Court : Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission MRTPC

Reported in : (1994)81CompCas784NULL

..... of the central government. this provision was deleted by the amending act of 1991, whereby significant amendments were introduced in the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act with a view to giving effect to the new industrial policy of de-regulation and liberalisation aimed at achieving economies of scale for ensuring higher productivity and competitiveness and advantages in the international market. a sea change was ..... and other effects which may turn out to be efficiency producing factors. global competition, for example, may greatly reduce the ability of such combinations or mergers to control pricing in the national market.28. indeed even before the amendment of 1991 under the monopolies and restrictive trade practices act, the position was that monopoly companies having assets of the value of not less .....

Texas and Pacific Railway Co. Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

..... no thought that the commission had held the contrary. [ footnote 21 ] between the dates of the hepburn amendment and the transportation act, 1920, the commission had before it two cases relevant to the power to prescribe ..... question of the fairness of the current differentials, and that body acted merely as an arbitrator, and not in its official capacity. the legislative history of the hepburn amendment discloses a clear intent not to confer power to circumscribe the adjustment of export and import rates by the carriers to meet competition. [ footnote 20 ] the expressions used disclose page 289 u. s. 642 .....

Ford Motor Co. Vs. United States

Court : US Supreme Court

..... beyond the ordinary limits of judicial competence, and, in any event, has been made for us already by congress when it enacted the amended 7. congress determined to preserve our traditionally competitive economy. it therefore proscribed anticompetitive mergers, the benign and the malignant alike, fully aware, we must assume, that some price might have ..... in commerce, where in any line of commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." 38 stat. 731, as amended, 64 stat. 1125, 15 u.s.c. 18. [ footnote 2 ] we noted probable jurisdiction june 7, 1971. 403 u. ..... requirement of certainty and actuality of injury to competition is incompatible with any effort to supplement the sherman act by reaching incipient restraints." id. at 6. [ footnote 5 ] congressman celler, in testifying for the celler-kefauver bill that was the 1950 amendment to 7 of the clayton act, said: "[t]he worth of the individual is .....