The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals indicated that an alleged monopolist’s appointment of an exclusive distributorship for its lumber products did not violate the antitrust laws. A district court ruled that plaintiffs presented sufficient evidence at trial to support a finding that generic anti-anxiety drugs constituted a separate relevant market to the exclusion of brand name versions of the same drugs.

Other recent antitrust developments of interest included approval by the Federal Trade Commission of the combination of two of three domestic munitions producers subject to the acquiring firm’s divestiture of its 50 percent interest in the third producer.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]