| The Federal Antitrust Law Exemption for State Action |
|
| Federal antitrust laws are considered inapplicable to economic regulation by the States. In Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), the Supreme Court reasoned that in the "dual system of government" of the United States, any subtraction by Congress from the sovereign powers of the states must be explicitly stated. Nothing in the Sherman Act (the first federal antitrust law) or in the legislative history of the Sherman Act indicated a Congressional intent to subject state regulatory activities to the Sherman Act. More... |
|
|
| 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... |
|
|
| Arbitration of Securities Disputes |
|
| Although persons may not be required to arbitrate rather than litigate their claims, they may by contract agree to arbitrate any claims that arise under the contract. More... |
|
|
| Investment Advisor Codes of Ethics |
|
| Rule 204A-1 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, adopted pursuant to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, requires implementation of codes of ethics by investment advisers. Each adviser's code of ethics must include a standard of conduct and must require compliance with federal securities laws. The codes also must require that investment adviser employees must report their personal stock transactions, and copies of the codes must be made available to clients of the investment advisor. More... |
|
|
| Remedies for Dissenting Shareholders and the Deadlocked Corporation |
|
| Dissenting shareholders in a publicly-traded corporation may sell or otherwise dispose of their shares and seek as damages any lessening of value of the shares prior to the sale resulting from the matter causing the dissension. However, shareholders in a closely held corporation may not have a reasonable way to dispose of their shares and avoid dissension. Deadlocks among shareholders or directors of closely held corporations thus may result more often in litigation than such conflicts within publicly held corporations. More... |
|
|