Last week the ABA Section of Antitrust Law held its Spring Meeting in Washington, DC. The meeting attracts several thousand antitrust lawyers and economists and features numerous panel discussions of various antitrust and consumer protection issues.  There is also, of course, a lot of socializing and networking. 

It might have just been the panels I happened to attend but unlike in previous years, there was a refreshing, welcome, and entertaining lack of near-unanimity among the panelists (which we have noted here and here).  Additionally, the panels generally avoided the format of each person talking for 20 minutes straight; the moderators were active, asked a lot of questions and kept the discussion moving and entertaining (at least for the panels I attended).

The closing panel discussion among the top antitrust enforcers was, as usual, entertaining and illuminating.  Also, the popular press reported, as usual, about this panel.  The Seattle Times reported:

On Friday, a trio of top antitrust-enforcement officials from both sides of the Atlantic addressed the American Bar Association and basically pledged a role reversal.

The European Union’s top antitrust watchdog, Neelie Kroes, took a more conciliatory tone in her remarks, belying the tough stance her agency has taken against Microsoft and Intel.

Meanwhile, departing Federal Trade Commission Chairwoman Deborah Platt Majoras and Thomas Barnett, head of the U.S. Department of Justice’s antitrust division, both said their agencies are willing to fight mergers in court — apparently contrary to popular opinion.

Kroes sought to counter perceptions that European regulators are “anti-business, and socialist even,” the Associated Press reported.

“We, in Europe, are not that different from you — we’re all in this together so let’s keep talking to each other and questioning each other and remembering why we believe in competition in the first place,” Kroes said, according to a Reuters report. She added, that she was “probably more capitalist than most of you in this room.”

That comment might produce derisive chuckles from certain corporate legal departments we know. Then again, maybe there’s a new leaf turning.

She also had harsh words for the op-ed page of The Wall Street Journal, a flowing font of criticism toward European regulators.

“If you believe what you read on the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal, there’s a canal in Amsterdam that I would like to sell you,” said Kroes, a native of The Netherlands.

The AP (via the IHT) reports:

Bush administration officials vowed Friday to more strictly enforce antitrust law in their remaining months in office, while their European counterparts struck a more conciliatory tone.

In remarks to a lawyers’ group, the goal seemed to combat the perception among many antitrust experts that the European Union enforces antitrust law with a vengeance in contrast to a too-lax approach in the U.S.

Thomas Barnett, the Justice Department’s top antitrust official, said the agency will pursue “aggressive but appropriate merger enforcement.” The department faced criticism earlier this week for clearing — without conditions — Sirius Satellite Radio Inc.’s $5 billion (€3.2 billion) purchase of its only rival, XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc.

“People wonder, ‘are we afraid to litigate a merger case?’” Barnett said. While the department has been able to settle many recent cases out of court, he said, “We are willing to litigate.”

…

Kroes, meanwhile, sought to counter what she called the perception that European antitrust regulators are “antibusiness, and socialist even.”

“There is not that much difference” between EU and U.S. antitrust enforcers, she said.

Last year, the European Commission blocked only one acquisition out of 400 that it was notified about, she said. In June, the commission said Ryanair’s efforts to purchase its rival Irish airline, Aer Lingus, would create a monopoly.

At the 43(b)log, Rebacca Tushnet posts about the Changing Rules in Competitor False Advertising Litigation panel and the Falsity Fallout: The Evolution of the Falsity Standard in Recent Advertising Cases panel.  On the University of Chicago Law Blog, Randy Picker posted about the panel he was on regarding the next antitrust doctrine to “go the way of the dodo.“

Comment feed: RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.