<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>AntitrustConnect Blog Excerpt Feed</title>
	
	<link>http://antitrustconnect.com</link>
	<description />
	<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 17:25:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt" /><feedburner:info uri="antitrustconnectblogexcerpt" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><item>
		<title>Recent Developments in German Competition Law</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~3/sUzhS9rANaY/</link>
		<comments>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/25/recent-developments-in-german-competition-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 May 2012 17:21:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Silvio Cappellari and Maria Held</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[International Competition Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers and Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Price Fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[German Act against Restraints of Competition]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[German competition law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[German Federal Cartel Office]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antitrustconnect.com/?p=642</guid>
    		<description><![CDATA[In recent months, again there have been major developments in German competition law. Some of these developments have unfolded in high-tech industries, such as chipboard panel manufacturing, online video services and telecommunications, while others have arisen in more traditional contexts. &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/25/recent-developments-in-german-competition-law/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
    			
		
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[
		<strong><em>by Silvio Cappellari and Maria Held </em></strong><br /><br />		In recent months, again there have been major developments in German competition law. Some of these developments have unfolded in high-tech industries, such as chipboard panel manufacturing, online video services and telecommunications, while others have arisen in more traditional contexts. &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/25/recent-developments-in-german-competition-law/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></table>		<br /><br /><hr /><a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/25/recent-developments-in-german-competition-law/#respond" title="Join the discussion on this article">&bull; Leave a comment on Recent Developments in German Competition Law</a><hr />		
		<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~4/sUzhS9rANaY" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
		
		
		
			<wfw:commentRss>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/25/recent-developments-in-german-competition-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/25/recent-developments-in-german-competition-law/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Kansas Supreme Court Condemns Vertical Price Fixing Agreements as Per Se Illegal</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~3/iX4EI80gUGg/</link>
		<comments>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/15/kansas-supreme-court-condemns-vertical-price-fixing-agreements-as-per-se-illegal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 15 May 2012 18:16:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey May</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Resale Price Maintenance]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Brighton Handbags]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inc.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kansas Restraint of Trade Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[O'Brien v. Leegin Creative Leather Products]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Per Se Illegality]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Resale Price Fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Rule of Reason Analysis]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antitrustconnect.com/?p=628</guid>
    		<description><![CDATA[Earlier this month, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the reasonableness of a vertical price fixing agreement is not to be considered when determining whether such an agreement violates the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act (KRTA). Kansas Supreme Court precedent &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/15/kansas-supreme-court-condemns-vertical-price-fixing-agreements-as-per-se-illegal/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
    			
		
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[
		<strong><em>by Jeffrey May </em></strong><br /><br />		Earlier this month, the Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the reasonableness of a vertical price fixing agreement is not to be considered when determining whether such an agreement violates the Kansas Restraint of Trade Act (KRTA). Kansas Supreme Court precedent &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/15/kansas-supreme-court-condemns-vertical-price-fixing-agreements-as-per-se-illegal/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></table>		<br /><br /><hr /><a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/15/kansas-supreme-court-condemns-vertical-price-fixing-agreements-as-per-se-illegal/#respond" title="Join the discussion on this article">&bull; Leave a comment on Kansas Supreme Court Condemns Vertical Price Fixing Agreements as Per Se Illegal</a><hr />		
		<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~4/iX4EI80gUGg" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
		
		
		
			<wfw:commentRss>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/15/kansas-supreme-court-condemns-vertical-price-fixing-agreements-as-per-se-illegal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/15/kansas-supreme-court-condemns-vertical-price-fixing-agreements-as-per-se-illegal/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Antitrust Division Workload Statistics Show Increase in Merger Filings, Enforcement Actions</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~3/JbE6STDw128/</link>
		<comments>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/03/antitrust-division-workload-statistics-show-increase-in-merger-filings-enforcement-actions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 May 2012 20:03:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey May</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Mergers and Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Department of Justice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Acquisitions and Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Department of Justice Antitrust Division Workload Statistics FY 2002-FY 2011]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) Act Premerger Notification Filings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antitrustconnect.com/?p=612</guid>
    		<description><![CDATA[The Department of Justice Antitrust Division opened 90 merger investigations and filed 13 merger cases in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 (October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2011). The uptick in enforcement activity over the past couple of years was in &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/03/antitrust-division-workload-statistics-show-increase-in-merger-filings-enforcement-actions/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
    			
		
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[
		<strong><em>by Jeffrey May </em></strong><br /><br />		The Department of Justice Antitrust Division opened 90 merger investigations and filed 13 merger cases in Fiscal Year (FY) 2011 (October 1, 2010, to September 30, 2011). The uptick in enforcement activity over the past couple of years was in &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/03/antitrust-division-workload-statistics-show-increase-in-merger-filings-enforcement-actions/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></table>		<br /><br /><hr /><a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/03/antitrust-division-workload-statistics-show-increase-in-merger-filings-enforcement-actions/#respond" title="Join the discussion on this article">&bull; Leave a comment on Antitrust Division Workload Statistics Show Increase in Merger Filings, Enforcement Actions</a><hr />		
		<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~4/JbE6STDw128" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
		
		
		
			<wfw:commentRss>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/03/antitrust-division-workload-statistics-show-increase-in-merger-filings-enforcement-actions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/05/03/antitrust-division-workload-statistics-show-increase-in-merger-filings-enforcement-actions/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Eleventh Circuit Rejects FTC’s Approach to Pay-for-Delay Settlements as “Turducken Task”</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~3/HT6MkwGxszY/</link>
		<comments>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/25/eleventh-circuit-rejects-ftc%e2%80%99s-approach-to-pay-for-delay-settlements-as-%e2%80%9cturducken-task%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:56:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey May</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FTC Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[IP Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[AndroGel]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC v. Watson Pharmaceuticals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inc.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[No. 10-12729]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pay-for-Delay Patent Infringement Settlements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solvay Pharmaceuticals]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antitrustconnect.com/?p=602</guid>
    		<description><![CDATA[The U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta today rejected the Federal Trade Commission’s challenge to a patent litigation settlement between brand name and generic drug companies as an unlawful agreement not to compete in violation of Section 5(a) of the &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/25/eleventh-circuit-rejects-ftc%e2%80%99s-approach-to-pay-for-delay-settlements-as-%e2%80%9cturducken-task%e2%80%9d/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
    			
		
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[
		<strong><em>by Jeffrey May </em></strong><br /><br />		The U.S. Court of Appeals in Atlanta today rejected the Federal Trade Commission’s challenge to a patent litigation settlement between brand name and generic drug companies as an unlawful agreement not to compete in violation of Section 5(a) of the &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/25/eleventh-circuit-rejects-ftc%e2%80%99s-approach-to-pay-for-delay-settlements-as-%e2%80%9cturducken-task%e2%80%9d/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></table>		<br /><br /><hr /><a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/25/eleventh-circuit-rejects-ftc%e2%80%99s-approach-to-pay-for-delay-settlements-as-%e2%80%9cturducken-task%e2%80%9d/#respond" title="Join the discussion on this article">&bull; Leave a comment on Eleventh Circuit Rejects FTC’s Approach to Pay-for-Delay Settlements as “Turducken Task”</a><hr />		
		<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~4/HT6MkwGxszY" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
		
		
		
			<wfw:commentRss>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/25/eleventh-circuit-rejects-ftc%e2%80%99s-approach-to-pay-for-delay-settlements-as-%e2%80%9cturducken-task%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/25/eleventh-circuit-rejects-ftc%e2%80%99s-approach-to-pay-for-delay-settlements-as-%e2%80%9cturducken-task%e2%80%9d/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Highlights of the 2012 ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~3/3KAPjDITilI/</link>
		<comments>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/09/highlights-of-the-2012-aba-antitrust-spring-meeting/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Apr 2012 17:41:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Sagers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[2012 Spring Meeting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antitrustconnect.com/?p=587</guid>
    		<description><![CDATA[Ah, the Spring Meeting.  God I love it. Admittedly, the ABA Antitrust Section Spring Meeting, perhaps the profession’s preeminent event, is in some respects getting to be just a bit of a circus.  What were once a handful of calm, &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/09/highlights-of-the-2012-aba-antitrust-spring-meeting/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
    			
		
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[
		<strong><em>by Christopher Sagers </em></strong><br /><br />		Ah, the Spring Meeting.  God I love it. Admittedly, the ABA Antitrust Section Spring Meeting, perhaps the profession’s preeminent event, is in some respects getting to be just a bit of a circus.  What were once a handful of calm, &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/09/highlights-of-the-2012-aba-antitrust-spring-meeting/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></table>		<br /><br /><hr /><a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/09/highlights-of-the-2012-aba-antitrust-spring-meeting/#respond" title="Join the discussion on this article">&bull; Leave a comment on Highlights of the 2012 ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting</a><hr />		
		<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~4/3KAPjDITilI" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
		
		
		
			<wfw:commentRss>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/09/highlights-of-the-2012-aba-antitrust-spring-meeting/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/09/highlights-of-the-2012-aba-antitrust-spring-meeting/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Second Circuit Corrects Misapplication of Twombly Plausibility Test in Boycott Case</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~3/MplzOPfH1N4/</link>
		<comments>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/05/second-circuit-corrects-misapplication-of-twombly-plausibility-test-in-boycott-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 05 Apr 2012 19:18:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey May</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Boycotts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anderson News]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ashcroft v. Iqbal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boycott]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Conspiracy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Inc.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[L.L.C. v. American Media]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Second Circuit]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antitrustconnect.com/?p=578</guid>
    		<description><![CDATA[The federal district court in New York City should not have rejected allegations that a magazine wholesaler was driven out of business as a result of an antitrust conspiracy, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City decided earlier &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/05/second-circuit-corrects-misapplication-of-twombly-plausibility-test-in-boycott-case/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
    			
		
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[
		<strong><em>by Jeffrey May </em></strong><br /><br />		The federal district court in New York City should not have rejected allegations that a magazine wholesaler was driven out of business as a result of an antitrust conspiracy, the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York City decided earlier &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/05/second-circuit-corrects-misapplication-of-twombly-plausibility-test-in-boycott-case/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></table>		<br /><br /><hr /><a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/05/second-circuit-corrects-misapplication-of-twombly-plausibility-test-in-boycott-case/#respond" title="Join the discussion on this article">&bull; Leave a comment on Second Circuit Corrects Misapplication of Twombly Plausibility Test in Boycott Case</a><hr />		
		<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~4/MplzOPfH1N4" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
		
		
		
			<wfw:commentRss>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/05/second-circuit-corrects-misapplication-of-twombly-plausibility-test-in-boycott-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/05/second-circuit-corrects-misapplication-of-twombly-plausibility-test-in-boycott-case/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>BREAKING NEWS: Rand Paul Proposes to Repeal Federal Antitrust as to “Individuals”</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~3/JQJga1gF3rU/</link>
		<comments>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/04/breaking-news-rand-paul-proposes-to-repeal-federal-antitrust-as-to-%e2%80%9cindividuals%e2%80%9d/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2012 18:48:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Sagers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antitrust Exemptions & Immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anti-Trust Freedom Act of 2012]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Antitrust Laws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Trade Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Senator Rand Paul]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antitrustconnect.com/?p=568</guid>
    		<description><![CDATA[Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, the freshman Republican and Tea Party favorite, is only slightly more famous as the son of Representative Ron Paul than as the deliberate namesake of Ayn Rand.  Last Thursday he introduced a genuine humdinger. Deploying &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/04/breaking-news-rand-paul-proposes-to-repeal-federal-antitrust-as-to-%e2%80%9cindividuals%e2%80%9d/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
    			
		
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[
		<strong><em>by Christopher Sagers </em></strong><br /><br />		Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, the freshman Republican and Tea Party favorite, is only slightly more famous as the son of Representative Ron Paul than as the deliberate namesake of Ayn Rand.  Last Thursday he introduced a genuine humdinger. Deploying &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/04/breaking-news-rand-paul-proposes-to-repeal-federal-antitrust-as-to-%e2%80%9cindividuals%e2%80%9d/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></table>		<br /><br /><hr /><a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/04/breaking-news-rand-paul-proposes-to-repeal-federal-antitrust-as-to-%e2%80%9cindividuals%e2%80%9d/#respond" title="Join the discussion on this article">&bull; Leave a comment on BREAKING NEWS: Rand Paul Proposes to Repeal Federal Antitrust as to “Individuals”</a><hr />		
		<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~4/JQJga1gF3rU" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
		
		
		
			<wfw:commentRss>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/04/breaking-news-rand-paul-proposes-to-repeal-federal-antitrust-as-to-%e2%80%9cindividuals%e2%80%9d/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/04/04/breaking-news-rand-paul-proposes-to-repeal-federal-antitrust-as-to-%e2%80%9cindividuals%e2%80%9d/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>One to Watch: SCOTUS Consideration in Phoebe Putney?</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~3/kSzkQUSFWJU/</link>
		<comments>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/23/one-to-watch-scotus-consideration-in-phoebe-putney/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 23 Mar 2012 17:08:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Sagers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antitrust Exemptions & Immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mergers and Acquisitions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Acquisitions and Mergers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC v. v. Phoebe Putney Health System Inc.]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Georgia]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hospitals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[State Action Immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[U.S. Supreme Court]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antitrustconnect.com/?p=552</guid>
    		<description><![CDATA[The next Term may see significant SCOTUS consideration of the state action immunity, the first such case since 1992. The decision below in the defendants’ favor was quite plainly wrong, and so it might also become only the second antitrust &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/23/one-to-watch-scotus-consideration-in-phoebe-putney/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
    			
		
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[
		<strong><em>by Christopher Sagers </em></strong><br /><br />		The next Term may see significant SCOTUS consideration of the state action immunity, the first such case since 1992. The decision below in the defendants’ favor was quite plainly wrong, and so it might also become only the second antitrust &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/23/one-to-watch-scotus-consideration-in-phoebe-putney/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></table>		<br /><br /><hr /><a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/23/one-to-watch-scotus-consideration-in-phoebe-putney/#respond" title="Join the discussion on this article">&bull; Leave a comment on One to Watch: SCOTUS Consideration in Phoebe Putney?</a><hr />		
		<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~4/kSzkQUSFWJU" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
		
		
		
			<wfw:commentRss>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/23/one-to-watch-scotus-consideration-in-phoebe-putney/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/23/one-to-watch-scotus-consideration-in-phoebe-putney/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Competition Policy in Bizzaro Land: The Ongoing FTC Building Fiasco</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~3/fhRoRdqyyDY/</link>
		<comments>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/22/competition-policy-in-bizzaro-land-the-ongoing-ftc-building-fiasco/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Mar 2012 15:53:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Christopher Sagers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[FTC Enforcement]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[and Efficiency Act of 2011]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Trade Commission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Federal Trade Commission and National Gallery of Art Facility Consolidation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HR 690]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Gallery of Art]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Savings]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antitrustconnect.com/?p=539</guid>
    		<description><![CDATA[In a recent letter to the House Transportation and Infrastructure leadership, all four sitting Federal Trade Commissioners joined in “grave concern” over that Committee’s plan to kick the agency out of the iconic, art deco building that FDR built for &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/22/competition-policy-in-bizzaro-land-the-ongoing-ftc-building-fiasco/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
    			
		
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[
		<strong><em>by Christopher Sagers </em></strong><br /><br />		In a recent letter to the House Transportation and Infrastructure leadership, all four sitting Federal Trade Commissioners joined in “grave concern” over that Committee’s plan to kick the agency out of the iconic, art deco building that FDR built for &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/22/competition-policy-in-bizzaro-land-the-ongoing-ftc-building-fiasco/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></table>		<br /><br /><hr /><a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/22/competition-policy-in-bizzaro-land-the-ongoing-ftc-building-fiasco/#respond" title="Join the discussion on this article">&bull; Leave a comment on Competition Policy in Bizzaro Land: The Ongoing FTC Building Fiasco</a><hr />		
		<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~4/fhRoRdqyyDY" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
		
		
		
			<wfw:commentRss>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/22/competition-policy-in-bizzaro-land-the-ongoing-ftc-building-fiasco/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/22/competition-policy-in-bizzaro-land-the-ongoing-ftc-building-fiasco/</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Prospects Dim for Quick Passage of NOPEC, Railroad Antitrust Exemption Repeal</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~3/E-IYQ0FoNy4/</link>
		<comments>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/08/prospects-dim-for-quick-passage-of-nopec-railroad-antitrust-exemption-repeal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Mar 2012 21:55:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Jeffrey May</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antitrust Exemptions & Immunity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Congress]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Price Fixing]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NOPEC]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Railroad Antitrust Exemption]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surface Transportation Bill]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://antitrustconnect.com/?p=532</guid>
    		<description><![CDATA[Federal legislative proposals that would have repealed the antitrust exemption enjoyed by freight railroads and would have permitted the U.S. Department of Justice to sue Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members for price fixing will not pass the Senate &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/08/prospects-dim-for-quick-passage-of-nopec-railroad-antitrust-exemption-repeal/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a>]]></description>
    			
		
		
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[
		<strong><em>by Jeffrey May </em></strong><br /><br />		Federal legislative proposals that would have repealed the antitrust exemption enjoyed by freight railroads and would have permitted the U.S. Department of Justice to sue Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) members for price fixing will not pass the Senate &#8230; <a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/08/prospects-dim-for-quick-passage-of-nopec-railroad-antitrust-exemption-repeal/">Continue reading <span class="meta-nav">&#8594;</span></a></table>		<br /><br /><hr /><a href="http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/08/prospects-dim-for-quick-passage-of-nopec-railroad-antitrust-exemption-repeal/#respond" title="Join the discussion on this article">&bull; Leave a comment on Prospects Dim for Quick Passage of NOPEC, Railroad Antitrust Exemption Repeal</a><hr />		
		<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/AntitrustconnectBlogExcerpt/~4/E-IYQ0FoNy4" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
		
		
		
			<wfw:commentRss>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/08/prospects-dim-for-quick-passage-of-nopec-railroad-antitrust-exemption-repeal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://antitrustconnect.com/2012/03/08/prospects-dim-for-quick-passage-of-nopec-railroad-antitrust-exemption-repeal/</feedburner:origLink></item>
	</channel>
</rss>

