Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/304073/US-Department-of-Justice-Antitrust-Case-Brief-01523-210102
Timestamp: 2016-09-25 02:34:19
Document Index: 219001835

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', '§ 16', 'art, 241', 'art, 241']

UNITED STATES’S EXPLANATION OF CONSENT DECREE PROCEDURES The United States submits this memorandum summarizing the procedures regarding the Court’s entry of the proposed Final Judgment. This Final Judgment would settle this case pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 16(b)-(h) (“the APPA”), which applies to civil antitrust cases brought and settled by the United States. 1. Today, the United States has filed a proposed Final Judgment, and a
Stipulation and Order between the parties by which they have agreed that the Court may enter the proposed Final Judgment following the United States’s compliance with the APPA. 2. The United States very shortly will file a Competitive Impact
Statement relating to the proposed Final Judgment. 15 U.S.C. § 16(b).
The APPA requires that the United States publish the proposed Final
Judgment and the Competitive Impact Statement in the Federal Register and in certain newspapers at least sixty days before the effective date of the Final Judgment. The notice will inform the public that they may review the Complaint, proposed Final Judgment, Competitive Impact Statement, and Stipulation and Order filed in this matter, and submit comments about the proposed Final Judgment to the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division. 15 U.S.C. §§ 16(b)-(c). 4. During the sixty-day period, the United States will consider, and at the
close of that period, respond to, any comments that it has received. The United States will then file with the Court and publish in the Federal Register (unless upon application of the United States, the Court, for good cause, authorizes an alternative method of public dissemination) the comments and the United States’s responses thereto. 15 U.S.C. § 16(d). 5. After the sixty-day period expires, the United States may ask the
Court to enter the proposed Final Judgment (unless the United States has decided to withdraw its consent to entry of the Final Judgment, as permitted by the Stipulation and Order). See 15 U.S.C. § 16(d). 6. If the United States requests that the Court enter the Final Judgment
after compliance with the APPA, then the Court may enter the Judgment without a hearing, provided that it concludes that entry of the Final Judgment is in the public interest. 15 U.S.C. §§ 16(e)-(f).
13 July 2005 Washington, D.C.
/s/ Maurice E. Stucke Maurice E. Stucke Owen M. Kendler U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division Litigation III Section 325 7th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 305-1489 (telephone) (202) 514-1517 (facsimile) Maurice.Stucke@usdoj.gov
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on July 13, 2005, I electronically filed the foregoing with the clerk of the court by using the CM/ECF system, which will send a notice of electronic filing to the following: John S. Reed David J. Hale Reed Weitkamp Schell & Vice PLLC 500 West Jefferson Street, Suite 2400 Louisville, KY 40202-2812, Counsel for Defendant.
/s/ Owen M. Kendler Owen M. Kendler U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division Litigation III Section 325 7th Street, N.W., Suite 300 Washington, D.C. 20530 (202) 305-8376 (telephone) (202) 514-1517 (facsimile) Owen.Kendler@usdoj.gov
US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01523-210102 by legalmatters8 viewsEmbedDownloadRead on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.Copyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentMore informationShow less
RelatedUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00415-1074by legalmattersUS Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01730-215456by legalmattersPowell v. Palasadesdocby dbush2778Barrow v. Hunton, 99 U.S. 80 (1879)by Scribd Government DocsBisheshwar Nath v Pranathby Anusha RamanathanLouisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Stewart, 241 U.S. 261 (1916)by Scribd Government DocsR. A No. 348 of 2011by Mudassar RasoolClerk of U.S. Court "Fakes" Judgment to Extort Money and Landby Judicial_FraudUnited States v. Colonial National Bank, N.A. Advanta Mortgage Corporation, Claimants-Appellants, and 6915 Hillmeade Road, Bowie, Maryland, With All Buildings Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon Jerry C. Kibler Bowest Corporation, 74 F.3d 486, 4th Cir. (1996)by Scribd Government DocsSt. Romes v. Levee Steam Cotton Press Co., 127 U.S. 614 (1888)by Scribd Government DocsFootball League Ruling on Cellino 1st December 2014by Irreconcilable_SickpotFrancia v IAC Millar v CAby burnboneEmployers Insurance of Wausau v. United States, 73 F.3d 373, 10th Cir. (1995)by Scribd Government DocsEdward C. Carter v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 411 F.2d 1185, 2d Cir. (1969)by Scribd Government DocsNorthern Railroad v. The People, 79 U.S. 384 (1871)by Scribd Government DocsLacson vs Jose Lacson CD 1by Louem GarceniegoLoving v. United States of, 10th Cir. (1997)by Scribd Government DocsAdelio C Cruz vs Quiterio L Dalisayby Mikee FilartLNV vs. Breitlings: Breitlings Motion to Vacate Void Judgmentby Denise SubramaniamForonda vs. Guerreroby Adrianne BenignoChao v. Kitsap Rentals Inc - Document No. 7by Justia.comUnited States v. Smith, 75 U.S. 587 (1870)by Scribd Government DocsOrnelas v. Regents Univ. of NM, 10th Cir. (2000)by Scribd Government DocsUntitledby eurolex00234-0549by legalmatters94-005ld-nh-sup-ct-1996by Chris BuckInquisition Zaidby Muhammad AliUnited States v. Ferris, 265 U.S. 165 (1924)by Scribd Government DocsSimilar to US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01523-210102US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 00415-1074US Department of Justice Antitrust Case Brief - 01730-215456Powell v. PalasadesdocBarrow v. Hunton, 99 U.S. 80 (1879)Bisheshwar Nath v PranathLouisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Stewart, 241 U.S. 261 (1916)R. A No. 348 of 2011Clerk of U.S. Court "Fakes" Judgment to Extort Money and LandUnited States v. Colonial National Bank, N.A. Advanta Mortgage Corporation, Claimants-Appellants, and 6915 Hillmeade Road, Bowie, Maryland, With All Buildings Appurtenances and Improvements Thereon Jerry C. Kibler Bowest Corporation, 74 F.3d 486, 4th Cir. (1996)St. Romes v. Levee Steam Cotton Press Co., 127 U.S. 614 (1888)Football League Ruling on Cellino 1st December 2014Francia v IAC Millar v CAEmployers Insurance of Wausau v. United States, 73 F.3d 373, 10th Cir. (1995)Edward C. Carter v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 411 F.2d 1185, 2d Cir. (1969)Northern Railroad v. The People, 79 U.S. 384 (1871)Lacson vs Jose Lacson CD 1Loving v. United States of, 10th Cir. (1997)Adelio C Cruz vs Quiterio L DalisayLNV vs. BreitlingsForonda vs. GuerreroChao v. Kitsap Rentals Inc - Document No. 7United States v. Smith, 75 U.S. 587 (1870)Ornelas v. Regents Univ. of NM, 10th Cir. (2000)Untitled00234-054994-005ld-nh-sup-ct-1996Inquisition ZaidUnited States v. Ferris, 265 U.S. 165 (1924)Edited Argument (for Distribution)Civ Pro Flow Chart