About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

2013 Rutgers Univ. L. Rev. Commentaries 38 (2013)

handle is hein.journals/rgsusty2013 and id is 1 raw text is: RUTGERS LAW REVIEW COMMENTARIES JANUARY 28,2013 THE STREETCAR DILEMMA: PREVENTING INCURABLE HARM THROUGH TIMELY ENFORCEMENT OF THE ANTITRUST LAWS Brian N. Biglin* I. INTRODUCTION In the United States, free market competition and consumer choice are uniquely safeguarded through the antitrust laws contained in the Sherman and Clayton Acts. The antitrust laws enable prosecutors (at the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission) and private citizens to prevent and punish anticompetitive activities. As legal tools, they are only as good as the prosecutors that wield them. These laws are capable of reversing anticompetitive conduct, and, in many cases, preventing the negative effects which emanate from that conduct. When it comes to preventing those effects, the timing of legal action is often paramount. There is one cautionary tale that vividly illustrates this proposition, particularly because it continues to cast a shadow today. This Commentary will revisit United States v. National City Lines, in which the government successfully prosecuted a notorious conspiracy among the nation's largest corporations-but not before the conspiracy had taken its intended toll by destroying dozens of urban rail systems. This Commentary will start by setting forth the law (the Sherman Act) and policy underlying the antitrust enforcement in National City. It will then tell the tale of National City, a case which led to the conviction of nine corporations for violating section 2 of the Sherman Act. Finally, it will analyze the outcomes of National City, assessing to what extent the government's prosecution accomplished the underlying purposes of the antitrust laws. This section will begin to illustrate the incurable effects of the National City conspiracy. Those effects erode at the ideals promoted by the antitrust laws as * Associate, Sills Cummis & Gross P.C., Newark, New Jersey and New York, New York. J.D., Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey, School of Law-Newark, 2011. AB., Economics, University of Michigan, 2008. I thank Andrew Rossner, Associate Dean of Rutgers School of Law-Newark, for his outstanding course in Antitrust, and Betsy Grobovsky, Esq., Class of 2011, for the many hours we shared learning Dean Rossner's materials. Finally, I note that the views and opinions expressed in this article are mine and do not necessarily reflect those of Sills Cummis & Gross P.C. 38 RUTGERS LAW REVIEW COMMENTARIES JANUARY 28, 2013

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most