ADVERTISEMENT



Google       

Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Corporate & Securities Law Blogs -> Truth on the Market

OR PHONE (866) 635-1838 for Bankruptcy Help, (866) 635-6190 for Divorce,
(866) 635-2689 for Personal Injury or (866) 635-9402 for Criminal Defense

Find a Local Lawyer

Bankruptcy (866) 635-1838
Divorce (866) 635-6190
Personal Injury (866) 635-2689
Criminal Defense (866) 635-9402

Bookmark

Corporate & Securities Law

: Truth on the Market

DOJ Files Another Section 2 Case

ADVERTISEMENTS

Press release here. Here’s an excerpt:

The complaint alleges that post-acquisition Microsemi raised prices significantly on small signal transistors certified by the Defense Supply Center Columbus (DSCC), a component of the DOD, at the Joint Army-Navy Technical Exchange-Visual Inspection (JANTXV) and Joint Army-Navy Space (JANS) levels of reliability on its qualified manufacturers list or QML. Industry participants rely upon DSCC?s QML certifications and qualifications for electronic components used in space, military and commercial applications. The Department said that without competition from Semicoa, Microsemi has the power to selectively raise prices to customers that Microsemi is aware cannot substitute lower grade components for JANTXV and JANS small signal transistors. In addition, Microsemi has threatened to impose on these customers less favorable terms of service than were provided before the acquisition, the Department said in its complaint.

The Department also said that Semicoa?s entry into the manufacture and sale of JANTXV and JANS diodes likely would have benefitted customers with lower prices, shorter delivery times and more favorable terms of service. Prior to the acquisition, Semicoa was developing these diodes and was poised to compete aggressively with Microsemi.

The July 2008 transaction was not required to be reported under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, which requires companies to notify and provide information to the Department and the Federal Trade Commission before consummating certain acquisitions. As a result, the Department did not learn about the transaction until after it had been consummated.

The Department alleges that Microsemi violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act, which deals with mergers, and Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which deals with monopolization.

Maybe the boom is coming early; or monopolization enforcement is not quite reinvigorated yet.

Full post as published by Truth on the Market on December 23, 2008 (boomark / email).

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.
Lawsuits and Settlements

Related Searches

























































































































US Law
#1 Online Legal Resource













Your Blog Subscriptions
Subscribe to blogs

10,000+ Law Job Listings
Lawyer . Police . Paralegal . Etc
Earn a law-related degree
Are you the author of this blog? Adding USLaw.com to your Blogroll increases relevance. You qualify to display a USLaw Network badge.
Suggest changes to this blog's description or nominate another for inclusion. Register for updates.


Practice Area
Zip Code:

Contact a Lawyer Now!






0.0205 secs (new cache)