The U.S. DOJ Antitrust Division has taken pains to defend its consent decree practices against charges that it engages in “shadow” settlements. The premise of these “shadow” criticisms is that the antitrust bar is entitled to know the substantive reasoning behind the Antitrust Division’s decision-making regarding challenging or settling merger matters. This article discusses the origins of that premise and argues that the premise is flawed.
By Michael Murray[1]
The U.S. DOJ A
...THIS ARTICLE IS NOT AVAILABLE FOR IP ADDRESS 3.145.44.46
Please verify email or join us to access premium content!