Saturday, July 29, 2006

This, from the Yale Law Journal

The Journal seeks to publish two Articles engaged in a dialogue on a
single compelling legal topic.  Selected Articles will be published in
the same issue in the spring of 2007.

We encourage scholars to submit pieces in development rather than
completed pieces ready for submission and publication so that the pieces
that will evolve in response to each other.  Interested authors should
seek out a colleague in their field with a differing viewpoint who will
join them in this project.

There is no subject matter limitation for submissions, but the topic
should be both contentious and suitable to thorough and engaging

Each submission should include a partially developed paper of at least
5000 words and the author’s curriculum vitae.  The interlocutor should
include a prospectus of at least 1200 words, as well as a curriculum
vitae.  Please send proposals via e-mail in MS Word format to the
Features & Symposium Committee at [email protected]  The
subject line should read: Debate Proposal: [Title].  All submissions
must be received by August 1, 2006, and the Journal will respond by
August 15.

If you would like more information, please do not hesitate to email us
at [email protected] or visit our website at

Brian Wong
Symposium Editor, Yale Law Journal

July 29, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, July 17, 2006

Complaint Challenges Dallas Fort Worth Deal Uner Antitrust Law

As those in Dallas or those who travel through DFW know,  the 1978 Wright Amendment restricts the ability of Southwest Airlines to fly directly out of Dallas Love Field  to destinations beyond states contiguous to Texas.   The Amendment was justified as promoting the then newly completed Dallas Fort Woth International Airport by limiting some competition for nearby Love Field, that was supposed to close down.   Recently, there has been much debate in Dallas about lifting the Wright Amendment if Southwest were to move its service from Love Field to nearby DFW, something Southwest is reluctant to do given the goodwill it has developed through Love Field, which is considerably closer to downtown Dallas than DFW.   

A few weeks ago an agreement was struck among the Cities of Dallas and Fort Worth, the DFW Board, Southwest and American to allocate gate spaces, allow fly through ticketing from Love Field for Southwest, and to relax the Wright Amendment within eight years.  The City of Dallas also intends to shut down Legend Terminal at Love Field under its eminent domain powers.  The lessees of the terminal filed a law suit in the Northern District of Texas challenging this agreement under the antitrust laws.  The complaint is below.

The complaint raises some solid issues.  I wonder however whether standing and state action immunity might pose a hurdle to the suit.  These hurdles are not insurmountable but do pose challenges.  I will post as the case progresses.

Download 071706_file_stamped_complaint_and_jury_demand_re_2027_02.pdf

July 17, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Tuesday, July 11, 2006

Publications of Note

The Journal of Corporation Law, published at The University of Iowa College of Law, devotes its Winter 2006 issue to a symposium on The Antitrust Enterprise: Principle and Execution, a recent book by Professor Herbert Hovenkamp.  The symposium issue is a real gem, including articles on exclusionary conduct by Greg Werden, resale requirements and regulated industries by James Speta, predatory conduct by R. Craig Wildfang, Trinko and IP by Michael Carrier, employment law and competition by April Franco and Matthew Mitchell, mandatory access obligations by Randall Picker, standing in foreclosure cases by Roger and Blair and Christine Piette, the modernization project by Stephen Calkins, amnesty ,cartel stability and game theory by Christopher Leslie, Daubert by John l. Solow and Daniel Fletcher, and ex post evaluations and the performance of competition policy authorities by William Kovacic.  The symposium issue leads off with an essay by Herbert Hovenkamp, who ends his piece by concluding: "The basic rule should be nonintervention unless the court is confident that it has identified anticompetitive conduct and can apply an effective remedy."

Also of note:  Lawrence White of the Stern School of Business has an interesting working paper providing historical perspectives and current assessments of horizontal mergers.  The paper is available at

July 11, 2006 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)