Mich. Comp. Act : An Outline Of The Antitrust Reform Act

Howell Jewelry World entered into an at will employment contract with Jennifer Lawson (“defendant”). The company provided a legal and enforceable employment contract. The defendant read, accepted and signed the employment contract offered under no duress or coercion. A covenant not to compete nor disclose company patent secrets to Howell’s competitors the defendant initialed and signed. Jennifer Lawson was terminated from employment due to excessive tardiness. Upon termination, it was revealed to Howell Jewelry World, the defendant is an employee of Triumph Jewels, another company in competition with Howell. The defendant is liable for breach of covenant not to compete. Howell Jewelry World is pursuing legal actions against Triumph Jewels for Jennifer Howell’s breach of covenant not to compete.

The Federal Trade Commission was founded by Woodrow Wilson the twenty-eight president of the United States and it was established in September 26, 1914 in Washington D. C. The seal for the Federal Trade Commission was adopted in 1915 and designed by Tiffany and Company. The seal symbolizes many of the values and promote the agency mission. The winged flywheel represents progress and reflects the commitment to protect consumer interests in a world of involving technology. The shield represents the role in defending American consumer interests. And it protects the benefits of robust competition and fighting harm to consumers from unfair deceptive practices. The scales are the traditional of emblem of justice

Last February, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in North Carolina State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Commission (Dental Examiners). The case concerned the Board’s decision to stop teeth whitening services by non-dentists in the state. The Federal Trade Commission alleged that the Board had violated antitrust laws by attempting to limit competition by its teeth whitening decision. State entities such as the Board generally were thought to have immunity from antitrust laws, but the Supreme Court’s decision reversed this long-held belief and found that state boards could be held liability if certain conditions were met. The major condition was that the board be made up of a majority of active market

The variances between criminal law and antitrust are criminal law constitutes an offense that is committed by a citizen, and the level of punishment will vary based on the crime. Antitrust on the other hand is a law that controls the actions of a business entity to ensure that the consumers are receiving fair treatment. Both of these statutes have the ability to be tried either at the state or federal level. These laws have an enormous impact on health care in the 21st century as it demonstrates that the government not tolerate misconduct and these laws are in effect to protect the interest of the public. U.S. health care administrators have a duty to oversee the staff and the operation of the facility and is accountable for taking appropriate actions to report any wrongdoing. Administrators are at the forefront of the organization and must monitor the staff and the

Lastly, for the portion of domestic antitrust, we will examine the Sarbanes Oxley Act. Enacted in 2002 it increases transparency in accounting. It was designed to prevent accounting errors and fraud in financial disclosures. The SOX act stipulates that the periodic financial reports be carried out in a certain way. The signing officers must review and certify the report prior to release. They are required to make sure all information is clear, true, not misleading and does not omit any important details. The signing officers are also required to evaluate the internal controls and their effectiveness within ninety days of the report. If there are any areas of internal control that are not working or may have issues they must also report this, along with any responsible employees. Finally, they must make sure the financial picture is being fairly portrayed through all of this.

In the issue of Cal Hockley’s steel mills, it is clear that the courts would find Cal Hockley in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, even though the conduct

In 1907 a federal court ruled that American Tobacco had a monopoly on licorice, a flavoring, and that the company was guilty of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act. After a long trial, the court prohibited the company from enjoying interstate trade until conditions were corrected. It went through the U.S. Supreme Court, which decided on May 29, 1911 that the company had to be dissolved. On Nov. 16, 1911 the Supreme Court issued a decree that the company had to be divided into three major parts: American Tobacco, Liggett and Myers, and P. Lorillard. The control of R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company of Winston-Salem was also relinquished. James B. Duke, a multimillionaire by then, retired from active management of the American companies and turned

I claim that the Sherman Antitrust Act is a critical and necessary statute that gradually caused significant changes in business practices in order to ensure a competitive free market system essential for long term growth of the economy, although it faced criticisms for sacrificing economic efficiency. This fundamental statute continues to notably shape the economic landscape even today, albeit being more than 100 years old.

In Passalacqua, the appeal court held that the appellee could not have provided specialized training to the appellants because based on the appellant’s testimony; their training came from reviewing a manual, and a day of “on the job” training. Passalacqua v. Naviant, Inc., 844 So. 2d 792 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2003). In this case, the appellants quit three weeks after signing the non-compete agreement and started their own business; their former employer sought injunctive relief on the basis that they had legitimate business interests to protect, one being specialized training about the customer database. Id. at 793. The court favored the appellant’s testimony showing that that the appellee’s did not provide specialized training; therefore, they ruled that the non-compete agreement could not be enforced on the appellants. Id. at 794.

The first antitrust law passed by Congress was the Sherman Act, in 1890. In 1914, Congress passed two other antitrust laws: The Federal Trade Commission Act, which created the Federal Trade Commission, and the Clayton Act. With some revisions, these are the most important federal antitrust laws still in effect today. Section 7 of the Clayton Act prohibits mergers and acquisitions when the effect "may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly." (ftc.gov) The antitrust laws proscribe unlawful mergers and business practices in general terms, leaving courts to decide which ones are illegal based on the facts of each case. For over 100 years, the antitrust laws have had the same basic objective: to protect the process of competition for the benefit of consumers, making sure there are strong incentives for businesses to operate efficiently, keep prices down, and keep quality up. The enforcement authorities of the federal antitrust laws are The Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division (ftc.gov).

Massachusetts courts have enforced non-compete contractual agreements where necessary to protect trade secrets, confidential data, or the employer’s good will. In doing so, the courts balance the reasonable needs of the former employer against concern for the right of the employee to earn a living. They also take into consideration the public’s interest in not enforcing these agreements if they interfere with ordinary, healthy competition.

The predominant view in the United States is that The Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 was passed with the intent to protect consumers from inefficient market forms, and predation by large corporations. The specific provisions of the Sherman Act, as well as the later Clayton Act of 1914, prohibit acts that are considered to be anti competitive such as cartels, monopolies, price discrimination, and predatory pricing. Mergers and acquisitions are also individually reviewed to ensure they won 't have an anti competitive effect on the market. We will look at each of these acts to try to determine their actual impact to the consumer. We will also

Antitrust laws are a collection of laws and regulations, put into place over time, to help govern the competiveness of large corporations. Enforced by the Federal Trade Commission and the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) (“Antitrust Laws,” 2003), the laws help regulate ethical behavior between businesses to ensure that smaller businesses can compete with the bigger name corporations. Mergers and monopolies come into play and greatly affect how these businesses run. This paper will look at two different instances of possible violated laws and discuss the specifics. The first case deals with a pharmaceutical company, the second two telecommunications companies. One question being answered for both examples is what kind of ethical dilemmas are present. Read on as the cases are examined.

On August 15, 2016 there was information released regarding the decision of a federal judge that stated, “a federal judge ordered Michael Nettles to discontinue working at the Louisville-based pizza chain, also requiring Nettles to pay a $200,000 security bond” (“Recently Discovered Cases”, 2016). This case was pretty clear in how it was going to be decided and I agree with how the federal judge went about it. Michael was working a high executive position making decent money, we can assume. Therefore, his decision making is irrational to say the least, after being directly instructed by his former CEO to seek employment elsewhere, and personally signing a document stating that employment by any competition was prohibited, leads me to believe he did not fully consider the consequences for his action. Misappropriation of Trade Secrets is not something taken lightly in the court room as you can see from this

No compete clauses are not pervasive in public or private industry but they often exist in situations and with people where trade secrets and other sensitive information is potentially at risk. Employers do so to protect themselves but many states and territories around the world either highly restrict them or outright ban them from even being implemented due to it ostensibly being unfair or punitive to the employee. The author of this paper is asked to focus on a fictional situation involving a non-compete clause and is asked to answer several different questions. The elements of a non-compete clause that must be present are to be explained as well as a number of related concepts including offer, acceptance, capacity and so on. The author is asked whether common law or UCC applies to non-compete agreements and what part(s) of the agreement would make the aforementioned fictitious agreement unenforceable.