Register today for Antitrust Claims after LinkLine: The Future of Section 2 Liability Examined. Earn CLE credits!
View this message in your browser.

Keep West Legalworks email messages coming – add events@westlegalworks.com to your address book now.

Antitrust Claims after LinkLine: The Future of Section 2 Liability Examined

Recently the Supreme Court has been skeptical of expansive Section 2 liability claims, and its decision in Pacific Bell Telephone Co.,dba AT&T California v. LinkLine Communications, is no exception. LinkLine continued the Court’s recent line of cases that have taken a narrow view of liability under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, which prohibits exclusionary conduct that may give a firm a monopoly, or allow it to preserve or extend its monopoly.

LinkLine, an independent provider of DSL Internet access, relied upon AT&T to provide wholesale access to its DSL network. AT&T also provided retail DSL service to consumers. Thus, AT&T was both a provider to, and a competitor of, LinkLine. Plaintiffs claimed that AT&T priced its wholesale DSL access too high, and its retail DSL service too low, so that independent providers like LinkLine were unfairly squeezed and unable to earn a profit.

Our panel of experts, including attorney writers from the renowned SCOTUSblog, will analyze the high court’s finding that Section 2 does not recognize LinkLine’s "price squeeze" claim. They will also examine what it means to antitrust in general, particularly in light of a recent sports licensing case that has drawn intense interest from the NFL, the NBA, and the NHL.



Questions to be addressed:

Does the Court's decision add anything new to Section 2 jurisprudence? What does the Court's decision mean for the future of Section 2?
Is the Court relaxing predatory pricing liability standards for monopolists? Is it signaling a future rollback of liability for predatory pricing claims?
The Court broadly states that "for antitrust purposes, there is no reason to distinguish between price and nonprice components of a transaction." What implication does this have for antitrust liability?
Did the Court even need to decide the case at all, or is the Dissent correct that given the pleading posture of the case, the appeal was essentially moot? What does the court's willingness to decide the merits of the case mean for its approach to antitrust cases generally?


Speakers:
Thomas C. Goldstein, Partner, Co-head of the firmwide litigation and Supreme Court practices, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
Mark J. Botti, Partner, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
D. Daniel Sokol, Assistant Professor, University of Florida Levin College of Law; Contributing author, Antitrust & Competition Policy Blog

West LegalEdcenter Webcast
March 23, 2009

1 pm – 2 pm Eastern

12 pm – 1 pm Central

11 am – 12 pm Mountain

10 am – 11 am Pacific



Registration fee
$135

Facts about online CLE
Many states allow some or all required CLE credits to be earned online. Check your state requirements. If you intend to take a course for CLE credit, please make sure your state is listed in the "Accreditation" section to the right of the program description.

Related products
Live and On Demand Antitrust & Trade Regulation Webcasts
Antitrust & Trade Regulation Publications
Choose West Legalworks
With over 400 events annually, West Legalworks gives you more opportunities to learn from over 2,000 world-class speakers and faculty. Choose from any one of the events covering business or law, practice of law, and other legal and business topics.
Conference Webcasts Government Contract Training Course MaterialsPublications

Do not reply to this message. This email box is not monitored.

More information
Contact us at 1-800-495-9378

Email preferences
Unsubscribe | To ensure that you receive email relevant
to your practice area, tell us your preferences.

©2009 West Legalworks™. All Rights Reserved.

West Legalworks, 195 Broadway, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10007