Is It Me Or Are The Anti-Trust Laws Being Ignored In Favor Of Monopolies?
109512
It does appear that way. I am not sure if antitrust laws apply to mergers though. With very large mergers I do think people do question the lawfulness of the transaction. I am not too sure though.
355373
Actually it is the law that created them.  By defining who was and was not an accredited investor and by defining the rules under the Investment Company Act, it created a need for people who could skirt the rules of the Investment Company Act and the Investment Advisors Act.  Hedge funds, generally speaking, operate outside the disclosure and protection laws (except for true fraud).  Still because they are outside the disclosure laws, true fraud may be impossible to detect.  And some forms of fraud in the common sense understanding are written into the contracts and so are not fraud in the legal sense.  It is fraud if they illegally cheat you not if you contract away common sense rules.  Some of the abuses should be reigned in, but they cannot be because they are legal and contractual rights of the managers.
804395
That's a great question. I wish it was all treated the same. Heck when there's money envolved the law will conform to the greed. Look at gambling; it used to be illegal, but they'll have a native american on their board of directors and call it gaming, or put it on a boat and pretend like it's on water to overcome the laws against casinos. It's all about greed. What it does to society and families doesn't even come into consideration.
953481
The insurance companies tossed the Law of Supply and Demand and consistently charged slightly more than whatever the market would bear.  The inevitable results have happened: inflation and shortages.  \n\nDemand is finally starting to drop and may force the insurance companies to re-implement the law.  But even if they do, I doubt they will maintain compliance very long.  As soon as demand plateaus or starts to increase, they will again ignore the supply and demand law and charge more than the market can bear for longer than the law allows.\n\nSome economists might claim that this amounts to a second-order compliance with the Law.  \n\nFine.  Because increases in salaried and hourly income are typically either linear or non-existent, non-linear manipulations of the Law of Supply and Demand amount to nothing more than price-gouging.  Once again, inflation and shortages result.\n\nIf they don't like that line of reasoning, tell them to take it to the bank.
368530
Good Question!\n\nMaybe we should get the monopolies committee to look into it :-D
867344
One of the seminal cases on anti-suit injunctions, Laker Airways Ltd. v. Sabena Belgian World Airlines, 235 U.S. App. D.C. 207, 731 F.2d 909 (D.C. Cir. 1984), provides a detailed analysis of comity. \n\nLaker filed an antitrust action in the United States against several defendants, including domestic, British, and other foreign airlines. The defendants filed suit in the United Kingdom seeking an anti-suit injunction barring Laker from proceeding with its action in the United States. Meanwhile, the district court granted Laker an injunction barring the defendants from proceeding in the United Kingdom. The D.C. Circuit upheld the importance of comity, stating that "comity serves our international system like the mortar which cements together a brick house." Id. at 937. However, the D.C. Circuit affirmed the district court:\n\n"Comity" summarizes in a brief word a complex and elusive concept -- the degree of deference that a domestic forum must pay to the act of a foreign government not otherwise binding on the forum. . . . However, there are limitations to the application of comity. When the foreign act is inherently inconsistent with the policies underlying comity, domestic recognition could tend either to legitimize the aberration or to encourage retaliation, undercutting the realization of the goals served by comity. No nation is under an unremitting obligation to enforce foreign interests which are fundamentally prejudicial to those of the domestic forum. Thus, from the earliest times, authorities have recognized that the obligation of comity expires when the strong public policies of the forum are vitiated by the foreign act. Id.\n\nThere may be different views among circuits as to the relative importance to be given to comity in deciding whether to file an anti-suit injunction. Compare Quaak, 361 F.3d at 17 ("We deem international comity an important integer in the decisional calculus"), and Laker Airways, 731 F.2d at 927 (anti-suit injunctions should be granted "only in the most compelling circumstances"), with Kaepa, Inc. v. Achilles Corp., 76 F.3d 624, 627 (5th Cir. 1996) ("We decline . . . to require a district court to genuflect before a vague and omnipotent notion of comity every time that it must decide whether to enjoin a foreign action").\n\nLaker Airways, 731 F.2d at 927 also states that courts "have a duty to protect their legitimately conferred jurisdiction to the extent necessary to provide full justice to litigants. Thus, when the action of a litigant in another forum threatens to paralyze the jurisdiction of the court, the court may consider the effectiveness and propriety of issuing an [anti-suit] injunction".
981880
Remember fraud and thievery have been around for a long time. No law can prevent these from happening. All it can do is to catch the thieves and punish them. If you look at Enron, Worldcom etc., the law worked. May be we should look at instilling a sense of honesty and integrity in present and future leaders of business.\n\nSarbox is fine. Those who cry "overregulation" want to dilute it.\n\ncc
892440
At the present moment this industry is a farce... I've been clamped many times and have won all my cases.  \n\nI believe this has been discussed by Parliament and some proposals are being implemented... but no idea when.\n\nI strongly suggest all companies which clamp are registered and a regulatory body is set up.
873540
I liked your answer on one of my questions and followed you here.  Muahaha!\n\nUm, it was interesting.  You have to wonder if "the law" followed that principle on all consensual agreements between people.  For instance, once you started building a house, you couldn't cancel for any reason.  Once you bought a product, you couldn't return it.  After you begin to form a company, you cannot stop the formation.\n\nThe article is food for thought.  My initial reaction is "no means STOP what you're doing right now."
398847
No. Some companies operate with a lot more transparency, take a used car dealership which exists pretty much on information asymmetry and an honest stock broker who will not be able to make his sale without disclosing as much as he can about the issue he is pitching...
969245
It's annoying, but I think it is probably only a temporary refusal.  The EU is gradually becoming a true single economy which will mean common taxation in all forms.  Economic theory suggests this outcome is pretty much inevitable - NAFTA, ASEAN and the EU will become the only three global economic entities and we will get cheap booze and fags through larger scale competition and common economic policy.\n\n'Course it will be at the expense of self-government ...
719410
This country has many laws, which don't encompass family-owned businesses, because of the unique nature of that situation.  There are international efforts by the UN, Peace Corps and Apartheid Now. You need to run a google search or be a little more specific.
935443
That shows that the deals are not good as they have advertised ;)\nI also faced the same predicament....
535925
No. That's called a conflict of interests. If the\ngovernment invested into the private sector then they\nwould pass laws that would favor some companies over\nothers. That would stifle free enterprise.
859923
To a small degree, but not really. I man, lots of claims that cannot honesly be supported. And the FCC and the FTC seem to not care
891083
it's not breaking the law.\n\nit's kind-of well understood that different types of folks visit different types of web-sites. And some people buy things from one 'vendor' because the price is 'more', - so it must be better.\n\nThat's like taxing 'idiots' - and I'm all for that. And if the company get make more money of person 'A', then the can make less money on person 'B'.\n\nWhat the market will bear, - is my motto. And besides, they're not descriminating on age, gender, race, etc.
1005680
It appears that no individual or firm has controlling interest.\n   Yahoo/finance shows that the highest category of ownership - at 14% - are Institutions and Mutual Funds.