ISSN 0024-7081
Vol. 12, Issue 3, 1981January 01, 1981 CDT
ccby-4.0
Equitable Remedies in the Private Enforcement of Section 7 of the Clayton Act: Do Divestiture and Rescission Create a Panacea or Open a Pandora’s Box?
Equitable Remedies in the Private Enforcement of Section 7 of the Clayton Act: Do Divestiture and Rescission Create a Panacea or Open a Pandora’s Box?
Articles in Vol. 12, Issue 3, 1981
Vol. 12, Issue 3, 1981
- Table of ContentsJournal Loyola University Chicago Law
- Forward: Perspectives on Corporate Mergers and the Antitrust LawsC. Paul Rogers
- The Relevant Product Market After <i>Brown Shoe:</i> A Framework of Analysis for Clayton and Sherman Act CasesWilliam MacLeod
- The Expansion of Horizontal Merger Defenses After <i>General Dynamics:</i> A Suggested Reconsideration of Sherman Act PrinciplesJame F. Ponsoldt
- Patents and Section 7 of the Clayton Act: The Significance of Patents in Corporate AcquisitionsRamon A. Klitzke
- Equitable Remedies in the Private Enforcement of Section 7 of the Clayton Act: Do Divestiture and Rescission Create a Panacea or Open a Pandora's Box?Marianne E. Guerrini
- The Antitrust Procedural Improvements Act of 1980: Juridictional Uniformity in Antitrust Merger LawBeth Beucher
- The Effective Use of Postacquisition Evidence Under Section 7 of the Clayton ActTherese Groble Cushing
- Reciprocity as a Basis for Challenging Conglomerate Mergers Under the Clayton ActCarol A. Doyle
- Standards for Evaluating Requests for Preliminary Injunctive Relief in Merger CasesPatricia Neeham Marucci
- State Anti-Merger Policy: Divesting the Federal Government of Exclusive RegulationDavid Anthony Upah
- "Solely for Investment Purposes": Evolution of a Statutory Exemption Under Clayton Section 7Janet H. Winnigham
Marianne E. Guerrini, Equitable Remedies in the Private Enforcement of Section 7 of the Clayton Act: Do Divestiture and Rescission Create a Panacea or Open a Pandora’s Box?, 12 Loy. U. Chi. L.J. 427 (1981).