February 1984

Anticompetitive practices

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirms a jury’s verdict that an agreement entered by competitive sports teams constitute an unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for professional football teams and their home stadiums (LA Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n / NFL)
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (Dallas)
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying a rule of reason analysis, affirmed a jury verdict that an agreement between NFL teams requiring a 2/3 vote before allowing one team to move within the home territory of another team violated the Sherman Act, Section 1. Rejecting the NFL’s arguments, (...)


The UK High Court refuses to strike out an action challenging the compatibility of measures taken by a state controlled body with EC Treaty provisions and EC Regulation (An Bord Bainne/The Milk Marketing Board)
London School of Economics (London)
In the present judgment, rendered in 1984, the English High Court (Queen’s Bench Divisional Court) effectively relied on the direct effect of the then Art 86 EEC (now Art 82 EC) in order to allow a privately owned co-operative organisation to challenge the compatibility of decisions taken by the (...)

All issues

  • Latest News issue 
  • All News issues
  • Latest Special issue 
  • All Special issues