<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly &#187; Antitrust</title>
	<atom:link href="http://nclawyersweekly.com/category/opinion-digest/antitrust/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 19 Jun 2013 19:23:12 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Antitrust -Dental Board Action Violates Antitrust Law&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/07/antitrust-dental-board-action-violates-antitrust-law/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/07/antitrust-dental-board-action-violates-antitrust-law/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 07 Jun 2013 14:57:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dental hygienist]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=73675</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>N.C. State Board of Dental Examiners v. Federal Trade Comm’n </em>  A state agency that regulates the practice of dentistry cannot overturn a Federal Trade Commission decision that the agency’s efforts to shut down teeth-whitening services performed by non-dentists constituted unfair competition that violated federal antitrust law; the 4th Circuit rejects the state dentistry board’s petition for review of the FTC order.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2013/06/07/antitrust-dental-board-action-violates-antitrust-law/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Antitrust &#8211; Real Property – Multiple Listing Services – Anti-Competitive Bylaws – Putative Class Actions&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/antitrust-real-property-multiple-listing-services-anti-competitive-bylaws-putative-class-actions/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/antitrust-real-property-multiple-listing-services-anti-competitive-bylaws-putative-class-actions/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 13:48:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anti-Competitive Bylaws]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Multiple Listing Services]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Putative Class Actions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Real Property]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=62721</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<em>Robertson v. Sea Pines Real Estate Companies Inc. </em> The 4th Circuit says plaintiff buyers of real estate brokerage services in South Carolina have stated an antitrust claim under the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, with allegations that defendant brokerages that serve as board members of the local multiple listing service conspired to unfairly restrain market competition.]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2012/05/24/antitrust-real-property-multiple-listing-services-anti-competitive-bylaws-putative-class-actions/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Antitrust &#8211; Civil Practice &#8211; Counterclaim Allegations &#8211; Geographic Market &#8211; Body Armor Fibers&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/03/21/antitrust-civil-practice-counterclaim-allegations-geographic-market-body-armor-fibers/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/03/21/antitrust-civil-practice-counterclaim-allegations-geographic-market-body-armor-fibers/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 20:04:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>North Carolina Lawyers Weekly Staff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Courts]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Body Armor Fibers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Civil Practice]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Counterclaim Allegations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Geographic Market]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/?p=54850</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[E.I. DuPont de Nemours &#38; Co. v. Kolon Industries Inc. (Lawyers Weekly No. 11-01-0286, 29 pp.) (Wynn, J.) No. 10-1103, March 11, 2011; USDC at Richmond, Va. (Payne, J.) 4th Cir. Click here for the full text of the opinion. Holding: Saying &#8220;this case is no Twombly,&#8221; the 4th Circuit reverses a district court&#8217;s dismissal [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2011/03/21/antitrust-civil-practice-counterclaim-allegations-geographic-market-body-armor-fibers/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Antitrust &#8211; Md. Liquor Control &#8212; Price- Fixing&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/07/27/antitrust-md-liquor-control-price-fixing/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/07/27/antitrust-md-liquor-control-price-fixing/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/07/27/antitrust-md-liquor-control-price-fixing/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[TFWS Inc. v. Franchot. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-01-0679, 19 pp.) (Duncan, J.) No. 07-2108, July 15, 2009; USDC at Baltimore. (Quarles, J.) 4th Cir. Holding: In this long-running antitrust suit challenging Maryland&#8217;s liquor and wine regulatory scheme, the 4th Circuit affirms the district court holding that the state&#8217;s regulatory scheme is preempted by the Sherman [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/07/27/antitrust-md-liquor-control-price-fixing/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Antitrust &#8211; Civil Practice &#8212; Standing &#8212; Indirect Purchaser &#8212; Price Fixing &#8212; Component Product &#8212; Class Action &#8212; Tennessee Notice &#8212; Full Faith &amp; Credit&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/01/26/antitrust-civil-practice-standing-indirect-purchaser-price-fixing-component-product-class-action-tennessee-notice-full-faith-credit/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/01/26/antitrust-civil-practice-standing-indirect-purchaser-price-fixing-component-product-class-action-tennessee-notice-full-faith-credit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 26 Jan 2009 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Court of Appeals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/01/26/antitrust-civil-practice-standing-indirect-purchaser-price-fixing-component-product-class-action-tennessee-notice-full-faith-credit/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Teague v. Bayer AG. (Lawyers Weekly No. 09-07-0064, 20 pp.) (Linda M. McGee, J.) Appealed from Buncombe County Superior Court. (Ben F. Tennille, J.) N.C. App. Holding: A consumer who bought products containing ethylene propylene diene monomor elastomers (EPDM) has standing to bring a class action alleging that defendants engaged in price fixing of EPDM. [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2009/01/26/antitrust-civil-practice-standing-indirect-purchaser-price-fixing-component-product-class-action-tennessee-notice-full-faith-credit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Antitrust &#8211; Limitations &#8211; Fraudulent Concealment &#8211; Inquiry Notice&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/12/03/antitrust-limitations-fraudulent-concealment-inquiry-notice/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/12/03/antitrust-limitations-fraudulent-concealment-inquiry-notice/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Dec 2007 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Business Law]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/12/03/antitrust-limitations-fraudulent-concealment-inquiry-notice/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[GO Computer Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 07-01-1367, 15 pp.) (Wilkinson, J.) No. 06-2278, Nov. 19, 2007; USDC at Baltimore, Md. (Motz, J.) 4th Cir. In this antitrust suit filed by GO Computer Inc., who alleged defendant Microsoft took a variety of anticompetitive actions to drive out of business GO&#8217;s PenPoint technology for [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/12/03/antitrust-limitations-fraudulent-concealment-inquiry-notice/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Antitrust &#8211; Antitrust Standing &#8211; Consumer &amp; Competitor Rule &#8211; Tolling&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/10/22/antitrust-antitrust-standing-consumer-competitor-rule-tolling/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/10/22/antitrust-antitrust-standing-consumer-competitor-rule-tolling/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Oct 2007 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[4th Circuit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/10/22/antitrust-antitrust-standing-consumer-competitor-rule-tolling/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Novell Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (Lawyers Weekly No. 07-01-1218, 31 pp.) (Duncan, J.) No. 06-1134, Oct. 15, 2007; USDC at Baltimore, Md. (Motz, J.) 4th Cir. In these cross-appeals from interlocutory orders in an antitrust action against Microsoft by Novell Inc., the owner of WordPerfect and Quattro Pro, the 4th Circuit affirms the district court&#8217;s [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/10/22/antitrust-antitrust-standing-consumer-competitor-rule-tolling/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Antitrust &#8211; Civil Conspiracy &#8211; Restraint of Trade &#8211; Environmental Services &#8211; Contract Prices &#8211; Collusion&#160;</title>
		<link>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/08/06/antitrust-civil-conspiracy-restraint-of-trade-environmental-services-contract-prices-collusion/</link>
		<comments>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/08/06/antitrust-civil-conspiracy-restraint-of-trade-environmental-services-contract-prices-collusion/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 06 Aug 2007 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>dmc-admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Antitrust]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Most Important Opinions]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N.C. Business Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Opinion Digest]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/08/06/antitrust-civil-conspiracy-restraint-of-trade-environmental-services-contract-prices-collusion/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[State ex rel. Cooper v. McClure. (Lawyers Weekly No. 07-15-0924, 27 pp.) (Ben Tennille, J. &#8211; Order) N.C. Bus. Ct. Where the individual defendant was on the board of directors of an environmental services providers&#8217; industry organization and allowed her name to be included on communications that encouraged the submission of inflated bids for a [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://nclawyersweekly.com/2007/08/06/antitrust-civil-conspiracy-restraint-of-trade-environmental-services-contract-prices-collusion/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
