Notes on 15 U.S.C. § 16 : US Code - Notes

Search Notes on 15 U.S.C. § 16 : US Code - Notes

(Oct. 15, 1914, ch. 323, Sec. 5, 38 Stat. 731; July 7, 1955, ch.
283, Sec. 2, 69 Stat. 283; Pub. L. 93-528, Sec. 2, Dec. 21, 1974,
88 Stat. 1706; Pub. L. 94-435, title III, Sec. 302(2), Sept. 30,
1976, 90 Stat. 1396; Pub. L. 96-349, Sec. 5(a), Sept. 12, 1980, 94
Stat. 1157; Pub. L. 108-237, title II, Sec. 221(b), June 22, 2004,
118 Stat. 668.)
REFERENCES IN TEXT
The antitrust laws, referred to in subsecs. (a), (b), and (g) to
(i), are defined in section 12 of this title.
AMENDMENTS
2004 - Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 108-237, Sec. 221(b)(1), inserted at
end "Upon application by the United States, the district court may,
for good cause (based on a finding that the expense of publication
in the Federal Register exceeds the public interest benefits to be
gained from such publication), authorize an alternative method of
public dissemination of the public comments received and the
response to those comments."
Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 108-237, Sec. 221(b)(2), designated
introductory provisions as par. (1), substituted "court shall" for
"court may", added subpars. (A) and (B) and par. (2), and struck
out former pars. (1) and (2) which read as follows:
"(1) the competitive impact of such judgment, including
termination of alleged violations, provisions for enforcement and
modification, duration or relief sought, anticipated effects of
alternative remedies actually considered, and any other
considerations bearing upon the adequacy of such judgment;
"(2) the impact of entry of such judgment upon the public
generally and individuals alleging specific injury from the
violations set forth in the complaint including consideration of
the public benefit, if any, to be derived from a determination of
the issues at trial."
Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 108-237, Sec. 221(b)(3), inserted "by any
officer, director, employee, or agent of such defendant" before ",
or other person" in first sentence.
1980 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96-349 made collateral estoppel
inapplicable in any action or proceeding brought under the
antitrust laws to any finding made by the Commission under the
antitrust laws or under section 45 of this title which could give
rise to a claim for relief under the antitrust laws; struck out "or
by the United States under section 15a of this title," after "under
said laws"; and deleted from proviso "or to judgments or decrees
entered in actions under section 15a of this title" after
"testimony has been taken".
1976 - Pub. L. 94-435 substituted "private or State right of
action" for "private right of action" and "section 15 or 15c" for
"section 15".
1974 - Subsecs. (b) to (i). Pub. L. 93-528 added subsecs. (b) to
(h) and redesignated former subsec. (b) as (i).
1955 - Act July 7, 1955, substituted subsec. (a) for first
paragraph, to provide that final judgments in actions under the
antitrust laws by the United States shall be prima facie evidence
in damage suits by the United States as well as in private damage
suits, and substituted subsec. (b) for second paragraph, to provide
for a one-year suspension of limitations.
EFFECTIVE DATE OF 1980 AMENDMENT
Section 5(b) of Pub. L. 96-349 provided that: "The amendments
made by this section [amending this section] shall apply only with
respect to actions commenced after the date of the enactment of
this Act [Sept. 12, 1980]."
SUSPENSION OF LIMITATION
Act Oct. 10, 1942, ch. 589, 56 Stat. 781, as amended June 30,
1945, ch. 213, 59 Stat. 306, provided for the suspension of any
existing statutes of limitations relating to violations of
antitrust laws now indictable or subject to civil proceedings under
any existing statutes, until June 30, 1946.
FINDINGS AND PURPOSES OF 2004 AMENDMENT
Pub. L. 108-237, title II, Sec. 221(a), June 22, 2004, 118 Stat.
668, provided that:
"(1) Findings. - Congress finds that -
"(A) the purpose of the Tunney Act [probably means section 2 of
Pub. L. 93-528 which amended this section] was to ensure that the
entry of antitrust consent judgments is in the public interest;
and
"(B) it would misconstrue the meaning and Congressional intent
in enacting the Tunney Act to limit the discretion of district
courts to review antitrust consent judgments solely to
determining whether entry of those consent judgments would make a
'mockery of the judicial function'.
"(2) Purposes. - The purpose of this section [amending this
section] is to effectuate the original Congressional intent in
enacting the Tunney Act and to ensure that United States
settlements of civil antitrust suits are in the public interest."