This fascinating OECD document compiling submissions on the topic is a gold mine of observations on purported best practices for presenting economic testimony to judges and issues facing competition authorities and judges deciding complex antitrust cases on the basis of complex economic evidence. Here is one excerpt from the U.S. submission that caught my eye…

Read the full piece here.

The FTC announced today that it has approved a notice adopting interim final rules amending Parts III and IV of its rules of practice. As boring as that sound, this is a big deal. Here is the Federal Register notice. There are a number of changes, for instance, deadlines are imposed to expedite the pre-hearing phase such that the evidentiary hearing will be held five months from the date of complaint in cases in which the FTC is seeking a preliminary injunction under 13(b) and eight months otherwise. The proposed rules generated quite a bit of public comment. As one can imagine, Whole Foods is a vocal opponent to these rule changes.

Read the full piece here.

The Federal Trade Commission announced a puzzling complaint filed in a new consummated merger & monopolization case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Here’s the explanation of the case from the press release…

Read the full piece here.

At Knowledge Problem, Michael Giberson collects anecdotal evidence on New York’s zone pricing ban, i.e. a prohibition on price discrimination. While gasoline prices are falling all over the country, the anecdotal evidence is that New York’s zone pricing ban is resulting in higher profits for retailers at the expense of consumers. Former George Mason economist (now at Chapman with Vernon Smith) Bart Wilson and Cary Deck have a fascinating experimental paper on the impact of zone pricing which anticipates this result. Of course, most economists agree that zone pricing benefits consumers.

Read the full piece here.

William Kolasky (Wilmer Hale, and one of the frontrunners for the DOJ AG spot according to the rumormill) has an interesting piece in the Antitrust Source on the DOJ Section 2 Report arguing that while…

Read the full piece here.

From the WSJ comes an editorial from Martin Neal Baily and Matthew Slaughter describe a forthcoming report from the Private Equity Council making the link between product market competition and productivity…

Read the full piece here. 

Readers of TOTM know that the future of law and economics is a frequent topic of discussion here, and a topic in which I am both personally invested and spend a good deal of time thinking about (see, e.g. my blog series on the future of law and economics here).  Legal Pad (at CNN/Fortune Magazine) announces the Kauffman Foundations plan to reinvigorate a “new” version of law and economics aimed at a new focus on static efficiency to innovation and economic growth…

Read the full piece here. 

There are some pretty scary devils in the details of this Detroit bailout legislation. This WSJ article provides some specifics.

Under the terms of the draft legislation, “the government would receive warrants for stock equivalent to at least 20% of the loans any company receives.” Let’s put that in perspective. General Motors is seeking around $10 billion in short-term loans, so the legislation would give the government the option to buy a $2 billion stake in GM. GM’s market capitalization — the market value of its outstanding stock — is currently around $3 billion. If the government were to exercise its option today, it would pay GM $2 billion (thereby enhancing GM’s value by that amount) and would receive $2 billion worth of newly issued stock in a (now) $5 billion company. Thus, the government would end up owning 40% of GM.

Read the full piece here. 

“Now for the evidence,” said the King. “And then the sentence.”
“No!” said the Queen. “First the sentence, and then the evidence.”

So goes a famous passage of Lewis Carroll’s Alice in Wonderland. And so begins Whole Foods’ new lawsuit against the Federal Trade Commission.

Read the full piece here.