In Europe, the relations between National States and the EU receive constant attention, but in the United States relations between state and federal antitrust authorities only seem to get noticed when a state contradicts a federal action. But practitioners and corporate counsels—both national and international—would do well to pay vigilant attention. Our issue includes articles from state and federal authorities, as well as practitioners, presenting their perspectives on where any bumps in the relationship road might be. And many thanks to our editorial board member, Jay Himes, for helping organize this symposium.
U.S. State and Federal Antitrust Relations
We collaborate with our state partners because it makes practical and economic sense. Mark Tobey (U.S. Dept. of Justice)
No generalizations are possible, however, without distinguishing between merger reviews and non-merger situations. Kathleen Foote (California DOJ, Attorney General’s Office)
History has taught us that a multi-faceted approach works quite well in the context of our competition driven system. Elinor R. Hoffmann (New York Office of the Attorney General)
The state perspective often focuses on a local interest; how particular conduct affects the citizens or businesses of a state. James A. Donahue, III (Pennsylvania Office of Attorney General)
Those matters in which both federal and state antitrust authorities do take an interest usually have significant impacts across state lines and even international borders. Stephen D. Houck (Menaker & Herrmann LLP)
The architects of the brave new world of innovative distribution arrangements may end up posting bail at the state antitrust police barracks. Robert M. Langer (Wiggin and Dana LLP)