Editor's Note

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal,California
• Publication year: 2014
• Citation: Vol. 23 No. 2

EDITOR'S NOTE

Thomas N. Dahdouh¹

Federal Trade Commission

San Francisco

Mind the Gap: A Symposium on Federal/State Antitrust Differences

This issue offers a Symposium answering five key questions in the evolving relationship — dare I say the growing gap? — between federal and California state antitrust laws:

• Do State Antitrust Statutes Reach Foreign Conduct? In the first set, two articles explore the reach of both federal and state antitrust laws to foreign conduct. First, Craig C. Corbitt and Aaron M. Sheanin discuss substantial questions about the reach of federal antitrust statutes. Their article addresses the most recent appellate court machinations concerning interpretation of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act ("FTAIA"), a statute whose tortured language has spawned conflicting interpretations of the reach of federal antitrust statutes beyond our shores. Then, Marc Pilotin takes the plaintiff perspective in arguing that California's state antitrust laws should apply to foreign conduct. Dominique-Chantale Alepin and Jonathan Guss argue for the defense that state antitrust laws should reach no farther than the FTAIA.
• How Should a Potential Opt-Out Plaintiff Proceed? Authors Paula Blizzard, Justina Sessions, and Daniel Gordon offer purchasers a primer on what to do when faced with price-fixing allegations against their suppliers. They offer helpful strategic advice on what direct puchasers should do in such situations, and include advice on options when the allegedly unlawful conduct occurred abroad.
• Should Federal and State Class Antitrust Actions Be Tried Together? Here, Michael Mallow begins tackling this issue by giving helpful background information on the Class Action Fairness Act ("CAFA"), along with insights into recent developments about it. For the plaintiff side, Steve Williams asserts that federal and state antitrust claims should not be tried in a single trial, while Robert E. Freitas, Jason S. Angell, and Jessica N. Leal brief the defense perspective for why a single trial in fact makes the most sense.
• Should Damages be Apportioned for Federal and State Antitrust Violations? For this issue, Steve Williams and Elizabeth Tran take the plaintiff perspective in arguing against apportionment, while Kyle Mach and Bradley Markano give the defense perspective against doing so.
• Should Federal Antitrust Standing Rules Apply to State Antitrust Indirect Purchaser Claims? Jodie M. Williams and Kristen M. Anderson offer a plaintiff perspective...