On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Antitrust Institute 2017: Developments & Hot Topics

Released on: Apr. 21, 2017
Running Time: 12:40:54

This year’s Institute will examine recent developments in several key areas of antitrust reflected in recent decisions as well as vigorous enforcement in the US and around the world.  Panels or nationally known practitioners and senior government enforcement officials will report on and explore developments in competitor relationships, including cartels and other per se antitrust violations as well as the antitrust implications of joint ventures and other competitor collaborations; the legality of various vertical restraints on customers and suppliers;  current merger analysis and enforcement; standards for compliance with U.S. price discrimination laws; and the strategies and priorities of the antitrust enforcers, including increased cooperation among U.S. and foreign competition authorities.

You will learn:

  • Recent decisions addressing:
    • Standards for per se and rule of reason analysis
    • Conspiracy law and competitor relationships
    • Joint ventures and other business collaborations
    • Resale price maintenance, tying and bundling arrangements, monopolization, and attempted monopolization
    • Mergers, acquisitions and similar combinations
    • Trade associations, standard-setting and industry cooperation
    • Intersection of Intellectual Property and Antitrust law
  • Current federal, state and non-U.S. enforcement priorities
  • Recent developments in Robinson-Patman law on price and non-price discrimination
  • Developments evidenced in DOJ and FTC review of recent mergers
  • Antitrust compliance and ethics
  • International developments for global industries

This program is intended for in-house corporate counsel and attorneys in government and private practice with responsibility for, or interest in, antitrust matters.

Lecture Topics [Total time 12:40:54]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.


  • Introduction* [00:03:48]
  • Cartels and Other Horizontal Relationships [01:33:56]
    Saul P. Morgenstern
  • Current Issues in Monopolization [01:21:34]
    Daniel G. Swanson
  • Evolving Standards on Resale Price Maintenance, Tying and Other Vertical Restraints [00:57:32]
    Holly A. House
  • Antitrust Considerations in Acquisitions and Mergers [01:21:56]
    Yvonne S. Quinn
  • What Lawyers Need to Know About International Antitrust Law [01:19:50]
    Lisl J. Dunlop
  • Current Legal Problems at the Interface of IP Law and Competition Law [01:31:40]
    Gil Ohana, Robert P. Taylor
  • Enforcement Issues and Opportunities for Antitrust Practitioners [01:46:51]
    Heather S. Tewksbury, William H. Efron, Jeffrey Martino, Patricia A. Conners
  • Discrimination in Price and Promotions [01:43:58]
    Harvey M. Applebaum, Harvey I. Saferstein, Theodore L. Banks
  • The Intersection Between Antitrust, Ethics, and Compliance [00:59:50]
    Theodore L. Banks

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Cartels and Other Horizontal Relationships (Substantive Outline) (February 23, 2017)
    Margaret A. Rogers, Thomas A. Bird, Saul P. Morgenstern
  • Monopolization and Attempted Monopolization
    Cynthia E. Richman, Daniel G. Swanson
  • Vertical Pricing and Non-Pricing Restraints: When Can Product Tying and Exclusive Contracts Get You in Trouble?
    Holly A. House
  • Horizontal Merger Guidelines (August 19, 2010)
    Yvonne S. Quinn
  • Antitrust Guidelines for International Enforcement and Cooperation (January 13, 2017)
  • Patricia Brink, Daniel Ducore, Johannes Luebking and Anne Newton McFadden, A Visitor’s Guide to Navigating US/EU Merger Remedies, Competition Law International, Vol. 12, No. 1, April 2016
  • Compliance Matters: What Companies Can Do Better to Respect EU Competition Rules (2012)
    European Commission
  • Intellectual Property Rights vs. Antitrust Law: The Shifting Focal Points
    Robert P. Taylor
  • Guidance From the Bureau of Competition on Requesting and Obtaining an Advisory Opinion
  • Robinson-Patman Act: Buyer Liability, Discrimination in Promotional Allowances and Services, and Brokerage (January 2017)
    Harvey M. Applebaum
  • An Overview and Update of the Federal and State Law of Price Discrimination
    Harvey I. Saferstein
  • Legal Ethics, Antitrust and Compliance (February 3, 2017)
    Theodore L. Banks

Presentation Material


  • Cartels and Other Horizontal Relationships
    Saul P. Morgenstern
  • Current Issues in Monopolization
    Daniel G. Swanson
  • Evolving Standards on Resale Price Maintenance, Tying and Other Vertical Restraints
    Holly A. House
  • Antitrust Considerations in Acquisitions and Mergers
    Yvonne S. Quinn
  • What Lawyers Need to Know About International Antitrust Law
    Lisl J. Dunlop
  • Current Legal Problems at the Interface of IP Law and Competition Law
    Gil Ohana, Robert P. Taylor
  • Discrimination in Price and Promotions
    Harvey M. Applebaum, Harvey I. Saferstein
  • The Intersection Between Antitrust, Ethics, and Compliance
    Theodore L. Banks
Co-Chair(s)
Saul P. Morgenstern ~ Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
Yvonne S. Quinn ~ Sullivan & Cromwell LLP
Harvey I. Saferstein ~ Vice President, General Counsel , Sportsman Cap and Bag
Moderator(s)
Heather S. Tewksbury ~ Partner, WilmerHale
Speaker(s)
Harvey M. Applebaum ~ Covington & Burling LLP
Theodore L. Banks ~ President, Compliance & Competition Consultants, LLC, Scharf Banks Marmor LLC
Patricia A. Conners ~ Chief Deputy, Office of the Attorney General of Florida
Lisl J. Dunlop ~ Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
William H. Efron ~ Director, Northeast Region, Federal Trade Commission
Holly A. House ~ Litigation Partner, Paul Hastings LLP
Jeffrey Martino ~ Chief, New York Office, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Gil Ohana ~ Senior Director, Antitrust and Competition, Cisco Systems, Inc.
Daniel G. Swanson ~ Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Robert P. Taylor ~ RPT Legal Strategies PC
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.