Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 44 views

    City Center Building 1401 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20530

    Uploaded by

    legalmatters
    The U.S. Department of Justice wrote a letter to a federal judge regarding a case against Browning-Ferris Industries. In the letter, the Department of Justice argues that the judge should make a public interest determination for a proposed settlement based solely on documents already filed, including the competitive impact statement and responses to public comments. The letter cites several precedents establishing that the court's role is to ensure the government has not failed in its duty to the public, not to determine the best possible settlement, and that settlements should not face more elaborate scrutiny that could undermine antitrust enforcement.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    City Center Building 1401 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20530

    Uploaded by

    legalmatters
    44 views3 pages
    The U.S. Department of Justice wrote a letter to a federal judge regarding a case against Browning-Ferris Industries. In the letter, the Department of Justice argues that the judge should make a public interest determination for a proposed settlement based solely on documents already filed, including the competitive impact statement and responses to public comments. The letter cites several precedents establishing that the court's role is to ensure the government has not failed in its duty to the public, not to determine the best possible settlement, and that settlements should not face more elaborate scrutiny that could undermine antitrust enforcement.

    Original Description:

    Antitrust realted case briefs from the US Department of Justice

    Original Title

    00069-0180

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The U.S. Department of Justice wrote a letter to a federal judge regarding a case against Browning-Ferris Industries. In the letter, the Department of Justice argues that the judge should make a public interest determination for a proposed settlement based solely on documents already filed, including the competitive impact statement and responses to public comments. The letter cites several precedents establishing that the court's role is to ensure the government has not failed in its duty to the public, not to determine the best possible settlement, and that settlements should not face more elaborate scrutiny that could undermine antitrust enforcement.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    44 views3 pages

    City Center Building 1401 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20530

    Uploaded by

    legalmatters
    The U.S. Department of Justice wrote a letter to a federal judge regarding a case against Browning-Ferris Industries. In the letter, the Department of Justice argues that the judge should make a public interest determination for a proposed settlement based solely on documents already filed, including the competitive impact statement and responses to public comments. The letter cites several precedents establishing that the court's role is to ensure the government has not failed in its duty to the public, not to determine the best possible settlement, and that settlements should not face more elaborate scrutiny that could undermine antitrust enforcement.

    Copyright:

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3

    U. S.

    Department of Justice
    Antitrust Division

    City Center Building


    1401 H Street, NW
    Washington, DC 20530

    March 30, 1995

    The Honorable Charles R. Richey


    U.S. Courthouse
    Third Street and Constitution Ave., N.W.
    Washington, D.C. 20001

    Re: United States v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc.,


    Case No.:1:94CV02588

    Dear Judge Richey:

    The Court has requested that the United States provide proposed findings in support of

    the Court's determination that the entry of the proposed Final Judgment in the above-captioned

    case is in the public interest. While the United States has complied with the Court's request, it

    believes the record in this case is more than adequate for the Court to make its public interest

    determination pursuant to the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act ("APPA"). See 15 U.S.C.

    §16(f).

    The Court may properly make its public interest determination solely on the basis of the

    Competitive Impact Statement and Responses to Comments filed pursuant to the APPA.

    "[A]bsent a showing or corrupt failure of the government to discharge


    its duty, the Court, in making its public interest finding, should . . . carefully
    consider the explanations of the government in the competitive impact
    statement and its responses to comments in order to determine whether those
    explanations are reasonable under the circumstances."

    United States v. Mid-American Dairymen, Inc., 1977-1 Trade Cas. ¶61,508, at 71,980 (W.D. Mo.

    1977). Moreover, precedent requires that, in making the public interest determination:

    "the balancing of competing social and political interests affected by


    a proposed antitrust consent decree must be left, in the first instance,
    to the discretion of the Attorney General. The court's role in
    protecting the public interest is one of insuring that the government
    has not breached its duty to the public in consenting to the decree.
    The court is required to determine not whether a particular decree is
    the one that will best serve society, but whether the settlement is
    'within the reaches of the public interest.' More elaborate
    requirements might undermine the effectiveness of antitrust
    enforcement by consent decree."

    United States v. Bechtel, 648 F.2d at 666 (citations omitted)(emphasis added); see United States v.

    BNS, Inc., 858 Supp. 1127, 1143 (C.D. Cal. 1978); United States v. Gillette Co., 406 F. Supp. at

    716. See also United States v. American Cyanamid Co., 719 F.2d at 565. The D.C. Circuit has

    adopted this standard in U.S. v. Western Electric Co., 900 F.2d 283 (D.C. Cir. 1990).

    For these reasons, we believe the Government's Competitive Impact Statement, filed on

    December 2, 1994, and it Comments on the Proposed Final Judgment and the United States'

    Responses to the Comments, filed on March 2, 1995, provide an adequate basis for the Court to

    make its public interest determination.

    2
    Respectfully submitted,

    _________________________
    Nancy H. McMillen
    Eva Almirantearena
    Attorneys
    U.S. Department of Justice
    1401 H. Street, N.W.; Suite 4000
    Washington, D.C. 20530
    (202) 307-5777

    CC: Martha Talley, Esq.


    Counsel for
    Browning-Ferris
    Industries, Inc.

    John Tennis, Esq.


    State of Maryland
    Office of the Attorney General

    Liz Leeds, Esq.


    State of Florida
    Office of the Attorney General

    You might also like