We found a match
Your institution may have access to this item. Find your institution then sign in to continue.
- Title
The Brown Shoe Case and the New Antimerger Policy: Comment.
- Authors
Jones, Bryce J.
- Abstract
This article discusses the decision of a lawsuit given by a U.S. court regarding Brown Shoe Co. case, as of June 1964. The Brown decision ostensibly settles one of the thorniest issues in antitrust law, namely the issue of market definition in merger cases. In holding that relevant submarkets, product and geographic, may exist within the boundaries of the broad market, the court apparently ruled that the market may be drawn more narrowly in a merger case than in a monopoly case. The decision is not altogether clear on this point. The court argues that the relevant market must be drawn broadly enough to recognize competition where it exists and to correspond to economic reality. Obviously, a market drawn to include competitive products and suppliers traces out the true boundaries of a market, regardless of whether it is termed a broad market or a submarket. The assumption underlying the sub market approach in merger cases is that the submarket is meaningful in itself, that the submarket marks off an important area of competition. The difficulty with this assumption is that one cannot determine whether this is true without examining the broader market, the market comprising those firms selling substitute products to a common group of buyers.
- Subjects
UNITED States; LEGAL judgments; MERGERS &; acquisitions law; CALERES Inc.; MARKET share; ANTITRUST law; MERGERS &; acquisitions; ACTIONS &; defenses (Law)
- Publication
American Economic Review, 1964, Vol 54, Issue 4, p407
- ISSN
0002-8282
- Publication type
Article