Case Study怎么写？本文是一篇留学生论文Case Study范文，针对反垄断法的案例研究，论文形式采用了典型的Case Study的Q&A的模式，通过回答问题来进行案例分析。包括案情摘要，条款描述，行动依据和法律行动等相关内容。是一篇值得参考的Case Study范文。
Case Study范文
Question 1: Write a 100- word abstract of the case, including the date of the case 写一份100字的案情摘要，包括案发日期
本文对美国政府向美国最高法院提起诉讼的一个案例进行了简要的分析和评述。这是1966年美国政府在加利福尼亚州南区第303号地区法院对冯杂货公司（VON）提出的384 U.S.competition 270索赔上诉的抗辩。诉讼期限为1966年3月22日，判决书于1966年5月31日送达。判决书对被告有利。这只是提醒需求，政府监管机构忽视了在其管辖范围内发生的情况。尽管他了解市场结构的变化，但正是这种变化控制了过程。与以往的立法程序相比，政府监管机构未能转变为放松的心态，而这是对他那个时代的威胁和机遇作出反应所必需的。因此，这导致防止不公平贸易做法或处置类似经济活动的小企业。
The essay gives a brief analysis and review of a case in which the government of the United States led to the U.S. Supreme Court. This is the defense of the claim appeal 384 U.S. competition 270 presented by the U.S. government against VON Grocery Co. (Von) in 1966 in the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of California No. 303. Duration was March 22, 1966 and the delivery of a verdict was the May 31, 1966. It was in favor of the defendant. This just reminded demand, government regulators were ignoring situations that occur within its jurisdiction. It was despite his knowledge of the changing developments in market structures that controlled processes. Government regulators failed to switch to a relaxed mood compared to previous legislative procedures necessary reacted to the threats and opportunities of his time. As a result, this led to the prevention of unfair trade practices or disposal of similar economic activities of small-scale business.
Key words: VON’S GROCERY CO, 384 U.S. 270, Shopping Bag Food Stores and 7 of the Clayton Act.
Question 2: Describe the provision of the US Antirust Law invoked to judge the presence of anti-competitive behavior or potential of for moving the industry in that direction. 请描述美国反垄断法的条款，以判断是否存在反竞争行为或是否存在将行业推向该方向的潜在风险。
1960年杂货公司与竞争对手购物袋食品店（Shopping Bag）的合并违反了《克莱顿法案》。1950年的修正案通过禁止并购来规范合理终止，降低了竞争。即使在1980年的一项新的修正案之后，合并仍然是威胁美国的反垄断法合并的主要参考点（Fox&Fox）。
The 1960 merger of Von Grocery Company with competitor Shopping Bag Food Stores (Shopping Bag) whose locations are in Los Angeles, California violated Section 7 of the Clayton Act (n. P Thomson Reuter). Its amendment in 1950 regulates the reasonable termination through the prohibition of mergers and acquisitions, which decreased competition. Even after a new amendment in 1980, remains the main reference point for antitrust law mergers that threatened the United States (Fox & Fox).
Question 3: Describe the basis for the ruling and action that pertain to all OR some of the following factors: The extent and trend in competition and expected in the future: Industry Structure and trend and projection for the future [based on the past, mostly]; CR4, CR8 and HHI, specially in cases of mergers. 描述与以下全部或部分因素有关的裁决和行动的依据：竞争的程度和趋势以及对未来的预期：产业结构和趋势以及对未来的预测[主要基于过去]；CR4、CR8和HHI，特别是在合并的情况下。
美国的主张还有其他修改，以支持他们的论点。它们是1950年对Celler Kefauver法案第7条的修正案，国会试图保护小企业的竞争。也旨在帮助公司集中精力。法院是反对大公司在商业日益集中的市场上使用集中的代理人。他在美国诉美国后成功地撤资了。费城国家。银行，374 U.S.321 Celler Kefauver 362修订的《1950年反合并法》提供了相关信息：
The claim of the United States had other modifications as support for their arguments. They were the 1950 amendment to Section 7 of the Celler-Kefauver and Congress sought to preserve competition for small businesses. Was also intended to help companies focus. The court was the agent that was against large companies that use concentrations in markets with increasing centralization of business. He succeeded in pesting after United States v. Philadelphia National. . Bank, 374 U.S. 321 Celler-Kefauver 362 Anti-Merger Act 1950 as amended provides relevant information:
“That no company engaged in commerce … shall acquire all or part of the assets of another company also engaged in commerce, where in any line of commerce in any part of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. “
Question 4: Describe the “conduct” in question that has been considered “anticompetitive:”Determine if the defendant had used an anticompetitive Price Strategy and explain how. Likewise, describe any Non-price Strategies the defendant had used and describe how.描述被认为是“反竞争”的有关“行为”：确定被告是否使用了反竞争价格策略，并解释如何使用。同样，请描述被告使用过的任何非价格策略，并描述如何使用。
波斯纳是美国的律师。你的帮助是司法部长马歇尔，助理司法部长特纳，罗伯特B。哈默尔，詹姆斯J。科伊尔和约翰F。休斯。辩护律师是威廉W。阿尔苏普。你的小费对沃伦M有帮助。克里斯托弗和威廉W。沃恩。作为利害关系方，美国全国零售杂货商协会检察官野牛是亨利J.，小，作为法庭之友，敦促确认。布莱克法官是本案的法官并作出判决。最初申请的日期是1960年3月25日。1960年3月28日，地方法院没有批准政府对冯杂货公司发出限制令的动议。后者希望收购购物袋食品店周围的有形资本，裁决是不违反需求条款。
In investing 233 F. Supp. 976 Richard A. Posner was counsel for the United States. Your tips help were Attorney General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Turner, Robert B. Hummel, James J. Coyle and John F. Hughes. The defense attorney was William W. Alsup. Your tips help Warren M. Christopher and were William W. Vaughn. As an interested party, the National Association of Retail Grocers of the United States Attorney Bison was Henry J., Jr., as amicus curiae, urging affirmance. MR. JUSTICE BLACK was the judge in the case and give judgment. The date of the original application was March 25, 1960. March 28, 1960, the District Court did not grant the motion of the Government for a restraining order against Von Grocery Company. The latter wanted to acquire tangible capital around the Shopping Bag Food Stores, and the ruling was that not violate the terms of demand.
It was a backdoor way of recognizing the merger and showing favoritism to the accused prior to final judgment. The main argument of the defense was that a company was protecting the other from the state of collapse. They merged to protect a stronger competitor. 374 U.S. 321, 362 was the claim that prohibiting such mergers. There were bank loans may have had access and filing for bankruptcy as a financial coverage. The company achieved this when it was about to collapse. He managed to regroup with the help of government agencies and private financial consultants.
Question 5: Describe the effect of the defendant’s “conduct” on other firms (or the main rival) in the industry. 描述被告的“行为”对该行业其他公司（或主要竞争对手）的影响。
Von是洛杉矶零售区第三大食品杂货市场，而1958年，购物袋食品排名第六。1960年，他们的联合销售额增长了7.5%，年产量达到250万份。在政府看来，你们洛杉矶的市场在他们的市场中所占的份额太小了，不足以抗争。然而，如果前十大公司的市场份额加倍的话，它们的总市场份额可能是洛杉矶零售市场的三分之一。公平地说，这些商店是他那一代的许多美国人都知道的，它的前身是邻里店。在合并前的12年中，有10年的门店数量增加到原来的两倍多一点。其他积极的数字包括销售额和市场份额的增加。它的合并定位了洛杉矶第二大连锁超市。与此同时，在洛杉矶发现的网店老板人数下降了近五分之二。1963年，这一数字继续下降。
Von was the third largest grocery market in the retail area Los Angeles on sales while the shopping bag of food was number six in 1958. Their 1960 joint sales rose 7.5% an annual output of two and a half million. Your Los Angeles market seemed too small part of their market to the government to fight. However, if the top ten companies had double combined, their total market share could have been about a third of the retail market of Los Angeles. To be fair to these stores, which had begun as the outgoing neighborhood store many Americans of his generation knew. Ten of the previous twelve years to the merger, the number of stores has increased to a little more than twice their number. The other positive numbers include increased sales and market share. Its merger positioned the number two supermarket chains in Los Angeles. Meanwhile, the discovery of inpidual owners tennis shops in Los Angeles dropped by nearly two-fifths. In 1963, the numbers continued to decline.
The government witnesses lacked a thorough analysis of the facts and figures that the defense had in its possession. For example, from 1949 until 1958, nine of the top 20 competitors chains came into possession of 126 stores smaller rivals. An important defense witness gave details of previous acquisitions and mergers from 1954 to 1961. Apparently they were in the top 10 stores in Los Angeles. You might consider this as an ordinary person and discriminatory legal action. They should also have ground The nine competitors target rivals for smaller parties to legal action. However, the union of the two powers of financial market was a threat to government control in the area of ​​Los Angeles. The government reported data in its reply, the Federal Trade Commission prepared.
Question 6: Describe the initial legal action taken against or in-favor of the defendant. 描述针对被告或有利于被告的最初法律行动。
对被告采取的最初法律行动是，美国政府指控冯氏杂货公司违反了《克莱顿法》第7条，因为这是一个试图创造垄断的行为。该公司提出上诉，地方法院判决其胜诉。此外，值得一提的是，政府对该公司提出了指控，因为它想在零售杂货市场上收购一家规模较小的竞争对手，即购物袋食品店。
The initial legal action taken against the defendant is that the US government accused Von’s Grocery Company of violating Section 7 of the Clayton Act because it was an attempting to create a monopoly. The company appealed and the District Court ruled in its favour. Also, it is important to mention that the government made accusations against the company because it wanted to purchase a smaller competitor in the retail grocery market that was called Shopping Bag Food Stores.
Question 7: Describe any subsequent legal action in the case (such as the Supreme Court), if any. 如果有的话，请描述该案件的任何后续法律行动（如最高法院）。
Once the case was resolved there was no subsequent action taken. The decision on the case was repealed by the District Court and it was possible for Von’s Grocery Company to merge with, and subsequently absorb, Shopping Bag Food Stores.
Question 8: Carefully describe how the model of Structure-Conduct-Performance has been applied in the case under consideration. [The weight for this question is 40% of the grade.] 仔细描述结构-行为-绩效模型在所考虑的案例中的应用[此问题的权重为分数的40%。]
The history of the struggle against mergers in the United States began in 1890. At that time, Congress passed the Sherman Act to prevent monopolies. Distrust of Americans back to the founding of the country. Unfortunately, did not protect the smaller companies businessman larger monopolistic pressures. In 1897, the Court ruled that the U.S. government against Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U.S. 290, 323. In [384 U.S. 270, 275], the Sherman Act did not protect the small businessman. Congressional approval in 1914, 7 of the Clayton Act allowed the merger of corporations through the purchase of shares of its competitors. By contrast, business people find a loophole and bought his opponents assets. A blow to the fight against the Clayton Act device came with the endorsement of Judge Brandeis, Taft chief justice and judges Holmes and Stone in 1926. As a result, there was a reduction in the number of large companies.
The action was in 1950 Congress adopted the Celler-Kefauver Anti-Merger Act. Representative Celler and Senator Kefauver main reference was 384 U.S. lawmakers 270, 276 for the period 1940-1947. They used the Brown Shoe Co. v United States, 370 U.S. 294, 315 to argue their points. They and other members of Congress had the same concerns. In contrast, 7 of the Clayton Act had stamps in their lagoon and extending its coverage using 384 U.S. 270, 277. Evacuation This involved mergers between competitors and stop all instances of mergers.
The U.S. v National Philadelphia. Banking, led to Amendment 7 to cancel the anti-competitive tendencies. 384 U.S. 270, 279 is another case of reference that allowed the passage of the Celler-Kefauver Act. In United States v. El Paso Gas Co., 376 U.S. 651, 662 defendants El Paso Gas Co. were notified of antitrust charges and declined to postpone pestment from the beginning. Moreover, these two other similar cases of United States v. du Pont & Co., 366 U.S. 316; United States v. Alcoa, 377 U.S. 271, 281 are pre-trial demand 384 U.S. 270, 303 which was subjected to analysis.
Decisions of typos with the figures presented in court said the government ran a presentation to meet with any person or body quirks. The government regulator requires constant awareness of the impact of legislative developments and industry trends and ongoing. There is the need for external consultants to give their objective on huge demands especially in unknown actions reviews. In such cases, the now useless but necessary demand requires more in-depth research, planning, analysis and the reality of how to fight cases misunderstood use laws. This implies compulsory receive expert help to train the executors. This paper has emphasized that the demands of the past are benchmarks for current and future cases and judgments.
Upon focusing on how the SCP paradigm was applied in the case being considered, the first thing to note is that during the 1950s and 1960s, the grocery retail industry was characterized by ownership concentration. In other words, fewer and fewer owners started to own more and more stores (which they would go and absorb from smaller competitors). The structure and conduct of the market was going in the direction of fewer competitors of larger sizes. In the particular case of Von’s Grocery Company, it may be seen that its sales, when combined with the sales of Shopping Bag Food Stores, represented 7.5% of the total dollar amount of retail groceries sold per year in Los Angeles. Combining this fact by the fact that between the late 1940s and the late 1950s both businesses involved with the merger had doubled in size (measured by the amount of retail stores owned by each), and that the trend was going in the direction of larger (and fewer) competitors, it was decided that there was no violation of Section 7 of the Clayton Act. In sum, it was decided that there was no attempt of creating a monopoly, but rather a strategic decision imposed by the market.
Works Cited 引用文献
Fox, Byron E. & Fox, Eleanor M. Chapter Summary, ABSTRACT TEXT:. LexisNexis Group. 2014. . Web. 21 June 2014.
Thomson Reuters. U.S. Supreme Court. Thomson Reuters, 2014.
Case Study范文中一共又8个问题，针对反垄断法案例分析。学生通过案例问题搜索相关法案解释以及相关案例研究进行分析，并且描述结构-行为-绩效模型。本站提供多国留学生论文写作指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。