Renowned Attorney and Best-Selling Author Charles Jerome Ware formerly served as an antitrust trial attorney in the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, as First Assistant Director for the U.S. Federal Trade Commission's Bureau of Competition (Antitrust Bureau), and as the Chief Antitrust and Microeconomics Counsel to the Chairman of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC).
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com ("We fight. You win.")
Attorney Charles Jerome Ware is renowned and consistently ranked among the best attorneys and legal counsellors in the United States. [GQ Magazine, The Washington Post, The Baltimore Sun, The Columbia Flier, USA TODAY, The Howard County Sun, The Anniston Star, The New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX-TV NEWS, WHUR, WHUT, MPT, BBC, The Wall Street Journal, ABA Journal, et al.]
I. Recent Antitrust Activity in Maryland:
Important Background: Read Attorney Charles Ware's twitter, dated Friday, May 31, 2013, and (2) blog, charlesware.blogspot.com/2013-05-31/"U. of Maryland vs. ACC: $52 Million 'Exit Fee' Case Update by Attorney and Author Charles Ware".
www.CharlesJeromeWare.com (May 30, 2013)
A legal venue battle is raging between the University of Maryland and the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC).
An alleged $52 million "exit fee" is the subject of multiple civil lawsuits between the two institutions.
In November of 2012, the University of Maryland announced it was leaving (exiting) the ACC to join the Big Ten Conference; which immediately prompted a lawsuit by the ACC for enforcement of their alleged $52 million "exit fee" for Maryland's withdrawal from the conference.
The ACC filed their lawsuit against the University of Maryland in North Carolina where the conference is headquartered. The University of Maryland responded in kind by filing its lawsuit against the ACC in Maryland, stating that the amount of the "Exit fee" was excessive and consequently illegal.
On May 23, 2013, Judge John Paul Davey of the Prince George’s County Circuit Court in Maryland heard each party’s arguments. Counsel for the ACC asked the judge to wait until the lawsuit in North Carolina was at an end before making a determination whether or not to hear the suit in Maryland, which they argued was filed to give the University a home field advantage.
The University of Maryland argued that the two suits are different and based their main arguments primarily under the Maryland Antitrust Act, stating that the ACC’s fee was punitive in nature and would cause injury to the University, its athletics department, and its students. The University, in their complaint, accuses the ACC of aiming “to send a message of deterrence to any other member school that might consider withdrawing from the conference -- any such attempts to do so will be met with harsh penalties.” Furthermore, they claim that the ACC has illegally withheld $3 million of revenue owed to the University – money that the ACC has withheld to apply towards the exit fee.
As for the ACC, it argued, inter alia, that the University’s antitrust claims are unconstitutional because they interfere with the ACC’s ability to engage in interstate commerce and unduly burdens its activities in the other six states in which the ACC operates. The ACC also argued that the University fails to state a significant injury under the Maryland Antitrust Law since “there is nothing anti-competitive about the withdrawal payment… [i]t is merely a method of internal governance used by the ACC.” In sum, the ACC asked Judge Davey to dismiss the suit in Maryland or, alternatively, halt the proceedings in Maryland until there was first a resolution in North Carolina.
Judge Davey’s opinion is still pending. Ultimately, however, it will be just the first ruling in what many fear will be a lengthy legal battle between these two.
[The Washington Post, "No ruling in ACC’s motion for dismissal of Maryland lawsuit", May 23, 2013; The Washington Post, "Documents from the upcoming ACC-Maryland dismissal hearing", May 20, 2013; web1.judepedia.org/index.php/courtroom weekly]
II. The Maryland Antitrust Act:
The Maryland Antitrust Act ("MAA") was enacted by the General Assembly for the state in 1972. The purpose or intent of the Act is to complement federal antitrust laws concerning restraints of trade and other anticompetitive conduct [Title 11, §11-201 et seq., Maryland Commercial Law Code].
Private parties and the Maryland state Attorney General may bring actions pursuant to the Act. Parties who may sue, the relief and limitation period are prescribed under §11-207 and §11-209.
The prevailing plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees, and any action under the Act should be brought within the statutory four years after the cause of action arises [businesslaw.uslegal.com/antitrust/Maryland Antitrust Law].
II. The Maryland Antitrust Act:
The Maryland Antitrust Act ("MAA") was enacted by the General Assembly for the state in 1972. The purpose or intent of the Act is to complement federal antitrust laws concerning restraints of trade and other anticompetitive conduct [Title 11, §11-201 et seq., Maryland Commercial Law Code].
Private parties and the Maryland state Attorney General may bring actions pursuant to the Act. Parties who may sue, the relief and limitation period are prescribed under §11-207 and §11-209.
The prevailing plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorney fees, and any action under the Act should be brought within the statutory four years after the cause of action arises [businesslaw.uslegal.com/antitrust/Maryland Antitrust Law].
No comments:
Post a Comment