Neal Marder on Antitrust Laws – The Clayton Act of 1914

Throughout his career in litigation law, Neal Marder has established himself as a dedicated and highly capable attorney. As a partner with Winston & Strawn and chairman of the firm’s consumer class actions practice, Neal Marder concentrates primarily on complex commercial matters such as antitrust litigation. Aside from the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, perhaps no law in American history has bolstered antitrust regulations more significantly than the Clayton Antitrust Act.

Enacted by Congress in 1914, the Clayton Act provided federal regulation in several areas not covered by the earlier Sherman Act, including mergers and acquisitions. The Clayton Act also addressed a practice known as interlocking directorates, whereby one person or entity makes decisions for two companies in direct competition with one another. A 1936 amendment to the Clayton Act banned discriminatory business practices between merchants, while a 1976 amendment forced companies to notify the federal government before engaging in large mergers or acquisitions.

Neal Marder Comments on Securities Litigation Uniform Standards

An accomplished attorney with considerable experience in the field of business and commercial litigation, Neal Marder is a partner in the Los Angeles office of Winston & Strawn, a prominent law firm with operations throughout North America, Europe, and Asia. In May 2012, Neal Marder contributed to an article titled “Federal Securities Law Doesn’t Preclude State Law Class Actions,” in which he discussed the significance of Roland v. Green as it relates to the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act (SLUSA).

A class action lawsuit involving some 30,000 investors defrauded in a $7 million Ponzi scheme, Roland v. Green challenged the interpretation of SLUSA, which prevented the maintenance of state law class action suits connected with the sale or purchase of covered securities. A number of appeals courts interpreted SLUSA in different ways, which opened the door for vigorous debate among legal experts.

According to Mr. Marder, Roland v. Green could cause the U.S. Supreme Court to conduct a review of the SLUSA preclusion provision.