Normas antimonopolio en Estados Unidos y corrupción financiera

Antitrust Norms in the United States and Financial Corruption

Contenido principal del artículo


El presente artículo de investigación estudia el fenómeno de la reducción de las normas antimonopolio en los últimos años en los Estados Unidos de América, donde existía una fuerte tradición antimonopolística por vía del ejercicio de acciones de carácter privado para prevenir y sancionar estos comportamientos anticompetitivos. Para esos efectos, en el artículo se estudian los antecedentes más relevantes del origen de las normas antimonopolio y su auge, y se concreta con su reciente declive. Finalmente, se hace un análisis de las posibles causas del declive regulatorio y sus implicaciones negativas en el contexto nacional e internacional de los Estados Unidos.

Palabras clave:


Los datos de descargas todavía no están disponibles.

Detalles del artículo

Referencias (VER)

Calabresi, Steven G. & Larissa C. Leibowitz, Monopolies and the Constitution: A History of Crony Capitalism, 36 Harv. J. L. & Pub. Pol’y 983, 1012-13 (2013).

Carrillo Zuluaga, Paola Andrea. Colombia: Superintendency of Industry and Commerce, The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2019 (sept. 3, 2018).

Cohen, Andrew. No Class: The Supreme Court’s Arbitration Ruling, The Atlantic (Apr. 27, 2011, 5:33 AM),

Castano v. Am. Tobacco Co., 84 F.3d 734, 746 (5th Cir. 1996).

Cavanagh, Edward D. Twombly: The Demise of Notice Pleading, the Triumph of Milton Handler, and the Uncertain Future of Private Antitrust Enforcement, 28 Rev. Litig. 1, 17–27 (2008).

Coffee, John C. Jr., Class Wars: The Dilemma of the Mass Tort Class Action, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 1343, 1465 (1995). DOI:

Congress Watch, Pub. Citizen, Class Action “Judicial Hellholes”: Empirical Evidence Is Lacking (2005), disponible en http://

Deborah R. Hensler et al., Class Action Dilemmas: Pursuing Public Goals for Private Gain 471 (2000).

Dep’t of Justice Antitrust Resource Manual, disponible en

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford, “Antitrust Enforcement and the Fight Against Corruption”, Remarks as Prepared for the Conference on Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption Challenges, (San Paolo, Brazil Oct. 3, 2017).

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Scott D. Hammond, “Caught in the Act: Inside an International Cartel”, oecd Competition Committee, Working Party n.3 Public Prosecutors Program (Oct. 18, 2005 Paris, France), disponible en

Eichenwald, Kurt. The Informant 12 (2000)

Epstein, Lee; William M. Landes, & Richard A. Posner, Is the Roberts Court Pro Business?, sec. 3, n. 3 (Dec. 17, 2010) (unpublished manuscript),

Federal Class Actions: A Suggested Revision of Rule 23, 46 Colum. L. Rev. 818, 822-23 (1946). DOI:

Glinskies, Emmalina. By the Numbers: The Rise of Monopolies, The Nation (Feb. 15, 2018).

Friendly, Henry J. Federal Jurisdiction: A General View 120 (1973).

Glass, Ira. The Fix is In, This American Life (sept. 15, 2000).

Handler, Milton. Foreword, 75 Cal. L. Rev. 787 (1987). DOI:

Handler, Milton. Recent Antitrust Developments, 112 U. Pa. L. Rev. 159, 188 (1963). DOI:

Handler, Milton. The Shift from Substantive to Procedural Innovations in Antitrust Suits-the Twenty-Third Annual Antitrust Review, 71 Colum. L. Rev. 1, 9 (1971). DOI:

Hatamyar, Patricia W. The Tao of Pleading: Do Twombly and Iqbal Matter Empirically?, 59 Am. U. L. Rev. 553, 607 (2010).

Hawthorne, Donald. Recent Trends in Federal Antitrust Class Actions, Antitrust 60 (verano 2010).

Hewitt Pate, R Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General, “International Anti-Cartel Enforcement” (nov. 21, 2004) disponible en

Hovenkamp, Herbert. The Pleading Problem in Antitrust Cases and Beyond, 95 Iowa L. Rev. Bull. 55, 56–58 (2010). DOI:

“Individual Accountability for Corporate Wrongdoing”, Memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Sally Q. Yates (sept. 9, 2015), disponible en The Department of Justice Archives

Kanner, Allan & Tibor Nagy. Exploding the Blackmail Myth: A New Perspective on Class Action Settlements, 57 Baylor L. Rev. 681, 697 (2005).

Kaplow, Louis. Antitrust, Law & Economics, and the Courts, 50 Law & Contemporary Problems 181, 184 (1987). DOI:

Klonoff, Robert H. The Decline of Class Actions, 90 Wash. U. L. Rev. 729, 736 (2013).

Lamberg Kafele, Heather & Mario M. Meeks. Developing Trends and Patterns in Federal Antitrust Cases after Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Aschroft v. Iqbal, Shearman & Sterling llp Antitrust Digest (Apr. 2010).

Lande, Robert H.; Joshua P. Davis, Benefits from Private Antitrust Enforcement: An Analysis of Forty Cases, 42 U. S. F. L. Rev. 879, 906 (2008). DOI:

Lazaroff, Daniel E. Entry Barriers and Contemporary Antitrust Litigation, 7 U. C. Davis Bus. L. J. 1, 46-51 (2006).

Lees, Gail E. et al., Year in Review on Class Actions, 13 Class Action Litig. Rep. (BNA) n.4, Feb. 24, 2012, en 225.

Legge v. Nextel Commc’ns, Inc., CV 02-8676dsf(VNKX), 2004 WL 5235587, en **13-17 (C.D. Cal. June 25, 2004).

Lehman, James K. Blood Suppliers’ Liability for aids Contaminated Blood, 41 S. C. L. Rev. 107, 109 n.14 (1989).

Letter from Albert A. Foer, President, The American Antitrust Institute, to Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal, Chair, The Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States (May 27, 2010).

Loffi, Kathryn G. Suppliers of aids-Contaminated Blood Now Face Liability, 34 How. L.J. 183, 187-88 (1991).

London v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 340 F.3d 1246, 1255 n.5 (11th Cir. 2003).

Luff, Patrick A. Bad Bargains: The Mistake of Allowing Cost-Benefit Analyses in Class Action Certification Decisions, 41 U. Mem. L. Rev. 65, 68 (2010).

Nasar, Sylvia & Milton Handler, 95, Is Dead; Antitrust Expert Wrote Laws, NY Times, nov. 12, 1998, disponible en

Neal, Phil C. and Perry Goldberg, The Electrical Equipment Antitrust Cases: Novel Judicial Administration, 50 Am. Bar Assoc. J. 621, 622 (July 1964).

Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 168 n.8 (3rd Cir. 2001)

Phillips Sawyer, Laura. U. S. Antitrust Law and Policy in Historical Perspective, Working Paper 19-110, Harvard Business School (2019). DOI:

Rutherglen, G. Wal-Mart, AT&T Mobility, and the Decline of the Deterrent Class Action, 98 Va. L. Rev. In Brief 24, 25 (2012).

Segmento uno: enero 18, 1995 Cartel Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia—The Lysine Cartel Members Show Disdain for Customers and Antitrust Enforcement, disponible en

Silver, Charles. “We’re Scared to Death”: Class Certification and Blackmail, 78 n. y. u. l. Rev. 1357, 1430 (2003).

Silver, Charles. “We’re Scared to Death”: Class Certification and Blackmail, 78 n. y. u. l. Rev. 1357, 1361-62 (2003).

Singh, Rahu. The Teeter-Totter of Regulation and Competition: Balancing the Indian Competition Commission with Sectoral Regulators, 8 Wash. U. Global Stud. L. Rev. 71, 96 (2009).

Specter Proposes Return to Prior Pleading Standard, Blog of Legal Times (July 23, 2009)

Sternlight, Jean R. As Mandatory Binding Arbitration Meets the Class Action, Will the Class Action Survive?, 42 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 1, 35 (2000).

Suzette M. Malveaux, Symposium, Clearing Civil Procedural Hurdles in the Quest of Justice, 37 Ohio N. U. L. Rev. 621, 624 (2011).

Thorelli, Hans B. The Federal Antitrust Policy 206-210 (1955).

Wasserman, Howard M. The Roberts Court and the Civil Procedure Revival, 31 Rev. Litig. 313 (2012).

Watkins, Myron W. Electrical Equipment Antitrust Cases: Their Implications for Government and for Business, 97 U. Chicago L. Rev. 97, 104 (1961). DOI:

Willging, Thomas E. & Shannon R. Wheatman, Attorney Choice of Forum in Class Action Litigation: What Difference Does It Make?, 81 Notre Dame L. Rev. 591, 645, 652-54 (2006).

Wu, Tim. The Curse of Bigness 78-79 (2018). DOI:

Yeazell, Stephen C. From Medieval Group Litigation to The Modern Class Action 264 (1987). DOI:

Albrecht v. Herald Co., 390 U. S. 145 (1968).

Am. Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013).

Animal Sci. Prod., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 34 F. Supp. 3d 465, 499 (D. N. J. 2014).

Atl. City Elec. Co. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 226 F. Supp. 59, 60-61 (S. D. N. Y. 1964).

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U. S. 544 (2007).

Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co., 220 U. S. 373 (1911).

FTC V. Ind. Fed’n of Dentists, 476 U. S. 477 (1986).

Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U. S. 251, 262 (1972).

In re Auto. Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litig., 177 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (E. D. Pa. 2001).

In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard I), n. 1261, 2000 WL 1475559, en *1-3 (E. D. Pa. Oct. 4, 2000).

In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard ii), 203 f. r. d. 197, 201-04 (E. D. Pa. 2001).

In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig. (Linerboard iii), 305 F.3d 145, 147-49 (3d Cir. 2002).

In re Linerboard Antitrust Litig., 321 F. Supp. 2d 619 (E. D. Pa. 2004).

In re Matter of Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1304 (7th Cir. 1995).

In re Polypropylene Carpet Antitrust Litig., 93 F. Supp. 2d 1348 (N. D. Ga. 2000).

In re Relafen Antitrust Litig., 346 F. Supp. 2d 349 (D. Mass. 2004).

In re Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 51 F.3d 1293, 1299 (7th Cir. 1995).

Jeff Lyon, A Matter of Life or Death, Chi. Trib. Sunday Mag., April 23, 1989.

Jeff Wright, Note, Bad Blood: Wadleigh v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., Mandamus Uncabined, 23 W. St. U. L. Rev. 549, 550-52 (1996).

Leegin Creative Leather Prods, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 2705 (2007).

Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U. S. 877 (2007).

Newton v. Merrill Lynch, 259 F.3d 154 (3rd Cir. 2001).

Newton v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 259 F.3d 154, 165 (3d Cir. 2001).

Omnicare, Inc. v. Unitedhealth Grp., Inc., 524 F. Supp. 2d 1031, 1037 (N. D. Ill. 2007).

State Oil Co. v. Khan, 552 U. S. 3 (1997).

Texaco Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U. S. 1 (2006).

Transam. Refining Corp. v. Dravo Corp., n. 4:88CV00789 (S. D. Tex. filed Mar.10, 1988).

Wadleigh v. Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Inc., 157 f. r. d. 410, 413 (N. D. Ill. 1994).

Wholesale Stationers, Inc. v. Pac. Stationery & Printing Co., 472 U. S. 284 (1985).

Act of July 2, 1890, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209 (1890). DOI:

Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. n. 109-2, § 3, 119 Stat. 4, 5-9.

Judiciary Comm. Report on Class Action Fairness Act, S. Rep. n. 109-14, at 27, reimpreso en 2005 u. s. c. c. a. n. en 27.

Citado por