15 U.S.C. § 24
Liability of directors and agents of corporation
Whenever a corporation shall violate any of the penal provisions of the antitrust laws, such violation shall be deemed to be also that of the individual directors, officers, or agents of such corporation who shall have authorized, ordered, or done any of the acts constituting in whole or in part such violation, and such violation shall be deemed a misdemeanor, and upon conviction therefor of any such director, officer, or agent he shall be punished by a fine of not exceeding $5,000 or by imprisonment for not exceeding one year, or by both, in the discretion of the court.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases, 1929–2020 · leading case: City Select Auto Sales Inc v. David Randall Assocs. Inc, 885 F.3d 154 (3rd Cir. 2018).
City Select Auto Sales Inc v. David Randall Assocs. Inc, 885 F.3d 154 (3rd Cir. 2018). “” 15 U.S.C. § 24 . Because Congress has demonstrated in many statutes that it “kn[ows] how to impose” personal-participation liability “when it cho[oses] to do so,” the argument that Congressional silence indicates an intent to do so here is a weak one at best.”
Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003). “antitrust laws, such violation shall be deemed to be also that of the individual directors, officers, or agents of such corporation who shall have authorized, ordered, or done any of the acts constituting in whole or in part such violation”); see also 46 U.”
Delong Equip. Co. v. Washington Mills Abrasive Co., 840 F.2d 843 (11th Cir. 1988). “Under § 14 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 24 , it is clear that if BCS is guilty of antitrust violations, liability can extend to Robert for any illegal actions he authorized, ordered, or in which he participated.”
United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U.S. 277 (1943). “" 15 U.S.C. § 24 . "The courts of bankruptcy .”
E. Star, Inc. v. Union Bldg. Materials Corp., 712 P.2d 1148 (Haw. App. 1985). “As instructed by HRS § 480-3, we will construe HRS § 480-17 in accordance with the federal judicial interpretation of its counterpart, section 14 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 24 (1982), which provides: Liability of directors and agents of corporation.”
Hartford-Empire Co. v. United States, 323 U.S. 386 (1945). “736 ; 15 U.S.C. § 24 . "That whenever a corporation shall violate any of the penal provisions of the antitrust laws, such violation shall be deemed to be also that of the individual directors, officers, or agents of such corporation who shall have authorized, ordered, or done…”
United States v. Wise, 370 U.S. 405 (1962). “The appellee moved for a dismissal on the ground that the indictment, as particularized by the bill, failed to charge a crime. According to appellee, the Sherman Act does not apply to corporate officers acting in a representative capacity; he contends that the statute…”
United States v. Sexton Cove Estates, Inc., 526 F.2d 1293 (5th Cir. 1976). “§ 78u(c) *1301 (any person who fails or refuses to answer any lawful inquiry or to produce documents, if in his power to do so, in obedience to a subpoena of the Securities and Exchange Commission is guilty of a misdemeanor).”
Gladys G. Holloway v. Bristol-Myers Corp., 485 F.2d 986 (D.C. Cir. 1973). “In this area, Congress provided a maximum of enforcement authority: criminal penalties, see 15 U.S.C. § 24 ; actions brought by the Justice Department to enjoin violations, see 15 U.”
United States v. Atl. Comm'n Co., 45 F. Supp. 187 (E.D.N.C. 1942). “inally, motions to quash have been filed, urging that the indictment is duplicitous: First, on the ground that the means and methods used to effectuate the conspiracy are charged as separate indictable offenses; and, second, that the averment contained in paragraph 10 in Count…”
Walker Distrib. Co. v. Lucky Lager Brewing Co., 323 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1963). “15 U.S.C. § 24 , and see footnote 3, infra.”
Shotkin v. Gen. Elec. Co., 171 F.2d 236 (10th Cir. 1948). “§§ 1-4 , 7, 15 note, sections 14 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. §§ 24 , 26, and the Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.