U.S. Code » Title 15 » Chapter CHAPTER 47— CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

15 U.S.C. § 6

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 15 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) Any information provided to the Interagency Committee or to the Study Group under section 4 which is designated as trade secret or confidential information shall be treated as trade secret or confidential information subject to section 552(b)(4) of title 5, United States Code, and section 1905 of title 18, United States Code, and shall not be revealed, except as provided under subsection (b). No member of the Study Group or Interagency Committee, and no person assigned to or consulting with the Study Group, shall disclose any such information to any person who is not a member of, assigned to, or consulting with, the Study Group or Interagency Committee unless the person submitting such information specifically and in writing authorizes such disclosure.“(b) Subsection (a) does not authorize the withholding of any information from any duly authorized subcommittee or committee of the Congress, except that if a subcommittee or committee of the Congress requests the Interagency Committee to provide such information, the Chairman of the Interagency Committee shall notify the person who provided the information of such a request in writing.“(c) The Interagency Committee shall, on the vote of a majority of its members, adopt reasonable procedures to protect the confidentiality of trade secret and confidential information, as defined in this section.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases, 1931–2018 · leading case: McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd., 417 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
McBee v. Delica Co., Ltd., 417 F.3d 107 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 2× “15 U.S.C. § 6 (a)(1). The statute exempts “import trade or import commerce” from its extraterritoriality effects test; such import trade or import commerce would seem to be reachable so long as the domestic commerce tests are met.”
Dennis v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 343 F. Supp. 3d 122 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “(quoting 15 U.S.C. § 6 (a) ). DI 134 at 24-25. Lotes Co.”
United States v. Elmore Roy Anderson, 326 F.3d 1319 (11th Cir. 2003). “antitrust law does not apply to non-import foreign commerce unless (1) the conduct *1330 has a direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect on domestic commerce, and (2) the effect gives rise to a claim under the Sherman Act.”
De Beers Consol. Mines, Ltd. v. United States, 325 U.S. 212 (1945). “9 15 U. S. C. § 6 . 10 15 U. S. C. § 11 . 11 Deckert v.”
Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. The Alaska R.R., 659 F.2d 243 (D.C. Cir. 1981). “§ 4 , and seizure of property under § 6, 15 U.S.C. § 6 . *246 Appellants stress the broad policy of the Sherman Act and ask us to develop from that policy coverage of the United States and its instrumentalities as defendants.”
Health Care Equalization Comm. v. Iowa Med. Soc'y, 501 F. Supp. 970 (S.D. Iowa 1980). “at 48 , explains: Section 5 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6 and § 15 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.”
Animal Sci. Prods., Inc. v. China Minmetals Corp., 34 F. Supp. 3d 465 (D.N.J. 2014). “Dismissal based on Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (“FTAd A”) The Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, 15 U.S.C. § 6 (a), addresses “conduct involving trade or commerce with foreign nations” by limiting the applicability of the Sherman Act (sections 1-7) only to…”
In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litig., 267 F.R.D. 291 (N.D. Cal. 2010). “FTAIA Defendants also contend that some purchasers of finished TFT-LCD products would face a jurisdictional defense under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act (“FTAIA”), 15 U.S.C. § 6 (a), that some purchasers of TFT-LCD panels would not face, thus presenting typicality…”
United States Nav. Co. v. Cunard S. S. Co., 50 F.2d 83 (2d Cir. 1931). · cites it 2× “" In the opinion in the Keogh Case it was further observed that a combination of carriers to fix nondiscriminatory rates might still be illegal under the Anti-Trust Acts and the government might have redress by criminal proceedings under section 3 (15 USCA § 3), by injunction…”
Vest v. Waring, 565 F. Supp. 674 (N.D. Ga. 1983). “This court has discovered no federal statute authorizing extraterritorial service of process upon an individual nonresident defendant in a private antitrust action; 15 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 25 authorize such service only in antitrust suits brought by the U.”
In re Infineon Tech. AG Sec. Litig., 266 F.R.D. 386 (N.D. Cal. 2009). “See 15 U.S.C. § 6 (a). Defendants cite no authority showing that the securities laws have a similarly limited reach.”
CSr Ltd. v. Cigna Corp., 405 F. Supp. 2d 526 (D.N.J. 2005). “15 U.S.C. § 6 (a). This statute “remov[es] from the Sherman Act’s reach, (1) export activities and (2) other commercial activities taking place abroad, unless those activities adversely affect domestic commerce, imports to the United States, or exporting activities of one…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
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.