Nothing contained in the Sherman Act [15 U.S.C. 1 et seq.] shall be construed as declaring to be illegal an association entered into for the sole purpose of engaging in export trade and actually engaged solely in such export trade, or an agreement made or act done in the course of export trade by such association, provided such association, agreement, or act is not in restraint of trade within the United States, and is not in restraint of the export trade of any domestic competitor of such association: Provided, That such association does not, either in the United States or elsewhere, enter into any agreement, understanding, or conspiracy, or do any act which artificially or intentionally enhances or depresses prices within the United States of commodities of the class exported by such association, or which substantially lessens competition within the United States or otherwise restrains trade therein.
Notes of Decisions
Pfizer Inc. v. Gov't of India, 434 U.S. 308 (1978).
· cites it 2× “15 U. S. C. § 62 . Although the Act was subsequently regarded as carving out an exemption from the antitrust laws, the legislative history indicates considerable question at the time whether the conduct of exporters meeting the conditions specified in the Act would have violated…”
Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264 (2007).
· cites it 2× “, Webb-Pomerene Act, 15 U.S.C. § 62 (expressly providing antitrust immunity) with § 601(b)(1) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.”
In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litig., 261 F. Supp. 3d 430 (S.D.N.Y. 2017).
“The Court gave an example both of a statute that expressly provided for antitrust immunity (the Webb-Pomerene Act, 15 U.S.C. § 62 ) and of one that expressly stated that the antitrust laws remain applicable (the Telecommunications Act of 1996, 47 U.”
United States v. Am. Tel. & Tel. Co., 461 F. Supp. 1314 (D.D.C. 1978).
“§ 1384 ); export trade associations (Webb-Pomerene Act, 15 U.S.C. § 62 ); surface transportation (Reed-Bulwinkle Act of 1948, 49 U.”
Chemi SpA v. GlaxoSmithKline, 356 F. Supp. 2d 495 (E.D. Pa. 2005).
“It also claimed that the association’s relationship with another terminal operator restrained trade and reduced competition in the business of terminal services.”
Int'l Raw Materials, Ltd. v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 716 F. Supp. 188 (E.D. Pa. 1989).
· cites it 3× “15 U.S.C. § 62 . The Court credits ANSAC’s claim that their efforts to reduce terminalling costs fall squarely within the plain language of § 62’s protection for “an agreement made or act done in the course of export trade by such association.”
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.