Sean Heather is Senior Vice President for International Regulatory Affairs.
Author
Legislators and economists are actively debating the government’s role in reviewing mergers. Here is what you need to know.
Antitrust is not about competitors, its about consumers.
Part 3 examines abuse of superior bargaining power.
Antitrust is not about competitors, its about consumers.
Part 2 examines product design and self-preferencing.
Antitrust is not about competitors, its about consumers.
Part 1 is an examination of refusal to deal and essential facility claims.
The run-down on vertical mergers under current antitrust law.
Our SVP of International Regulatory Affairs Sean Heather breaks down everything you need to know about antitrust and horizontal mergers.
Radical changes to antitrust laws are not the answer.
Here are three reasons why the simplicity of existing antitrust laws are also the laws' greatest strength.
Various antitrust jurisdictions across the globe are considering big changes to their antitrust laws that could stray from sound economics.
There are reasons for concern with this decision.
The greatest difference between the U.S. and EU approaches lies with the philosophy that underpins the function of competition enforcement.
Benjamin Franklin once said that “nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” But those following Brussels policy debates know of a third uniquely European certainty — the unbridled power of EU competition enforcement.
As foreseen, EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager on Wednesday announced that tax arrangements offered by Luxembourg and the Netherlands are in violation of EU State aid laws.
It underscores why American investors need investment protection and a meaningful Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism to be at the core of any transatlantic agreement.
To safeguard international investments, countries enter into bilateral investment treaties (BITs). The United States also includes these safeguards for investments in our trade agreements. They ensure international investors are not subject to discrimination, are treated fairly and are compensated in the event of expropriation.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren's Trans-Pacific Partnership column in the Washington Post is chock full of ill-informed opinion, but short on facts.
In yesterday’s post Investaphobia, we examined the irrational fear of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS). But the activists peddling fear of investment treaties have another line of attack: They claim investment treaties limit a government’s right to regulate.
How much more did U.S. companies invest in China than Chinese companies invested in the United States in 2012? Two times as much? Three times? Ten times?
As the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiations enter their final stage, its provisions addressing state-owned enterprises (SOEs) loom as one of its path-breaking contributions.
Type "investment protection," or "investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS)," into your search engine, and you’ll find misleading information abounds. There is a serious game of deception going on, and the same old isolationist critics are hoping you don’t notice the con they are trying to pull-off.
Ah…behold the marketing power of Top 10 lists. They’ve been nightly punch lines on David Letterman’s “Late Show” for several decades. In honor of Letterman’s announcement that he would retire in 2015, we thought the trade policy world could use a little levity as well as a reality check.
From shipping to staffing, the Chamber and its partners have the tools to save your business money and the solutions to help you run it more efficiently. Join the U.S. Chamber of Commerce today to start saving.
