|This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.|
| UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT |
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT
Plaintiff files this memorandum in support of its motion for entry of the Final Judgment, filed by the parties on July 8, 1999. The Court should enter this Judgment because it serves the public interest.
The parties have complied with all provisions of the Antitrust Procedures and Penalties Act (the "Tunney Act"), 15 U.S.C. § 16(b)-(h) as follows:
(1) The Complaint and proposed Final Judgment were filed on July 8, 1999;
(2) Defendants filed statements pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 16(g) on July 19, 1999.
(3) The Competitive Impact Statement ("CIS"), which recites the nature and purpose of this proceeding, describes the practices and events giving rise to the violations of the antitrust laws alleged in the Complaint, and explains the proposed Final Judgment, was filed on July 23, 1999;
(4) The proposed Final Judgment and CIS were published in the Federal Register on August 12, 1999, 64 Fed. Reg. 44,046;
(5) A summary of the terms of the proposed Final Judgment and CIS was published in the Washington Post, a newspaper of general circulation in the District of Columbia, for seven days during the period August 10, 1999 through August 16, 1999;
(6) The sixty-day comment period specified in 15 U.S.C. § 16(b) commenced on August 12, 1999 and terminated on October 12, 1999;
(7) Comments of members of the public and the United States Response to Public Comments were filed on February 11, 2000; and
(8) Comments of members of the public and the United States Response to Public Comments were published in the Federal Register on March 24, 2000, 65 Fed. Reg. 15,981.
The Court may enter the Final Judgment after it determines that such Judgment serves the public interest. 15 U.S.C. § 16(e). Plaintiff's CIS and Response to Comments demonstrate that the Final Judgment satisfies the Tunney Act's public interest standard (which is discussed at pages 7-8 of Plaintiff's Response to Comments).
Dated this 28th day of March, 2000.