Quote:
Originally Posted by BobC
I found the back and forth between the several attorneys regarding potential anti-trust issues and relevancy to be interesting in regards to supposed activities and actions by and between TPG companies A and B. While I'm a CPA/accountant and not an attorney, I like to think I have a rudimentary grasp of some aspects of the law as I have to deal with federal, state and local tax laws on an ongoing basis. Having said that, I think I'd have to lean toward the side where I can't really see the anti-trust relevancy due to the issue of crossovers. Seems like a bit of a stretch.
|
There seems to be a misperception about my antitrust point. I never said (or if what I said could be interpreted as such, that was not my intent) that a company merely engaging in something sneaky (in this instance refusing the crossover not based on the whether the card satisfies the company's criteria but simply because it comes from a competitor) creates antitrust exposure. The scenario I was outlining is when that company has an extremely disproportionate market share. And it is that extremely disproportionate market share coupled with alleged unfair business practices that could create the antitrust exposure.
So going back to my companies A and B. Maybe it is the case as some of the posts said that B has no need to worry about A. But if in the end B becomes the only TPG left in the industry, it is that domination of the market that could create antitrust exposure.