Sunshine Act Meeting, 65185 [2019-25713]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 228 / Tuesday, November 26, 2019 / Notices F.2d at 1577 (quotation marks omitted). ‘‘The court should bear in mind the flexibility of the public interest inquiry: the court’s function is not to determine whether the resulting array of rights and liabilities is one that will best serve society, but only to confirm that the resulting settlement is within the reaches of the public interest.’’ Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1460 (quotation marks omitted). More demanding requirements would ‘‘have enormous practical consequences for the government’s ability to negotiate future settlements,’’ contrary to congressional intent. Id. at 1456. ‘‘The Tunney Act was not intended to create a disincentive to the use of the consent decree.’’ Id. The United States’ predictions about the efficacy of the remedy are to be afforded deference by the Court. See, e.g., Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (recognizing courts should give ‘‘due respect to the Justice Department’s . . . view of the nature of its case’’); United States v. Iron Mountain, Inc., 217 F. Supp. 3d 146, 152–53 (D.D.C. 2016) (‘‘In evaluating objections to settlement agreements under the Tunney Act, a court must be mindful that [t]he government need not prove that the settlements will perfectly remedy the alleged antitrust harms[;] it need only provide a factual basis for concluding that the settlements are reasonably adequate remedies for the alleged harms.’’) (internal citations omitted); United States v. Republic Servs., Inc., 723 F. Supp. 2d 157, 160 (D.D.C. 2010) (noting ‘‘the deferential review to which the government’s proposed remedy is accorded’’); United States v. ArcherDaniels-Midland Co., 272 F. Supp. 2d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2003) (‘‘A district court must accord due respect to the government’s prediction as to the effect of proposed remedies, its perception of the market structure, and its view of the nature of the case’’). The ultimate question is whether ‘‘the remedies [obtained by the Final Judgment are] so inconsonant with the allegations charged as to fall outside of the ‘reaches of the public interest.’’’ Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1461 (quoting W. Elec. Co., 900 F.2d at 309). Moreover, the Court’s role under the APPA is limited to reviewing the remedy in relationship to the violations that the United States has alleged in its complaint, and does not authorize the Court to ‘‘construct [its] own hypothetical case and then evaluate the decree against that case.’’ Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459; see also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 75 (noting that the court must simply determine whether there is a factual foundation for the government’s decisions such that its VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 Nov 25, 2019 Jkt 250001 conclusions regarding the proposed settlements are reasonable); InBev, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84787, at *20 (‘‘the ‘public interest’ is not to be measured by comparing the violations alleged in the complaint against those the court believes could have, or even should have, been alleged’’). Because the ‘‘court’s authority to review the decree depends entirely on the government’s exercising its prosecutorial discretion by bringing a case in the first place,’’ it follows that ‘‘the court is only authorized to review the decree itself,’’ and not to ‘‘effectively redraft the complaint’’ to inquire into other matters that the United States did not pursue. Microsoft, 56 F.3d at 1459–60. In its 2004 amendments to the APPA, Congress made clear its intent to preserve the practical benefits of using consent judgments proposed by the United States in antitrust enforcement, Public Law 108–237 § 221, and added the unambiguous instruction that ‘‘[n]othing in this section shall be construed to require the court to conduct an evidentiary hearing or to require the court to permit anyone to intervene.’’ 15 U.S.C. 16(e)(2); see also U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 (indicating that a court is not required to hold an evidentiary hearing or to permit intervenors as part of its review under the Tunney Act). This language explicitly wrote into the statute what Congress intended when it first enacted the Tunney Act in 1974. As Senator Tunney explained: ‘‘[t]he court is nowhere compelled to go to trial or to engage in extended proceedings which might have the effect of vitiating the benefits of prompt and less costly settlement through the consent decree process.’’ 119 Cong. Rec.24,598 (1973) (statement of Sen. Tunney). ‘‘A court can make its public interest determination based on the competitive impact statement and response to public comments alone.’’ U.S. Airways, 38 F. Supp. 3d at 76 (citing Enova Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d at 17). VIII. Determinative Documents There are no determinative materials or documents within the meaning of the APPA that were considered by the United States in formulating the proposed Final Judgment. Dated: November 18, 2019 Respectfully submitted, lllllllllllllllllll Jeremy Evans, (DC Bar #478097) , Barbara W. Cash, William M. Martin, United States Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture Section, Liberty PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 65185 Square Building, 450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 8000, Washington, DC 20530, Telephone: (202) 598–8193. [FR Doc. 2019–25600 Filed 11–25–19; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410–11–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Foreign Claims Settlement Commission [F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No. 08–19] Sunshine Act Meeting The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of open meetings as follows: TIME AND DATE: Thursday, December 5, 2019, at 10:00 a.m. PLACE: All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 441 G St NW, Room 6234, Washington, DC. STATUS: Open. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 10:00 a.m.— Issuance of Proposed Decisions under the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, Title XVII, Public Law 114–328. CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Requests for information, or advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 441 G St NW, Room 6234, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616–6975. Brian Simkin, Chief Counsel. [FR Doc. 2019–25713 Filed 11–22–19; 11:15 am] BILLING CODE 4410–BA–P DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE [OMB Number 1190–0019] Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection; eComments Requested; Extension Without Change of a Currently Approved Collection. Requirement That Movie Theaters Provide Notice as to the Availability of Closed Movie Captioning and Audio Description Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice. ACTION: 30-Day notice. AGENCY: The Department of Justice (the Department), Civil Rights Division, Disability Rights Section (DRS), will SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\26NON1.SGM 26NON1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 65185]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-25713]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Foreign Claims Settlement Commission

[F.C.S.C. Meeting and Hearing Notice No. 08-19]


Sunshine Act Meeting

    The Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, pursuant to its 
regulations (45 CFR part 503.25) and the Government in the Sunshine Act 
(5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby gives notice in regard to the scheduling of 
open meetings as follows:

TIME AND DATE: Thursday, December 5, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.

PLACE: All meetings are held at the Foreign Claims Settlement 
Commission, 441 G St NW, Room 6234, Washington, DC.

STATUS: Open.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 10:00 a.m.--Issuance of Proposed Decisions 
under the Guam World War II Loyalty Recognition Act, Title XVII, Public 
Law 114-328.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Requests for information, or 
advance notices of intention to observe an open meeting, may be 
directed to: Patricia M. Hall, Foreign Claims Settlement Commission, 
441 G St NW, Room 6234, Washington, DC 20579. Telephone: (202) 616-
6975.

Brian Simkin,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2019-25713 Filed 11-22-19; 11:15 am]
 BILLING CODE 4410-BA-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.