|
Kathryn M. FentonMember
Jones Day
51 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.
Washington, District of Columbia
20001-2113
Telephone: 202-879-3939
Telecopier: 202-626-1700
http://www.jonesday.com
|
Profile Visibility  | | #1,649 in weekly profile views out of 24,595 lawyers in Washington, District of Columbia | | #87,127 in weekly profile views out of 968,939 total lawyers Overall |
|
|
| |
| Practice Areas | Antitrust and Trade Regulation; Competition | | | Education | Georgetown University, J.D., 1978, Fairfield University, B.A., 1975 | | | Admitted | 1978, District of Columbia | |
| Born | Bridgeport, Connecticut | | | Biography | Law Clerk to Judge Gasch, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 1978-1979. Attorney, General Litigation and Planning Office, Bureau of Competition, 1979-1984 and Attorney Adviser to James C. Miller, III, Chairman, Federal Trade Commission, 1983-1984. | | | ISLN | 907469177 | |
Documents by this lawyer on Martindale.com
DOJ AAG Varney Provides Guidance on Vertical Price Fixing/Resale Price Maintenance (RPM)Kathryn M. Fenton, J. Bruce McDonald, David P. Wales, October 16, 2009 Yesterday, Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney used a speech to the National Association of Attorneys General to reaffirm the DOJ's commitment to a closer cooperation with the state enforcers. She also devoted a major portion of her remarks to offering a framework for...
DOJ/FTC to Review U.S. Horizontal Merger GuidelinesKathryn M. Fenton, J. Bruce McDonald, September 25, 2009 Today the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission announced that they would seek public comment and hold joint public workshops to explore possible updates to the Horizontal Merger Guidelines, which outline the antitrust agencies' merger enforcement policies. The Guidelines,...
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Price Squeeze Claim in Pacific Bell v. linkLineKathryn M. Fenton, Thomas Demitrack, Hugh M. Hollman, March 12, 2009 In an unanimous opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled in Pacific Bell v. linkLine that a price squeeze claim may not be brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act when there is no antitrust duty to deal at the wholesale level. |
View Client/Peer Review Ratings |
|
|
RSS | Blog | Advertising Opportunities | Site Map | Contact Us
