2 ms·
> It is very unusual in the US justice system to have a state agency do an independent investigation of a business deal to protect the interests of particular i
by jspthrowaway2 14y ago
> It is very unusual in the US justice system to have a state agency do an independent investigation of a business deal to protect the interests of particular investors.
Quite the contrary. In the United States, states watch dealings like a hawk and legal opinion is that states hold the line on antitrust and other anticompetitive corporate governance issues. Federal invention is seen as supplementary here. California v. ARC America Corp. (1989), at 490 U. S. 102[1]:
> Congress intended the federal antitrust laws to supplement, not displace, state antitrust remedies.
(IANAL, etc.) I'm curious. Why do you consider this article a hit piece?
[1]: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/93/case.html http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/490/93/case.html
- hristov 14y agoIf this was an antitrust investigation it might make sense. But nothing here indicates this is an antitrust investigation. First, the Attorney General of California is supposed to handle antitrust, not the Dept of Corporations. Second, to the best of my understanding, California antitrust law does not provide for the government to block mergers and acquisitions. Third, whether or what other offers Instagram received is not really relevant for an antitrust investigation. This seems to be an investigation as to whether Instagram screwed their investors by taking a low ball offer. And I am curious why the state is investigating this to begin with.
- jspthrowaway2 14y agoBecause "antitrust" means more than being anticompetitive with other companies.