Abstract
This Note examines the Bank Holding Company Act (BHCA) and the Thrift Institutions Restructuring Act (TIRA), their legislative histories, and the subsequent interpretations of both by the federal courts of appeal, in an effort to establish whether proof of an anticompetitive effect is a necessary element of an anti-tying claim. This examination is prompted by a recent case involving the anti-tying provisions of the BHCA, Davis v. First National Bank of Westville, which focused on the anticompetitive effect requirement. Although the Davis court forcefully argued that the plaintiff must prove an anticompetitive effect to prevail under either the BHCA or TIRA, there is little support for such a requirement in the language of the Acts, the policy underlying the Acts, their legislative histories, or other courts' decisions.
How to Cite
33 Ariz. L. Rev. 199 (1991)
2
Views
3
Downloads