United States v. Alex. Brown & Sons, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• discussing challenge which intervening parties in related multi-district action brought against proposed consent decree proposed by the parties in the case
• discussing challenge which intervening parties in related multi-district action brought against proposed consent decree proposed by the parties in the case
• addressing investigatory privileges, including ʺspecial officer privilegeʺ adopted in In ‐ 7 ‐ re LTV Securities Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 595 (N.D. Tex. 1981)
• “Generally speaking, parties to a consent decree cannot ‘consent’ to disregard otherwise valid law, or ‘consent’ to enlarge their own legal rights.”
• “Generally speaking, parties to a consent decree cannot ‘consent’ to disregard otherwise valid law, or ‘consent’ to enlarge their own legal rights.”
• “In enacting the Tunney Act, Congress recognized the high rate of settlement in public antitrust cases and wished to encourage[ ] settlement by consent decrees as part of the legal policies expressed in the antitrust laws.” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).