ANTITRUST

Businesses in the United States and around the world are confronted daily with new and developing laws governing competition and competitive practices. Those businesses need current, clear counseling in order to compete effectively and lawfully.

Nixon Peabody represents clients in a broad range of antitrust litigation and counseling matters. We have represented clients in all aspects of civil and criminal antitrust litigation, including Sherman Act Section 1 and Section 2 cases, dealer termination suits, private class actions, and civil investigative demands by the Department of Justice and state attorneys general. We also have extensive experience in mergers and acquisitions (and Hart-Scott-Rodino filings), including merger investigations and other Federal Trade Commission matters, as well as grand jury and other criminal proceedings.

We regularly counsel domestic and foreign companies and individuals on virtually every kind of antitrust issue arising under state, federal, and international antitrust laws, as well as on other trade-related issues, such as unfair competition statutes and common law tortious interference claims. We also conduct internal antitrust investigations and provide antitrust compliance programs and antitrust audits for many of our clients.

Representative Experience

Civil litigation

• Precision Associates et al. v. Panalpina World Transport et al., United States District Court, Eastern District of New York, Case No. 08-cv-00042, 2010. Representing defendants MOL Logistics (Japan) and MOL Logistics (USA) in this purported class action. Plaintiffs alleged that our clients were part of alleged Japan-based and worldwide conspiracies to fix the price of freight forwarding services to, from, or into the U.S.
• State of Arizona v. Gannett Co., Inc., et al., United States District Court, Arizona, 2009. Represented Gannett in a suit brought by the state of Arizona seeking a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and a permanent injunction against the company’s closure of the Tucson Citizen newspaper. The state alleged that the closure would violate Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Arizona’s antitrust statute. The court denied the motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, and the state dismissed its action.
• Washington Alder LLC v. Weyerhaeuser Company, United States District Court, Oregon, Case No. CV 03-753-PA, 2007. Represented defendant in case alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization. Competitor sawmill alleged that leading producer of alder lumber monopolized the market for alder saw logs by overpaying for logs to harm competitors and engaging in other exclusionary conduct. Favorable jury verdict followed by settlement.
• SPI Supplies v. Eastman Kodak Company, United States District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2007. Represented Eastman Kodak Company in antitrust challenge to exclusive dealing arrangements and termination of distributor, as well as breach of contract claims. Case settled shortly before oral argument on second motion to dismiss for an extremely low payment, and plaintiff agreed to stop certain trademark use that was not at issue in the case.
• State of New York et al. v. Reebok International Ltd., 96 F3d 44, 2d Cir., 1996. Represented Reebok in investigation of its resale pricing practices by the Federal Trade Commission and National Association of Attorneys General (NAAG), resulting in new law, helpful to Reebok, on the breadth of NAAG’s powers.

Criminal antitrust matters

• Representation of European-based multi-national industrial corporation in U.S. grand jury investigations of alleged international cartels and coordination with defense in multiple non-U.S. jurisdictions.
• Representation of a Japan-based corporation in a U.S. grand jury investigation of alleged price-fixing.
• Representation of a chemical manufacturer in a federal grand jury investigation and state investigation of alleged price-fixing and job allocation.
• Representation of a corporation and individuals in a grand jury investigation of alleged price-fixing on steel barrels.