165650_bioimage

Gordon L. Lang



Gordon Lang represents clients in criminal and civil antitrust litigation, in matters before the federal antitrust and other enforcement agencies, and in white collar criminal cases and investigations. He is the team leader of the firm’s Antitrust practice, and was appointed as a non-governmental advisor for the United States for the 2014 International Competition Network Cartel Workshop.

What do you focus on?

Antitrust

I am a former Department of Justice lawyer, and I represent clients in the full range of antitrust matters: criminal antitrust investigations and cases, including those involving alleged international cartels; class actions and other civil litigation; merger and non-merger investigations before federal and state enforcement agencies; internal compliance; and counseling. My clients have included industrial and transportation concerns, such as MOL Logistics (Japan); media companies, such as Gannett Co., Inc. and Stephens Media; service providers and consumer products firms; and others.

Criminal Antitrust

Consistent with the enforcement trend, much of my criminal antitrust practice focuses on the representation of foreign-based companies in a variety of industries who have allegedly participated in international cartels. I also represented U.S. companies and individuals in national and local criminal matters. I’ve successfully taken corporations through the Department of Justice’s amnesty program.

Civil Antitrust Litigation

My civil litigation practice includes the defense of class action matters involving price-fixing and related claims, as well monopolization claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, anti-merger claims under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and Robinson-Patman price-discrimination allegations. I’ve successfully defended clients in a number of cases involving the Newspaper Preservation Act.

Civil Government Investigations and Actions

I represent U.S. and non-U.S. clients in merger and non-merger investigations before federal and state antitrust and other enforcement agencies.

Counseling and compliance

Many times the most important work is in the planning. I work with clients to evaluate the antitrust issues involved in potential business matters and courses of conduct and to find a strategy and solution to achieve their objectives. And to help clients avoid or evaluate potential problems, I provide antitrust training and conduct internal antitrust investigations.

What do you see on the horizon?

I think the future will bring a continued government focus on international cartels and on merger challenges. The courts, government enforcers and the business community will grapple with the application of antitrust principles to evolving businesses and markets.

Selected Experience

  • Mergers and acquisitions, including successful representation of clients in second request investigations
  • Defense of corporations and individuals in grand jury investigations, including amnesty applications, criminal trials
  • Defense of clients in Justice Department, Federal Trade Commission, and state investigations
  • Precision Associates et al., v. Panalpina, et al. (SDNY) (Defense of Japanese freight forwarder MOL Logistics and its U.S. subsidiary in antitrust class action)
  • Representation of Gannett Co., Inc., in Justice Department investigation of Belo acquisition (2013)
  • Greenspun et al v. Stephens Media et al. 2:13-cv-01494 (D. Nev. 2013) (Denial of motion for preliminary injunction seeking to block termination of newspaper joint operating agreement)
  • Fleischman v. Albany Medical Center, et al. 2008 U.S. Dist. Lexis (NDNY 2008) (Requiring individual determination of damages in antitrust class action)
  • State of Arizona v. Gannett Co., Inc., et al. (D. Ariz. May 2009), (Denial of motion for TRO and preliminary injunction seeking to bar closure of Tucson Citizen; state subsequently dismissed case)
  • The Diamond Center, Inc. v. Leslie’s Jewelry Mfg. Corp., 562 F. Supp. 2d 1009,(WD Wisc. 2008). (Dismissing Robinson-Patman, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel claims)
  • NewsOne Newspaper Distribution Service v. Gannett Satellite Information Network, (D. Maryland, January 2008). (Denying TRO sought against USA TODAY’s change in distribution system; plaintiff subsequently dismissed case)
  • Reilly v. MediaNews, et al. 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61696 (ND Cal. 2006) (Denying request for TRO blocking acquisition of newspapers)
  • Mahaffey v. Detroit Newspaper Agency, 969 F. Supp. 446 (D. Mich. 1997), aff’d, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 25472 (6th Cir. 1998) (Obtained summary judgment for defendant newspapers and their joint operating agency against price-fixing and output restriction claims)
  • Michigan Citizens for an Independent Press v. Thornburgh, 493 U.S.38 (1989) (Decision upheld attorney general’s approval of application for antitrust exemption for joint newspaper operating arrangement between two daily newspapers in Detroit)
  • Corning v. Transitions (Representation of plaintiff Corning in monopolization and exclusive dealing case)
  • Wright v. Gannett (Defeat of motion to preliminarily enjoin newspaper’s change in distribution system; rebuff of class action allegations)
  • United States v. Title Insurance Rating Bureau of Arizona, 517 F. Supp.1053 (D. Ariz. 1981), aff’d, 700 F.2d 1247 (9th Cir. 1983) (Prosecutor in action rejecting state action and McCarran-Ferguson defenses)
  • United States Optical v. Corning, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 259 (4th Cir. 1994) (Summary judgment for defendant Corning against breach of contract, unfair competition, and other claims)
  • In re United States Optical, 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 6960 (4th Cir. 1993) (Upholding grant of involuntary bankruptcy petition)
  • Lucas v. Planning Board of LaGrange, 7 F. Supp.2d 310 (SDNY 1998) (Defeating challenge to consent decree in Telecommunications Act case)

Articles and Presentations

  • “ALBRECHT after ARCO: Maximum Resale Price Fixing Moves toward the Rule of Reason” (co-author with R. Blair), 44 Vanderbilt L. Rev. 1007 (1991) (cited by the Supreme Court in State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U.S. 3 (1997))
  • “Grappling with Reach of Sherman Act in Suits by Non-U.S. Consumers” (co-author with J. Kole), New York Law Journal, August 11, 2003
  • “A Cold, Cold World: Nixing ‘No Cold-Call Agreements,’” Law 360, October 14, 2010 (with Jeffery Tannenbaum)
  • “Employees (and Others) Beware: DOJ Puts the Heat on No Employee Solicitation Agreements,” ABA Antitrust Section E-Bulletin, Spring 2011
  • Non-governmental advisor, 2014 International Competition Network Cartel Workshop

Contact

Gordon L. Lang

Partner

Washington, DC

Phone: 202-585-8319


Fax: 202-585-8080

Harvard Law School, J.D., cum laude

University of Michigan, B.A., with high distinction

District of Columbia

New York

Illinois

U.S. Supreme Court

Back to top