Antitrust

Our approach

Businesses are confronted daily with existing and new competition. And just as competition grows, so do new and developing laws governing competition and competitive practices.

Our goal is to keep our clients out ahead of future business issues and potential disputes. 

You need intuitive, clear counseling to compete effectively and lawfully. We deliver informed advice on competition issues based on decades of experience. As business partners, we focus on how best to achieve our clients’ goals with an eye toward streamlining the counseling process and, when necessary, limiting potential litigation risk.

We counsel domestic and foreign companies and individuals on virtually every kind of antitrust issue arising under state, federal and international antitrust laws, unfair competition statutes and common law tortious interference claims.

We represent clients in all phases of litigation in federal and state courts, in criminal antitrust investigations by federal and state agencies and in grand jury and other criminal proceedings. We also have extensive experience in mergers and acquisitions, including HSR filings and investigations by the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice.

We have broad experience in conducting internal antitrust investigations and regularly provide antitrust audits and compliance programs.

We work with

• Domestic and foreign companies and individuals involved in broadcasting, manufacturing, education, health care, publishing and retailing industries.

Recent experience

Civil litigation

• In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, United States District Court, Northern District of California, MDL No. 3:07-MD-1827 SI, Eastman Kodak Company v. Epson Imaging Devices Corp., et al., Case No. 3:10-cv-5452 SI (2010). Represented Kodak as plaintiff in price-fixing claim against manufacturers of LCD Panels, alleging damages as an indirect purchaser of digital cameras containing LCD Panels. Settled on eve of trial.
• 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