Monthly Antitrust Update:
February 2010
ABA Corporate Counseling Committee March 5, 2010
Presenters:
Philip Torbøl
Craig Seebald
Jon Dubrow
Joel Grosberg
Carrie Amezcua
1
Topics
•
•
•
•
•
International Developments
Private Litigation Developments
FTC/DOJ Non-Merger Enforcement Developments
FTC/DOJ Merger Enforcement Developments
Legislative Updates
2
International Developments
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Procedural Issues in EU Antitrust Law
Cartel Cases –EU
Cartel Cases – Other Jurisdictions
Single Firm Conduct – EU
Single Firm Conduct – Other Jurisdictions
Mergers & Acquisitions – EU
Mergers & Acquisitions – Other Jurisdictions
3
Procedural Issues in EU Antitrust Law
•
•
Hearing at the European Court of Justice in the Akzo Nobel Case
 On 9 February, the European Court of Justice held the hearing in the Akzo Nobel
case (C-550/07P), the landmark appeal case concerning the question whether
legal privilege applies to communications from in-house lawyers providing legal
advice within their company and to internal requests for such advice
 The case stems from a cartel investigation where Akzo Nobel opposed that the
European Commission seized two e-mails containing communications from one of
its in-house lawyers who was a member of the Netherlands Bar
 In first instance, the General Court rejected privilege for in-house lawyer
communications, even where the in-house-lawyer is a member of a Member State
bar association or is subject to professional ethics
 Advocate General Kokott will deliver her opinion to the Court of Justice on 29 April.
Antitrust Proceedings before the Commission
 A public consultation on the Commission’s Best practices for antitrust proceedings
was closed on 3 March. This issue seems to be a high priority for the new
Commissioner for Competition Joaquín Almunia
4
Cartel Cases - EU
•
•
Air Freight Forwarding Cartel
 The EU Commission sent formal charges - Statement of Objections - to a
number of companies concerning their alleged price collusion on the provision of
air freight forwarding services
 The companies reported to be involved include Panalpina, Kuehne & Nagel, and
Deutsche Post
 Four separate infringements involving the provision of these services from the
UK to outside the EEA, from the EEA to the US, from China to the EEA, and from
Southern China/Hong Kong to the EEA
EU Commission ‘Dawn Raids’ Electrical Equipment Producers
 The EU Commission confirmed it has inspected the offices of producers of
Flexible Alternating Current Transmission Systems on suspicion of breaching EU
rules against cartels
 ABB and Siemens confirmed that their offices have been investigated by the
Commission
5
Cartel Cases – Other Jurisdictions
•
•
Bread Cartel in South Africa
 South Africa’s Competition Tribunal for the first time has imposed the maximum
fine that it is entitled to levy on Pioneer Foods for its role in a bread cartel;
 A fine of 196 million rand (US $ 26 million) represents 10% of the 2006 turnover
for Pioneer’s Sasko bread-baking divisions
 It is also the first time that one of the Competition Commission’s cartel
investigations reached the Tribunal for adjudication – and the first occasion
where the respondent decided to fight a matter before the Tribunal
 Later this month, the Commission had concluded an investigation into another
cartel in which Pioneer Foods is involved, but the company announced that this
time it is committed to reaching a settlement
First Judicial Settlement over Cartel Fines in Brazil
 CADE, Brazil’s Council for Economic Defence, for the first time executed a
judicial settlement with fine reduction concerning the crushed rock cartel case
 The companies that settled with the CADE include Embu Engenharia e
Comércio, Lúdice Mineração, and Pedreira Sargon
 Previous settlements in cartel cases occurred while proceedings were at
administrative stage
6
Single Firm Conduct - EU
•
European Companies Complain against Google
 The EU Commission confirmed that it has received three complaints against
Google’s alleged abusive behaviour in the internet search market
 The Commission will now carry out a preliminary investigation of the alleged
conduct to assess whether or not to take any formal action against Google
 Google stated that the complaints were lodged by Foundem, a UK price
comparison site, EJustice.fr, a French site specializing in legal search inquiries,
and Ciao!, a subsidiary of Microsoft
 Foundem and EJustice.fr allege that Google’s search algorithm demoted their
sites in Web search results favouring its own products over those of rivals; Ciao!
complains about Google’s standard terms and conditions
 Earlier this month, Navx, a content provider for mapping services, also logged a
complaint against Google with the French Competition Authority; Navx alleges
that Google abused its dominant position by terminating its Adwords contract and
refusing to display Navx’s advertisements
7
Single Firm Conduct – Other Jurisdictions
•
•
Unfair Pricing by Japan’s Mobile Communications Operator
 Japan’s Communication Ministry together with the Fair Trade Commission is
investigating NTT DoCoMo Inc. for unfair pricing of cellular phone infrastructure
to Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) and misuse of information
acquired during negotiations for leasing.
South African Airways (SAA) Found to Have Abused its Dominance
 South Africa’s Competition Tribunal ruled that SAA’s incentive scheme with travel
agents was an abuse of its dominant position;
 Between 2001 and 2005 the airline made loyalty rebate payments (lump sums)
to travel agents which were awarded at the end of the financial year if they
attained defined targets for tickets sales;
 The Tribunal's decision opened the way for SAA’s rivals – Nationwide and
Comair – to pursue civil damages claims.
8
Mergers & Acquisitions - EU
•
•
Microsoft Acquires the Yahoo Internet Search Business
 The EU Commission (as the US DoJ) has cleared the proposed acquisition of the
internet search and search advertising businesses of Yahoo! Inc. by Microsoft
 According to the Commission, “not only market participants do not expect the
transaction to have any negative effects on competition or on their business but
they also expect it to increase competition in internet search and search
advertising by allowing Microsoft to become a stronger competitor to Google”
 In the EEA, Microsoft’s and Yahoo’s combined market shares in internet search
and online search advertising are below 10%, whereas Google enjoys market
shares of above 90%
Abbott Acquires Solvay Pharma
 The EU Commission cleared the proposed acquisition of Solvay Pharma
(Belgium) by Abbott Laboratories (USA), subject to conditions
 The Commission’s decision is conditional upon the divestment of the Cystic
Fibrosis testing business of Solvay Pharma’s subsidiary Innogenetics in the EEA
 The Commission had concerns that the parties’ high combined market shares in
the field of Cystic Fibrosis testing could have harmed competition in that market
9
Mergers & Acquisitions – Other Jurisdictions
•
•
Denmark Revokes Merger Approval for the First Time
 Denmark’s Competition Authority revoked a clearance for agricultural feed
manufacturer Danish Agro’s takeover of rival Landbrugets Andel on the ground of
insufficient information provided to the authority
 After the deal was approved, the authority was notified of another transaction – a
joint takeover of Aarhusegnens Andel by Danish Agro and rival agricultural
cooperative DLG
 The Danish Agro/Landbrugets merger will now be subject to a new assessment;
 Carefully review the information provided to the competition authority!
Pre-merger Consultations in India
 India’s Competition Authority plans to introduce a scheme for pre-merger
consultations that would allow companies to approach the authority prior to filing
a merger to get its views on the compliance of the proposed transaction with the
Competition Act
 Pre-merger consultations will reduce the time needed for the clearance to 40
days, as opposed to 210 days under the current regime
10
Private Litigation Developments
•
•
•
•
•
•
In re Micron Technology Inc. Securities Litigation
In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation
Dolan v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co.
Fleischman v. Albany Medical Center
Fullerton Medical Group v. Sideman & Bancroft
Other
–
–
–
Mercatus Group
AT&T
U.S. Information Systems Inc.
11
In re Micron Technology Inc. Securities Litigation
(D.D.C.)
•
•
•
•
•
Court rules that securities class may not compel DOJ to produce information relating to
Micron’s amnesty application
In October 2002, Micron entered into the DOJ’s amnesty program
Securities class alleged that Micron should have disclosed its illegal cartel conduct
Plaintiffs sought records of interviews of Micron employees in the DOJ investigation
DOJ defended based on the federal law enforcement privilege
Judge Kessler agreed with DOJ that producing the documents would be an undue
burden
– The law enforcement privilege applies to the subpoenaed material and defeats any
interest in finding reasonable conditions and restrictions for its production
– Designed to prevent disclosure of information that would be contrary to the public
interest in the effective functioning of law enforcement
– It was “readily apparent that a refusal to recognize the law enforcement privilege
for information obtained through the DOJ Antitrust Division’s leniency program
would chill future informants from coming forward”
12
In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation
(N.D. Cal.)
•
•
•
•
•
SM recommended that plaintiffs stated a price fixing claim
Defendants argued that the plaintiffs alleged only a CRT, not a CRT products, cartel
– SM: “CRTs only” distinction “is contrary to the repetitive allegations” of the
defendants' conduct regarding CRT Products and to their distribution, purchase,
and sale in the United States.”
– SM found that the plaintiffs presented “extensive allegations” of meetings,
communications, and agreements to fix prices and production levels”
Defendants also argued regarding the insufficiency of allegations against each
particular defendant
– “‘Each defendant's pleading' is not a rule requiring detailed recitation, but is to be
evaluated under the principle of the adequacy of fair notice to the defendants.”
– Found that the moving defendants have “more than adequate notice of what that
defendant is charged with”
SM rejected argument that the court lacked jurisdiction under FTAIA
– The defendants again attempted to cast the alleged conspiracy as encompassing
only CRTs, which were manufactured and sold only among foreign companies
– There was jurisdiction because the CRT Products were imported to the U.S.
13
Judge is awaiting objections before ruling
Dolan v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (2nd Cir.)
•
•
•
•
•
Plaintiffs alleged the defendants conspired to fix the price of NY title insurance
District court determined that the filed rate doctrine barred the complaint
Second Circuit stated that any ‘filed rate'—that is, one approved by the governing
regulatory agency—is per se reasonable and unassailable in judicial proceedings
brought by ratepayers
Plaintiffs argued:
– Filed rate doctrine does not apply because rates were improperly filed
– Court should “fill a regulatory vacuum” created by an alleged lack of authority over
title agents
– NY Insurance Law banned the payments of commissions
– Questioned whether the filed rate doctrine should ever be applied to NY’s title
insurance system
– District court erred in dismissing claim for injunctive relief
2nd Cir. disagreed with the plaintiff’s arguments and affirmed the dismissal
14
Fleischman v. Albany Medical Center (N.D.N.Y.)
•
•
•
•
Nurses alleged that conspiring hospitals agreed to exchange, and regularly exchanged,
detailed and nonpublic information about nurse wage rates
In a July 2008 decision, the court certified a class of registered nurses with respect to
two issues: “whether there has been a violation of antitrust law and whether there has
been injury to the class that the Sherman Act was designed to prevent.” Fleischman v.
Albany Medical Center, 2008 WL 2945993, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. July 28, 2008). However, the
court concluded that the predominance requirement was not satisfied as to the issues
of injury-in-fact and damages
Court most recently denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend class certification on the issues
of impact and damages as to a narrower class of registered nurses because the nurses
have not shown that information uncovered during discovery constitutes the “changed
circumstances” envisioned by Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(C) for proper amendment of class
certification
In addition, plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that common issues regarding
injury-in-fact and damages predominate over individual issues
15
Other Private Litigation
•
•
•
•
Mercatus Group LLC v. Lake Forest Hospital, N.D. Ill., No. 1:07-cv-2042
– lobbying efforts of a hospital against the development of a stand-alone surgical center are
protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine
AT&T, 5th Circuit class action
– Affirmed district court’s ruling that class plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their alleged
geographic market – a single apartment building – was sufficient to allege that AT&T and several
subsidiaries violated antitrust law by entering agreements with apartment building owners to be
their exclusive provider of telephone, video and Internet “triple play” services
U.S. Information Systems, Inc., 2nd Circuit
– Affirmed lower court's grant of summary judgment to International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers Local No. 3 dismissal of U.S. Information Systems Inc.'s suit accusing a union and
other electrical contractors of conspiring to muscle the company out of the market for
telecommunications wiring and systems installation work
Fullerton Medical Group v. Sideman & Bancroft (Cal. Ct. App.)
– Fullerton alleged legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and constructive fraud, among other
claims against Sideman & Bancroft; Court reversed grant of summary judgment on the legal
malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty because expert’s declaration raised triable issues of
material fact regarding the underlying antitrust claims
16
FTC/DOJ Non-Merger Activities – Civil and Criminal
•
•
•
•
Significant Civil Cases / Investigations
– Keyspan – DOJ Challenge To Power “Swap” Contracts
– Microsoft / Yahoo Investigation Closed
– In re Androgel Antitrust Litigation
Business Review Letters
– MyWire Global News Service
Criminal Antitrust Developments
– Marine Hose Cartel plea
– Ian Norris Extradition
– New investigation – Automotive component suppliers
DOJ Speech Reveals Criminal Enforcement Trends
17
U.S. v. KeySpan
•
U.S. v. KeySpan Corp. (S.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 22)
– Complaint and stipulated final judgment – Civil Case
– “Swap / hedging” agreement alleged to restrain trade
• KeySpan one of three major NY power suppliers
• New capacity entry left KeySpan with two options, both worse than status quo: a)
withholding some capacity to sell less at higher price, or b) selling out capacity at lower
price
• Considered purchasing rival (Astoria), but realized would create “market power” issues
• DOJ alleges KeySpan accomplished similar outcome by contracting through a thrid
party intermediary
– “Swap” with intermediary gave KeySpan a “financial interest in substantially all of
Astoria’s capacity”
– “KeySpan would pay Astoria’s owner a fixed revenue stream in return for the
revenues generated from Astoria’s capacity sales” in power auctions
• DOJ alleged swap “effectively eliminated KeySpan’s incentive to compete for sales” in
the same way as a KeySpan purchase of Astoria would have done
– $12 million disgorgement
• Highly unusual remedy – DOJ says it has not previously sought disgorgement as
Sherman Act remedy
– Noted here that private suit would “face significant obstacles imposed by the filed
rate doctrine,” which bars damages claims when prices charged are based on a
tariff / filed rate
18
Microsoft / Yahoo Investigation
•
•
•
•
DOJ closes investigation of Microsoft / Yahoo Internet search and paid
advertising collaboration (Press release, Feb. 18)
Improved product: Combining search provides larger set of queries to
accelerate automated learning of Microsoft algorithms
Strong remaining competition from Google
DOJ says deal creates a more viable competitive alternative to Google
19
In re: Androgel Antitrust Litigation
•
•
•
In re: Androgel Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ga., Feb. 22)
– Consolidated claims of FTC, direct purchasers and indirect purchasers
FTC loses another “pay-for-delay” / reverse payments case
– Solvay had patent on Androgel
– Patent litigation against Watson and Par, settled before any decisions on motions
in the infringement cases
• Solvay shares profits with Watson ($15-30 million per year) and Par ($6
million)
• Watson and Par agree not to enter themselves until 2015
Claims based on reverse payments dismissed for failure to state a claim
– Eleventh Circuit rule from Valley Drug and Schering cases precludes liability for
settlement that does not exceed the scope of the patent
• Settlement applied only to infringing products, and did not extend beyond the
patent expiration date
– Judge Thrash rejects FTC argument that “scope of a patent” includes the
likelihood that a patent holder could assert its claims in court and win
• Requiring analysis of who would win on the merits creates uncertainty that
would discourage settlements of patent cases
• Would require second guessing litigation outcomes, with treble damage
exposure
20
DOJ Business Review Letters
•
MyWire Global News Service
– DOJ has no current intention to challenge
– Interconnection service among different publishers’ online content on
the same topic
• One publisher’s site can link to other publisher stories on the same
topic
• May cut out the need for searching by allowing direct jumps to
related content
– Non-exclusive agreements (so publishers can join other networks)
– MyWire would sell subscriptions, but sets its own prices
– Publishers establish their own pricing
– Potential procompetitive impact allowing access to broad network of
related content, which may be more efficient than searching
21
Criminal Antitrust Developments
•
•
Marine Hose
– Parker ITR R.r.l. - Italian manufacturer
• Fourth supplier to be charged in conspiracy
• $2.29 million criminal fine
• Cooperation agreement
– Civil fine of >$15million to be paid by 14 companies involved
• Whistleblower to receive 15-20% of the $15 million
Municipal bonds
– Former employee of CDR Financial Products pled guilty (Feb. 23)
• Israeli citizen
– Trial scheduled for February 2011 for CDR and several executives
22
Criminal Antitrust Developments
•
New investigation –automotive electronic component suppliers
– DOJ / FBI Raids (Feb. 23)
• Denso Corp.
• Yazaki North America Inc.
• Tokai Rika Co. Ltd.
• Others
– Other regulators raided companies oversees simultaneously
23
Criminal Antitrust Developments
•
Ian Norris Extradition
– Long running saga – US has been trying to extradite former CEO of
Morgan Crucible since 2003 after indicting him on conspiracy and
obstruction of justice
• UK blocked extradition on conspiracy charge
• UK judge allowed extradition on obstruction of justice
– In February - UK High Court refused to block extradition on obstruction
of justice charges
24
DOJ Speech Reveals Criminal Enforcement
Trends (S. Hammond, Feb. 25)
•
•
•
Leniency program is a "carrot" leading to more investigations
– 1 program 1990
– 50+ programs 2010
– About half of all investigations initiated or advanced through leniency program
More severe sanctions are a "stick" to deter behavior
– Trend of corporate fines by decade
• 1970s: $48 million
• 1980s: $188 million
• 1990s: $1.6 billion
• 2000s: $4.2 billion
– Increasing percentage of individual defendants sentenced to jail . . . for longer
average jail time
• 2000: 38% sentenced, 10 months average term
• 2009: 80% sentenced, 24 months average term
Continuing increase in international cooperation
25
FTC/DOJ Merger Enforcement Developments
•
•
•
Bemis/Alcan Packaging
PepsiCo/PBS/PAS
Polypore/Microporous
26
Bemis/Alcan Packaging (February 24, 2010)
•
DOJ approves Bemis’ acquisition of Alcan Packaging Food Americas
business from Rio Tinto, with conditions
– Bemis and Alcan are two leading US manufactures of flexible-packaging
rollstock for chunk, sliced, and shredded natural cheese packaged for
retail sale and flexible-packaging shrink bags for fresh meat
– Complaint alleges unilateral effects due to dominant share in some
markets
– Complaint also alleges coordinated effects in “fresh meat” market,
reducing the number of significant competitors from 3 to 2
– Consent order requires the divestiture of Alcan’s business, including
contracts, intellectual property and manufacturing plants
27
PepsiCo/PBS/PAS (February 26, 2010)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
FTC approves PepsiCo’s acquisition of two of its bottlers, subject to
behavioral relief
Bottlers have exclusive license to distribute DPSG (“Dr. Pepper”) brands
PepsiCo and DPSG are direct competitors in “highly concentrated” branded
concentrate carbonated soft drinks market
Complaint alleges that PepsiCo would obtain access to competitively
sensitive marketing and brand information from Dr. Pepper
Complaint alleges that PepsiCo could misuse the information, making Dr.
Pepper a weaker competitor or would facilitate coordination
Consent requires that PepsiCo implement firewalls, preventing PepsiCo
employees responsible for “concentrate-related functions” from access to
DPSG information
Consent also provides for 5-year appointment for Monitor Trustee
28
Polypore/Microporous
•
•
•
•
FTC ALJ ruled that the $76 million consummated transaction was
anticompetitive
FTC complaint alleged that the merger, completed in March 2008, illegally
created a monopoly in North America for flooded battery separator markets
ALJ’s opinion has not been publically released
According to a statement from Polypore, the ALJ recommended that Polypore
divest all of the acquired Microporous assets
29
Legislative Updates
• Sen. Leahy filed written report on Feb. 2 supporting the passage of a
bill that prohibits/limits reverse payment and pay-for-delay settlements
[S. 369]
– Chairman Leibowitz issued statement supporting end of pay-for-delay
settlements
– Pres. Obama supports giving FTC enforcement to regulate pay-for-delay
practice
• McCarran-Ferguson repealer bill introduced in the House on Feb. 22,
which passed it 406 to 19 on Feb. 24 [H.R. 4626]; now on Senate
Calendar
– Pres. Obama issued Statement of Administration Policy supporting
passage of H.R. 4626
• Joint DOJ/USDA workshops on competition in the agriculture industry
begin in March
30
Presenter Bios
•
•
Philip Torbøl
Partner
Brussels
+32 2 230 50 59
ptorbol@mwe.com
•
Education:
Copenhagen
University, Master of
Law, 1999
Copenhagen
University, Bachelor
of Law, 1994
•
•
•
Philip Torbøl is a partner in the Brussels office of the international law firm of McDermott
Will & Emery/Stanbrook LLP. He joined McDermott in 2005 together with his colleagues
from Stanbrook & Hooper and is now a partner in the Firm’s EU regulatory practice and EU
Competition Group. His practice focuses on EU competition law, State aid and
government strategies. Philip began his career in the European Parliament in Brussels
and was also an Executive Committee Member of the European Commission’s Youth
Forum.
Competition: Philip’s competition experience includes advising clients in matters related
to the conduct of dominant companies, cartel investigations, merger control, and State
aid. In addition to defending clients before the European institutions, Philip’s practice
focuses on helping companies define their distribution strategies within the framework of
EU competition law – not only preventively, but also to ensure that clients make the most of
the competition law tools available.
Government Strategies: As a former EU official, Philip has substantial experience
representing clients in strategic regulatory and legislative processes before the European
institutions, including the Commission, Parliament and Council. New EU regulations and
their implementation process often present strategic opportunities to companies. Philip’s
objective is to actively take advantage of the EU’s regulatory framework to ultimately put
his clients in a favorable commercial position.
Philip is a regular contributor to the debate on EU and competition law policy. He has
written numerous articles and spoken on many occasions on competition issues to both
general and specialized business audiences. He was shortlisted for Global Competition
Review’s 40 under 40 list in 2008.
Philip is a member of the Lawyers’ Society of Denmark and the Brussels Bar (French).
31
Philip speaks Danish, English, French, Norwegian, and Swedish
Presenter Bios
•
•
Craig Seebald
Partner
•
Washington, DC
202 756 8127
cseebald@mwe.com
Education:
George Washington
University Law
School, J.D. (cum
laude), 1992
Franklin & Marshall
College, B.A., 1989
•
•
Craig P. Seebald is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based
in the Firm's Washington, D.C. office. Craig focuses his practice on all aspects of antitrust
law, including defending companies involved in government investigations, defending
mergers and joint ventures before the antitrust agencies, providing antitrust counseling and
representing clients in civil and criminal litigation.
A key area of Craig’s practice is defending companies involved in cartel and price fixing
investigations. He has successfully defended companies in grand jury investigations and
coordinated the defense of multi-jurisdiction cartel investigations. He has also represented
clients in obtaining amnesty from the Department of Justice. He has successfully
defended companies in state and federal class actions in cartel cases.
Another key area of Craig’s practice is representing clients in antitrust matters involving
intellectual property. He has counseled clients on patent pools, standard setting, patent
acquisition and licensing. He has litigated several antitrust cases involving patent pools,
licensing agreements, standard setting and the enforcement of invalid patents.
Craig has also successfully defended large-scale acquisitions, mergers, joint ventures and
other collaborations before the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice and
Department of Defense. In addition, Craig also regularly counsels clients on distribution
issues and is a member of the Firm’s Distribution Practice Group.
Craig is ranked in Chambers USA – America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, which
reported that Craig “impresses clients with ‘his in-depth knowledge of our business and the
issues we confront.’”
32
Presenter Bios
•
•
Jon Dubrow
Partner
Washington, DC
202 756 8122
jdubrow@mwe.com
Educations:
University of
Pennsylvania Law
School, J.D. (cum
laude, Order of the
Coif), 1992
University of
Virginia, B.A., 1988
•
Jon B. Dubrow is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in
the Firm's Washington, D.C. office. He focuses his practice on defending mergers,
acquisitions and joint ventures before the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade
Commission and foreign competition authorities, as well as antitrust and commercial
litigation. Jon also provides counseling on distribution issues and a wide variety of other
competition-related matters. Jon is listed in Who’s Who in American Law.
Transactions/Counseling: Jon has provided antitrust counseling on several hundred
transactions. Jon has filed and/or managed the preparation of hundreds of HSR
premerger notification forms and provided HSR counseling on many additional
matters. Jon has also managed multinational merger filings in numerous transactions. He
has appeared before the FTC/DOJ in dozens of substantive merger investigations,
including numerous “second requests.” Jon regularly represents the interests of thirdparties who are threatened with harm by mergers or acquisitions involving their
competitors or suppliers. Jon regularly counsels clients on a broad range of antitrust
issues including information exchanges, joint venture ancillary restraints and distribution
issues. He also has successfully defended clients in a criminal antitrust grand jury bid
rigging investigation and a civil group boycott investigation.
Litigation: Jon has handled a wide variety of antitrust claims in litigation. These litigations
have involved industries including hospitals, construction equipment, defense equipment,
space launch vehicles, medical devices, biotech/pharmaceuticals and aircraft. These
cases have involved Sherman Act monopolization and conspiracy claims involving a
variety of conduct including alleged price fixing, market allocation, tying, "bundled
discounts," "aftermarket" parts and services, and a variety of other alleged anticompetitive
conduct. Jon has also defended governmental challenges to mergers or acquisitions
33
under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.
Presenter Bios
•
•
Joel Grosberg
Partner
Washington, DC
•
202 756 8207
jgrosberg@mwe.com
Joel R. Grosberg is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based
in the Firm's Washington, D.C. office. He focuses his practice on defending mergers,
acquisitions and joint ventures before the Federal Trade Commission, Department of
Justice, state antitrust authorities, foreign competition authorities, as well as antitrust
litigation. Joel has significant experience in the high tech, chemical, health care and life
sciences industries. His experience includes counseling on matters related to pricing and
distribution practices and other competition related matters.
Prior to joining McDermott Will & Emery, Joel was an attorney with the Federal Trade
Commission, where he handled a full range of antitrust matters involving the computer
hardware and software, semiconductor, chemical, automotive parts, plastics, toy and paper
industries.
Joel is admitted to practice in the state of New York and the District of Columbia.
Education:
Cornell Law School,
J.D., 1996
University of
Michigan, B.A. (high
distinction), 1992
34
Presenter Bios
•
•
Carrie Amezcua
Associate
•
Washington, DC
•
202 756 8309
camezcua@mwe.com
Carrie G. Amezcua is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is
based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C. office. As a member of the Antitrust and Competition
practice group, she focuses her practice on antitrust litigation.
During law school, Carrie was a teaching assistant for the Legal Rhetoric and Research
program for two years and a note and comment editor for the American University Law
Review. She also authored, Of Protection and Sovereignty: Applying the Computer Fraud
and Abuse Act Extraterritorially to Protect Embedded Software Outsourced to China,
American University Law Review, Volume 57.1, October 2007.
Before joining the legal profession, Carrie was a manager with a major consulting firm,
specializing in business process and technology consulting in the Telecommunications
industry.
Carrie is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and the state of Pennsylvania.
Education:
American University,
Washington College
of Law, J.D. (magna
cum laude, Order of
the Coif), 2008
John Carroll
University, B.S.B.A.,
1998
35