ANTITRUST

Our antitrust practice has had five principal components: 1) defending and prosecuting antitrust actions in court and administrative regulatory proceedings, including trying court actions to judgment; 2) assisting clients with competition issues that arise in the context of mergers and acquisitions and other business activity; 3) developing antitrust compliance programs and conducting internal investigations; 4) responding to criminal and civil investigations by state and federal authorities; and 5) helping clients that operate in or are served by regulated industries successfully utilize competition law and principles in the context of state and federal regulation.

Some of the entities that our attorneys have represented in antitrust matters include the following.

• A Japanese chemical manufacturer, and its United States subsidiary, as to which plaintiffs alleged world-wide market allocation and price-fixing among industry members.
  
  
• A medical devices manufacturer accused with other defendants of vertical price-fixing.
  
  
• A paper manufacturer in class actions alleging price-fixing among industry members.
  
  
• An airline in class action litigation filed on behalf of foreign travel agents who alleged that certain airlines and a trade association jointly fixed the commission rates that the airlines would pay on reservations placed by the agents.
  
  
• An industrial-products manufacturer accused of international price-fixing and market allocation, in proceedings before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and in class actions.
  
  
• A manufacturer of electronic article surveillance technology equipment in an action against a trade association on claims that the trade association and its members engaged in unlawful concerted action to favor the installation and use of a competitor's technology in retail stores.
  
  
• A magazine publisher in an action in which plaintiffs alleged price-fixing among publishers.
  
  
• A Canadian manufacturing company in antitrust and patent litigation brought by a competitor in the water purification technology industry.
  
  
• A cable company in antitrust litigation involving access to broadcasting towers.
  
  
• An electrical contracting firm accused of various antitrust violations involving the steel industry.
  
  
• A cement manufacturer in class actions brought against the cement industry and its trade association alleging price fixing.
  
  
• A utility accused of pursuing wholesale capacity trading activities that violate competition/antitrust laws.
  
  
• A utility in a suit against an equipment manufacturer alleging tying.
  
  
• A utility with respect to the conduct of an industry joint venture.
  
  
• A Class I railroad in antitrust actions brought by connecting railroads, initially before the Interstate Commerce Commission, and on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
  
  
• An insurance company alleged to have conspired to restrict the terms on which insurance would be offered.
  
  
• A physician's association accused of conspiring to deprive another physician of patients.
  
  
• A manufacturer of office products accused of Section 2 violations.
  
  
• A producer of computers and software in a lawsuit alleging many antitrust claims, including monopolization, attempted monopolization, leveraging, and illegal tying/bundling arrangements.
  
  
• A manufacturer and its parent corporation sued for alleged monopolization and attempted monopolization of the distribution of surgical devices.
  
  
• A chemical manufacturer defending against claims of monopoly leveraging, supplier/producer conspiracy and essential facilities.
  
  
• A manufacturer in a proceeding involving package rebates on products sold in retail outlets.
  
  
• Several transportation companies in the acquisition of companies in the same industry.
  
  
• A formerly regulated and antitrust-exempt industry in the design of antitrust compliance programs for members of the industry and its trade association.
  
  
• Electricity, railroad, and water companies seeking to assure that industry regulation of competition issues was based on sound economic principles and analysis.
  
  

Our analysis and strategic approach to antitrust matters is based on our attorneys' comprehensive understanding of the way in which the Federal Government reviews and resolves antitrust concerns. Our attorneys have dealt with antitrust matters while in high-level positions at the U.S. Congress and Federal Agencies. Among the relevant positions previously occupied by Harkins Cunningham attorneys are: Deputy General Counsel of the Federal Trade Commission, Trial Attorney in the Honors Program of the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice; Special Counsel for Global Competition in the Chairman's Office at the Federal Trade Commission; Staff Counsel to the United States Senate Commerce Committee; Deputy Administrator for Policy and Assistant Administrator for Enforcement in the Economic Regulatory Administration at the U.S. Department of Energy; and head of the National Advertising Division in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission.