Antitrust and Trade Regulation

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher has been representing clients in antitrust matters for much of the last century.  Today, Gibson Dunn is recognized as one of the leading antitrust firms in the United States and worldwide.

Gibson Dunn’s Antitrust Practice Group serves clients in a broad array of industries throughout the world in virtually every significant area of antitrust and trade regulation law, including (1) cartel investigations and government civil investigations in Europe, the U.S., and elsewhere; (2) class action treble damage litigation; (3) private antitrust litigation; (4) government review of mergers and acquisitions; and (5) trade regulation matters that involve unfair competition, consumer protection, and State aid issues.
 
In addition to handling leading-edge competition matters within each of the countries in which our practitioners are based, we advise and represent clients from around the world on international competition issues, including global mergers, international cartel investigations, and private antitrust litigation with international scope.  Similarly, we advise a number of U.S., European, and Asian companies in connection with competition issues outside their home jurisdictions.
 
Our worldwide Antitrust Practice Group numbers over 100 lawyers located throughout the United States and Europe. In addition, the Antitrust Group works closely with attorneys in Gibson Dunn's other practice groups to provide efficient service for our clients. 

Accolades:

• Ranked among the top 20 “Global Elite” firms in 2012 Global Competition Review’s GCR 100: The World’s Leading Competition Law Practices.
• Named by Chambers USA 2011 as a “Tier 1” firm for National and California Antitrust; also featured in its Spotlight Table for National Antitrust: Cartel. 
• Recognized by Chambers Global Directory 2012 for Global – Competition/Antitrust; also recognized by Chambers Global 2012 and Chambers Europe 2011 for Competition/European Law – Belgium. 
• Ranked as one of the six “Tier 1” firms for antitrust in the 2011 edition of the US Legal 500.
• Named as a “Tier 1” firm for antitrust in Institutional Investor’s 2011 Benchmark Litigation Guide.
• Recognized for having the foremost antitrust practice in the United States by Chambers USA, which honored Gibson Dunn with its 2010 Award for Excellence in the Antitrust category.
• Named as one of three “leading” firms for antitrust work in the United States in Practical Law Company’s Which Lawyer: Competition 2010.
• Gibson Dunn’s Litigation Practice Group, in which the Antitrust Practice Group plays a prominent role, was named the 2012 Litigation Department of the Year by The American Lawyer for an unprecedented second time. The publication, which dubbed the firm’s litigators “The Game Changers” in 2010, declared that the firm possesses “The Complete Game,” having “racked up another stack of victories in some of the country’s thorniest cases.”

Members of Gibson Dunn’s Antitrust Practice Group have long occupied leading roles in the antitrust bar and have made major contributions to antitrust jurisprudence and policy.  Three of the firm’s current and retired partners have served as Chair of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law, and several partners have served in policy-making positions in the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and the European Commission.  In addition, members of Gibson Dunn’s Antitrust Practice Group have served as editors of major antitrust publications and treatises.

Individual Accolades: 

• Thirteen partners are listed for antitrust law in Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business 2011.
• Global Competition Review honored Gary Spratling as the 2010 Cartel Lawyer of the Year. 
• Twelve lawyers are ranked in The International Who's Who of Competition Lawyers: Peter Alexiadis, Jarrett Arp, Robert Cooper, Michael Denger, Joseph Kattan, Trey Nicoud, Sean Royall, Joel Sanders, Gary Spratling, Peter Sullivan, Daniel Swanson and David Wood.
• Two partners are listed among eight “Leading Lawyers” for Mergers, Acquisitions and Buyouts-Antitrust-National in the Legal 500 U.S. rankings for 2011 and three partners are recognized in the Legal 500 European rankings.

U.S. Antitrust Litigation Practice

Gibson Dunn represents clients in federal and state courts throughout the United States  in massive class actions, litigation involving cutting-edge issues and ordinary commercial disputes.  We have extensive experience taking complex antitrust cases to trial and, in combination with one of the top appellate practices in the country, we regularly represent our antitrust clients in all levels of appellate courts.

Some of our recent notable litigation matters are described below.

• Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v. PSKS Inc. (S. Ct. 2007). Represented Leegin Creative Leather Products in the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark case overturning the century-old per se rule against resale price maintenance. On June 28, 2007, the United States Supreme Court overturned its nearly century-old decision in Dr. Miles Medical Co. v. John D. Park & Sons, Inc., 220 U.S. 373 (1911), pursuant to which vertical minimum resale price maintenance agreements were per se unlawful.  In Leegin, the Court held that agreements between a manufacturer and its retailers establishing minimum resale prices for the manufacturer’s goods should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis under the rule of reason.  The decision represents a fundamental change in the law relating to product distribution in the United States.
• Advanced Micro Devices v. Intel.  Gibson Dunn represents Intel in a monopolization suit filed in mid-2005 by Advanced Micro Devices (“AMD”) in the District of Delaware.  The case, which has been characterized as one of the largest, if not the largest, Sherman Act Section 2 case ever filed, alleges that Intel has monopolized a worldwide market for microprocessors through purported unfair discounting and rebating practices. 
  In addition to the litigation in U.S. district court, Gibson Dunn represents Intel (along with counsel in the respective jurisdictions) in investigations being conducted by competition authorities around the world.  Gibson Dunn is also advising Intel in connection with litigation brought by AMD in Japan.
• Cartel investigations and follow-on class action litigation. Gibson Dunn represents clients in a number of ongoing cartel or antitrust grand jury investigations in the United States, Canada, Europe, and Australia in numerous industries, where the representation is not public.  Consistent with the international scope of cartel investigations, Gibson Dunn’s role in these cases often involves coordinating an international response and representing clients before competition authorities in multiple countries.
  
  In addition to its confidential matters, Gibson Dunn has successfully represented clients in several publicly disclosed criminal investigations.  The firm achieved a favorable plea agreement for Martinair Holland N.V. in connection with the U.S. Department of Justice’s air cargo investigation.  The firm also represented Akcros Chemicals America in a grand jury investigation initiated by the Antitrust Division regarding allegations of price fixing in the sale of certain chemicals (heat stabilizers).  After over three years, the Antitrust Division closed the investigation without bringing any charges.  Similarly, we persuaded the Antitrust Division to close an eight-year investigation of Hudson News Company into alleged market allocation activities without issuing an indictment. 
  
  Gibson Dunn also frequently represents its clients in follow-on treble damage civil litigation spawned by government investigations.  Cases include the DRAM Antitrust Litigation, Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation, Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, SRAM Antitrust Litigation, LCD Antitrust Litigation, Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, and Automotive Refinishing Paint Antitrust Litigation.
• Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (C.D. Cal. 2009).  Secured dismissal of antitrust counterclaims brought against Aventis by Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, a generic drug manufacturer, following an unsuccessful patent enforcement action by Aventis.  Amphastar alleged that Aventis engaged in anticompetitive conduct by obtaining patents through fraud, commencing sham patent infringement litigation, and filing a frivolous citizen petition with the FDA.  The court found that Amphastar’s allegations regarding Aventis’s citizen petition to the FDA were barred by Aventis’s Noerr-Pennington immunity, and that Amphastar’s remaining allegations were insufficient to state a claim because Amphastar’s lack of FDA approval barred any finding of causation and antitrust injury.
• Allied Orthopedic Appliances v. Tyco Healthcare Group LP (C.D. Cal. 2008).  Prevailed on summary judgment on all claims in this antitrust action challenging Tyco Healthcare’s use of market-share discounts and sole-source contracts, and its introduction of a new line of pulse oximetry products, under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  Prior to winning summary judgment, Gibson Dunn defeated the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class consisting of all direct purchasers of Tyco Healthcare’s pulse oximetry consumable products.
• In re DRAM Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2008) Secured dismissal of most indirect purchaser treble damage claims against client Micron. In litigation that grew out of the Justice Department’s cartel prosecution of DRAM manufacturers, plaintiffs allege a global price-fixing conspiracy.  The largest remaining part of that litigation is claims for recovery by indirect purchasers.  On June 1, 2007, the district court dismissed the state antitrust law claims of all class members who purchased DRAM as a component of computers or other products, effectively eliminating most of the indirect purchasers’ antitrust claims.  The court agreed with the defendants’ arguments that the antitrust standing requirements of the Supreme Court’s Associated General Contractors decision apply to state law antitrust claims and, under that decision, class members who purchased DRAM as a component of another product are too remote to assert an antitrust claim.
• Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC v. Billing (S. Ct. 2007). Represented Bear Stearns in U.S. Supreme Court victory for major underwriters in antitrust challenge to initial public offering underwriting practices. In June 2007, the Court reversed a decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and held that the defendant securities underwriters could not be sued under the antitrust laws for underwriting efforts in the context of initial public offerings (IPOs) that allegedly involved practices known as laddering, tying, and collecting excessive commissions.  The Second Circuit had held that such conduct could be challenged and was not impliedly immune from challenge due to the securities laws and regulations governing the underwriting and IPO process.  The Supreme Court, in reversing, ruled that the antitrust claims could not proceed because the area of conduct challenged in the complaint was in heartland of securities regulations, there was clear and adequate authority on the part of the Securities and Exchange Commission to regulate, there was active and ongoing agency regulation, and there was a serious conflict between the antitrust and securities regimes.  The Court stressed that applying the antitrust laws to such conduct raised a risk that antitrust courts would produce inconsistent results that would overly deter underwriting syndicate practices that were important in new issues.
• Hydranautics v. FilmTec Corp. (9th Cir. 2007). Obtained summary judgment and Ninth Circuit affirmance on behalf of Dow Chemical and its subsidiary, FilmTec Corp., in 14-year long antitrust battle. In March 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling granting summary judgment to Gibson Dunn client FilmTec Corporation (a wholly owned subsidiary of Dow Chemical) in a case alleging monopolization and attempted monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act and malicious prosecution under California law.  FilmTec sued Hydranautics (its principal competitor) for patent infringement in 1990. Although FilmTec was successful at trial, the decision was reversed by the Federal Circuit.  Hydranautics then sued FilmTec, alleging that the patent infringement suit was brought without probable cause and maliciously for the purpose of impairing a competitor and stifling competition in the market.  The case went to the Federal Circuit twice and to the Ninth Circuit three previous times, producing several published opinions on the subject of Noerr-Pennington immunity in the context of patent infringement claims, as well as the law on California malicious prosecution claims.  After 14 years of litigation,  setting a trial date and receiving the parties’ pre-trial order, the district court granted FilmTec’s motion for summary judgment on both of Hydranautics’ claims. The court found there was no triable issue of fact as to whether FilmTec brought the original patent infringement action without probable cause and maliciously.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed.
• In re Ditropan XL Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1761 (N.D. Cal. 2007). Won dismissal of class action patent-antitrust claims for Johnson & Johnson and one of its subsidiaries. In December 2007, Gibson Dunn obtained a voluntary dismissal with prejudice of all claims in an antitrust action filed against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary Alza Corporation by a class of indirect purchaser plaintiffs regarding the pharmaceutical product Ditropan XL.  Gibson Dunn had previously obtained a dismissal with prejudice of similar claims brought by a purported class of direct purchaser plaintiffs.  The lawsuits were brought in the aftermath of Alza’s unsuccessful efforts to enforce patent rights against manufacturers of generic versions of Ditropan XL.  The plaintiffs alleged that Alza obtained its patent by fraud on the Patent Office and engaged in sham patent litigation to delay FDA approval of the proposed generic drugs.  After Alza received favorable rulings from the court on various motions, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their claims with prejudice and without any payment from Alza.
• In re New Motor Vehicle Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation (1st Cir. 2008). Secured reversal of class certification on behalf of Nissan North America. Gibson Dunn has defended Nissan North America in a series of class actions pending in federal and state courts relating to an alleged conspiracy to restrict the flow of gray market vehicles from Canada to the United States.  In March 2008, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed and vacated the district court’s order certifying a damages class of more than 13 million car purchasers and an injunctive class of more than a hundred million American consumers.  The court then ordered outright dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief for alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
• Gerlinger v. Amazon.com (9th Cir. 2008).  Secured affirmance of a decision granting a motion filed by Gibson Dunn on behalf of Amazon.com to dismiss a putative antitrust class action for lack of standing.  The plaintiff sought to recover treble damages on behalf of a purported class of consumers injured by an agreement between Amazon.com and Borders.com through which Amazon.com hosted the Borders.com website.  The court held that the plaintiff suffered no injury as a result of the joint venture, as Amazon.com established that it had repeatedly lowered prices following the establishment of the agreement, as well as offered lower prices through the Amazon.com marketplace, and the plaintiff offered no evidence of actual instances of paying higher prices after the agreement than he would have paid otherwise.
• Abbouds’ McDonald’s LLC v. McDonald’s Corp. (9th Cir. 2006). Obtained Ninth Circuit ruling affirming grant of summary judgment on behalf of McDonald’s in Section 1 antitrust case. Gibson Dunn secured a unanimous victory for McDonald’s before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed a district court ruling granting summary judgment in favor of McDonald’s in a case involving allegations of antitrust and Washington state law violations. The plaintiff, a McDonald’s franchisee, alleged that McDonald’s engaged in a bid-rigging conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that, in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, McDonald’s exercised a contractual right of first refusal that excluded the plaintiff from an alleged market for certain McDonald’s franchise restaurants.  In affirming the district court’s decision, the Ninth Circuit concluded that the plaintiff had not suffered antitrust injury and thus lacked antitrust standing.  The Court of Appeals also rejected the plaintiff’s Washington state law claims.
• New York Jets v. Cablevision (S.D.N.Y. 2006). Successfully defended Cablevision and Madison Square Garden in litigation brought by the New York Jets. As part of New York City’s bid to host the 2012 Summer Olympics, the City and the New York Jets sought to build a new stadium on land owned by the Metropolitan Transit Authority (“MTA”) on the West Side of Manhattan, with part of the cost being paid by the city and the state and part paid by the Jets.  Cablevision, which owns Madison Square Garden and several New York-area cable systems, was a prominent opponent of the proposed stadium during the high-profile public debate surrounding the stadium.  The Jets sued Cablevision in federal court in Manhattan, claiming that Cablevision had unlawfully maintained an alleged “monopoly power over enclosed large-scale spectator events and private spectator suites in Manhattan” through its opposition to the Jets’ proposed stadium.  Cablevision filed counterclaims alleging, among other things, that the Jets’ claims violated Cablevision’s civil rights because they were designed to stifle protected government petitioning.  In February 2006, the Jets voluntarily dismissed their claims against Cablevision, and Cablevision dismissed its counterclaims against the Jets, with neither party admitting any fault or assuming any liability.
• Tickets.com v. Ticketmaster (9th Cir. 2005). Successfully defended appeal to the Ninth Circuit of an award of summary judgment on behalf of Ticketmaster. Gibson Dunn represented Ticketmaster Corp. and Ticketmaster-Online Citysearch, Inc. in the district court on a successful motion for summary judgment and the defense of the appeal to the Ninth Circuit. The district court granted Ticketmaster’s motion for summary judgment on the antitrust claims brought by Tickets.com under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.  The court ruled that there was no evidence  that Ticketmaster – alleged to have market shares above 80% in various relevant markets – had engaged in anticompetitive illegal conduct by entering into multi-year exclusive contracts to provide ticketing services to its venue and arena clients. 
• United States v. AMR Corporation & American Airlines (10th Cir. 2003). Summary judgment for American Airlines against the Department of Justice affirmed on appeal in a precedent-setting predatory pricing case. The Department of Justice accused AMR Corporation and American Airlines of monopolizing and attempting to monopolize dozens of routes emanating from American’s Dallas/Fort Worth hub.  Numerous consumer class actions were filed as follow-on cases.  This was the first time the DOJ sued an airline for predatory pricing since the airline industry was deregulated in 1978, and it was seeking to expand the circumstances under which aggressive pricing could be found to be predatory.  Gibson Dunn was lead counsel for American Airlines.  Shortly before trial, the district judge granted summary judgment in favor of American, handing it a complete victory.  The 10th Circuit upheld summary judgment in a decisive 3-0 ruling, concluding that the government’s proposed tests for predatory pricing were “invalid as a matter of law, fatally flawed in their application, and fundamentally unreliable.”
• Atlantic Coast Airlines v. Mesa Air Group (D.D.C. 2003). Blocked hostile takeover of Atlantic Coast Airlines. Gibson Dunn represented Atlantic Coast Airlines, which was attempting to fight off a hostile takeover attempt by Mesa Air Group.  Shortly after Atlantic Coast announced its plans to launch a new airline, known as Independence Air, which would compete directly with United Airlines at Washington Dulles International Airport, Mesa made an unsolicited merger offer and announced a consent solicitation to replace Atlantic Coast’s board of directors and devote Atlantic Coast’s resources to serving as a United Express carrier pursuant to a memorandum of understanding Mesa had negotiated with United Airlines.  Atlantic Coast filed antitrust claims against Mesa, claiming that Mesa and United had combined and conspired in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act to prevent the entry of Independence Air.  The District Court granted a preliminary injunction that prevented Mesa from proceeding with its proxy solicitation and exchange offer.  This was the first time in over a quarter century that a hostile takeover was enjoined in a private lawsuit on antitrust grounds.

Merger & Acquisition Practice

Gibson Dunn’s Antitrust Practice Group has extensive experience representing clients in a broad range of industries on merger and acquisition matters that have been reviewed by enforcement agencies in the U.S., Europe, and other jurisdictions worldwide.

Some of our representative recent merger and acquisition matters include:

• Vivendi/Activision.  Gibson Dunn represented Vivendi before the European Commission and the Federal Trade Commission in connection with its acquisition of Activision.  The European Commission issued a substantial decision approving the transaction in April 2008.
• Meggitt/K&F.  Gibson Dunn represented K&F Industries before the DOJ and the UK’s Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in connection with its $1.8 billion acquisition by Meggitt-USA, Inc.  The transaction brought together two companies that designed and manufactured aircraft wheels, brakes, and brake control systems for aircraft manufacturers and operators.  The DOJ issued a second request to the parties, but after several  presentations and written submissions by the parties, the DOJ granted early termination of the HSR waiting period.  The OFT’s decision was announced on June 13, 2007 and a decision approving the transaction was issued on June 21, 2007.
• Intel/ST Microelectronics.  Gibson Dunn represented Intel Corporation in securing antitrust clearance for the formation of Numonyx, a joint venture comprised of the NOR flash memory businesses of Intel and ST Microelectronics.  The Department of Justice initiated a second request investigation, but cleared the transaction in October 2007 following a "quick look" review of the transaction.  Gibson Dunn also represented Intel before the European Commission, which had previously cleared the transaction.
• Ticketmaster/Paciolan.  Gibson Dunn represented Ticketmaster L.L.C. in connection with its acquisition of Paciolan Inc., a provider of ticket distribution services and software solutions.  The DOJ issued a second request in August 2007.  In December 2007, following an investigation that involved a number of presentations, depositions, and written submissions by the parties, the DOJ cleared the transaction without taking any enforcement action.
• Itron/Actaris.  Gibson Dunn represented Itron before antitrust authorities in the UK, Brazil, Spain, Portugal, and the Ukraine in connection with its $1.6 billion acquisition of Actaris.  Itron and Actaris were among the world’s largest manufacturers of electricity meters, gas meters, water meters, and heat meters for residential, commercial, and industrial purposes.  Authorities in the UK, Spain, Portugal, and the Ukraine issued detailed decisions approving the transaction in March 2007.  The Brazilian authority issued its post-acquisition clearance decision in October 2007.
• KKR/First Data.  Gibson Dunn represented First Data before the European Commission in a $29 billion deal that was named private equity deal of the year by IFLR.  The Commission’s decision was adopted in June 2007.
• Rusal/Norilsk.  Gibson Dunn advised Rusal on global antitrust clearance issues in connection with its acquisition of a minority stake in Norilsk.  Rusal is the world’s second largest aluminum company and Norilsk is the world’s largest nickel company.  The jurisdictions involved included China, Korea, the Ukraine, Germany, Austria, Russia, Canada, and Serbia.  The transaction was cleared in all jurisdictions in early 2008.
• Allergan/Inamed.  Gibson Dunn represented Allergan Inc. in connection with its $3.2 billion acquisition of Inamed Corporation.  The representation initially involved work before the FTC related to a proposed acquisition of Inamed by Medicis Corp. Allergan later launched an unsolicited offer to purchase Inamed itself, creating a battle for corporate control.  The Medicis offer for Inamed was eventually withdrawn, amid significant resistance by FTC staff. Gibson Dunn then successfully negotiated a remedy that allowed its proposed acquisition of Inamed to be approved by the FTC.  This was the final antitrust approval required for the acquisition, which was also cleared by the national antitrust authorities in Germany and Spain in January 2006. 
• Applied Materials/Brooks Software.  Gibson Dunn represented Applied Materials before the DOJ in a second request investigation and before competition agencies in several other jurisdictions in connection with its $125 million acquisition of Brooks Software.
• Seagate/Maxtor.  Gibson Dunn represented Seagate Technology before the European Commission and the Federal Trade Commission.  The European Commission approved without conditions the proposed acquisition by Seagate Technology of Maxtor Corp.  The companies are two of the four largest hard-disk drive makers.  The Commission cleared the $1.9 billion acquisition, notwithstanding market shares in some segments of more than 50%, because it concluded that the dynamics of the relevant markets do not give rise to either horizontal or vertical anticompetitive effects.  The European Commission’s announcement followed the decision of the FTC to take no action with respect to the acquisition.
• United Defense/BAE.  Gibson Dunn represented United Defense Industries, Inc., a leading U.S. defense company, in connection with its acquisition by BAE Systems North America, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of BAE Systems PLC, in an approximately $4 billion transaction cleared by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice in July 2005, several months after the issuance of a second request.
• Hollywood Video/Movie Gallery.  Gibson Dunn represented Hollywood Video, the second largest video rental store operator in the United States, in connection with its potential acquisition in a negotiated transaction by Movie Gallery (the number three chain) or, alternatively, by Blockbuster (the number one chain) through an unsolicited tender offer.  The potential Movie Gallery transaction was reviewed by the FTC and cleared without a second request in February 2005.  The FTC issued a second request in connection with the potential Blockbuster acquisition, which was ultimately withdrawn by Blockbuster.  The Hollywood Video/Movie Gallery transaction closed in early 2005.
• Cooper-Cameron/Dresser.  Gibson Dunn represented First Reserve Corporation and Dresser Inc. in Cooper-Cameron’s $225 million acquisition of Dresser’s Flow Control business unit.  The Department of Justice cleared the transaction after issuing a second request.
• Alon USA Energy/Paramount Petroleum.  Gibson Dunn represented Paramount Petroleum Corporation in connection with Alon USA Energy’s $407 million acquisition of Paramount.  The Federal Trade Commission issued a second request in June 2006.  The FTC subsequently closed its investigation in August 2006, taking no action and clearing the transaction.
• Schlumberger/Itron.  Gibson Dunn represented Schlumberger Limited in the sale of its electricity meter subsidiary to Itron, Inc.  The case was investigated by the FTC, which issued a second request.  The investigation culminated in a consent decree that was announced in June 2004, which allowed the transaction to proceed but required Itron to license a new competitor with technology that would allow it to compete in the relevant market.  The FTC’s complaint alleged that the two parties to the transaction had a market share of greater than 99 percent in the alleged relevant market for radio-frequency automatic meter reading systems.
• Northrop Grumman/TRW.  Gibson Dunn represented Northrop Grumman in connection with its acquisition of TRW.  The Department of Justice cleared the transaction in late 2002, after the parties entered into a consent decree that provided behavioral remedies to resolve the DOJ’s concerns regarding the vertical relationship between TRW’s satellite integration business and Northrop Grumman’s satellite payload business.
   

Additional Information

More detailed information on the Firm's antitrust/competition capabilities, experience and resources by type of antitrust/competition practice (e.g., criminal litigation) and by substantive subject matter (e.g., monopolization) is available. We also have information on our experience in particular industries, recognizing that prior background is frequently of significant benefit in getting up the factual learning curve and in understanding the subtleties of a client's business objectives.

For further information, please contact the Co-Chairs of our Antitrust/Competition Practice Group or other attorneys in the Group:  Peter Sullivan in our New York office, Daniel G. Swanson in our Los Angeles office, M. Sean Royall in our Dallas and Washington, D.C. offices, and Gary R. Spratling in our San Francisco office.