Antitrust

Antitrust matters require a forward-looking approach that takes your business goals into consideration every step of the way. From strategic partnerships or mergers and acquisitions to compliance issues and investigations and litigation, Alston & Bird’s Antitrust Team offers a wealth of legal experience and talent across the country, including New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Atlanta, Charlotte, Dallas, and, of course, Washington, D.C.

As your business grows or seeks to expand, you need skilled lawyers who can help you avoid legal landmines and provide solutions when problems have already developed. While high-stakes antitrust litigation has always been our core strength, our business counseling can help avoid many of the situations that create litigation risk. We advise on a range of issues, from intellectual property to participation in trade associations and patent pools to contract, pricing, and distribution practices.

Strategic mergers and acquisitions are one of the fastest ways to grow your company, but also one of the biggest antitrust danger zones. Alston & Bird’s Antitrust Team obtains clearances under the Hart–Scott–Rodino Act (HSR) and assists you in navigating U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) investigations with a strong track record of avoiding any changes to your deal. The growth of our Washington, D.C., office, including the recent addition of experienced former DOJ antitrust officials, has positioned Alston & Bird to effectively steer strategic transactions through the regulatory process.

In the international arena, we coordinate work on many cross-border deals, compliance matters, and investigations so you can efficiently meet your business objectives. Our lawyers have broad experience working with regulators at every level and on several continents, not only with the DOJ, FTC, and state attorneys general, but also competition agencies in the European Union and Korea, and Japan, among others. From counseling to M&A matters to the courtroom, our antitrust lawyers work closely with you to help you realize your business goals—in the U.S. and around the world.

• Representation of Dell and Nokia in the prosecution of antitrust claims over price fixing by LCD screen suppliers in a MDL proceeding in California, and representation of Dell in the prosecution of antitrust claims over price fixing by Cathode Ray Tube and Optical Disk Drive suppliers in MDL proceedings in California.
• Representation of Nokia in licensing disputes and negotiations involving its standard-essential patent portfolio against other telecommunications giants.
• Representation of Equifax in the defense of a lawsuit by Fair Isaac Corporation (FICO) asserting Sherman Act Section 1 and Section 2 claims, as well as trademark claims, against Equifax and other credit bureaus related to the creation of a new credit score to compete with the FICO score. Also won dismissals of Equifax in separate, unrelated antitrust litigation in state and federal courts in California, as well as federal courts in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
• Representation of Graphic Packaging, the largest U.S. manufacturer of paperboard and folding cartons, in a major federal merger investigation and in negotiation of a consent order allowing the proposed transaction to be consummated in a timely manner with divesture of only two facilities.
• Representation of DIRECTV in two putative nationwide class actions pending in the Southern District of New York challenging the National Hockey League’s and Major League Baseball’s systems for distributing televised games. The plaintiffs allege that the leagues, their teams, a number of regional sports networks, Comcast and DIRECTV violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act by conspiring to divide up the markets for live hockey and baseball broadcasts.
• Representation of SunTrust Banks, Inc., in dozens of consolidated antitrust class actions alleging that the setting of interchange and merchant discount fees by the Visa and MasterCard credit card networks violates Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated the actions in the Eastern District of New York. 
• Representation of Interactive Communications International, Inc., in the defense of a lawsuit by nFinanSe, Inc., asserting Sherman Act Section 1 and state law breach of contract and promissory estoppel claims in the Northern District of Georgia. Defeated a motion for preliminary injunction and won dismissal of a Section 1 claim. Defeated a petition to the Eleventh Circuit for interlocutory appeal, resulting in voluntary dismissal with prejudice of remaining claims by nFinanSe.
• Representation of multiple listing services in the defense of a lawsuit by a putative class of real estate buyers and sellers, asserting claims under Sherman Act Section 1, the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act, and state law unjust enrichment in the Northern District of Georgia. Successfully challenged Section 1 claims on a motion to dismiss.
• Representation as primary outside U.S. antitrust counsel of one of the largest chemical manufacturers in the world. Represented the company in a Federal Trade Commission Second Request investigation and secured termination of the investigation after only limited production of documents and two depositions; we also coordinated clearances from the European Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau.
• Representation of a chemical manufacturer against monopolization and attempted monopolization claims related to the acquisition of multiple IP rights and the alleged refusal to license IP to a competitor. Defeated a motion for preliminary injunction and successfully obtained a TRO enjoining the competitor from infringement.
• Representation of a major building materials manufacturer in two price-fixing suits in multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, ultimately negotiating a settlement that constituted a small fraction of the class plaintiffs’ claimed damages.
• Representation of Dell in a commercial litigation matter involving claims of unfair and deceptive trade practices and alleged damages of more than $5 billion in the Civil District Court for Orleans Parish, Louisiana. A jury trial resulted in the maximum exposure of 0.02 percent of the total damages sought by plaintiffs.