Don’t forget you can visit MyAlerts to manage your alerts at any time.
14 results for '* topic:"Antitrust"' You can use Search Constraints to get even better search results
Publication Date: 2024-04-29
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: E-Commerce | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Andrews
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Matthew D. Stachel, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; William A. Isaacson, Amy J. Mauser, David E. Cole, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, D.C. for plaintiff.
for defendant: David J. Baldwin, Peter C. McGivney, Berger Harris, Wilmington, DE; Joseph A. Ostoyich, Danielle Morello, Clifford Chance LLP, Washington, D.C.; Paul C. Cuomo, Heather Souder Choi, Adam Dec, Baker Botts LLP, Washington, D.C. for defendants.
Case Number: 15-108-RGA
Sherman Act violation claim failed under the rule of reason where plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to define the relevant geographic or product market, but removal of plaintiff's products from a website, which hampered its ability to compete, was sufficient evidence of refusal to deal.
Publication Date: 2022-10-11
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Federal Government | Food and Beverage
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laura Hatcher, Shamoor Anis, United States Attorney’s Office, Wilmington, DE; Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, Jenigh Garrett, Jill Ptacek, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack Blumenfeld, Brian Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Amanda Reeves, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Elyse M. Greenwald, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel K. Hogan, Daniel C. Kerrick, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Amanda L. Wait, Vic Domen, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Darryl Wade Anderson, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, TX; Christine A. Varney, David R. Marriott, Peter T. Parbur, Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: 21-1644 (MN)
Court denied a request by plaintiff to enjoin an acquisition of a sugar company the Government argued would result in a monopoly of the sugar market in the southeastern United States. The court reviewed evidence from trial noting that the markets for industrial consumers were different from retail consumers, thus broadening the base and the market. The court further found that plaintiff's argument was undermined by the fact that they control the sugar supply within the United States.
Publication Date: 2022-07-19
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Pharmaceuticals | Retail | State and Local Government
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Connolly
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Carmella P. Keener, Cooch and Taylor, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Bruce E. Gerstein, Joseph Opper, Kimberly M. Hennings, Daniel Litvin, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, New York, NY; Peter R. Kohn, Joseph T. Lukens, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Philadelphia, PA; David F. Sorensen, Caitlin G. Coslett, Berger Montague PC, Philadelphia, PA; Stuart E. Des Roches, Amanda Hass, Chris Letter, Dan Chiorean, Thomas J. Maas, Odom & Des Roches, LLC, New Orleans, LA; Susan C. Segura, Erin R. Leger, David C. Raphael, Jr., Smith Segura Raphael & Leger, LLP, Alexandria, LA; Russell A. Chorush, Heim Payne & Cho Rush, LLP, Houston, TX; Michael J. Barry, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Robert G. Eisler, Deborah A. Elman, Chad B. Holtzman, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., New York, NY; Sharon K. Robertson, Donna M. Evans, Matthew W. Ruan, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, New York, NY; Michael J. Barry, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Wilmington, DE; Jayne A. Goldstein, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Media, PA; J. Clayton Athey, Jason Wayne Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Barry L. Refsin, Alexander J. Egervary, Caitlin V. McHugh, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, Philadelphia, PA; Monica L. Kiley, Eric L. Bloom, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin & Schiller, Harrisburg, PA; J. Clayton Athey, Jason Wayne Rigby, Prickett, Jones & Elliott, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Scott E. Perwin, Lauren C. Ravkind, Anna T. Neil, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., Miami, FL; Heidi M. Silton, Jessica N. Servais, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, MN; Peter Safirstein, Safirstein Metcalf LLP, New York, NY; Archana Tamoshunas, Taus, Cebulash & Landau, LLP, New York, NY; Lee Albert, Brian D. Brooks, Glancy, Prongay, & Myrray, New York, NY; Robert J. Kriner, Jr., Tiffany Joanne Cramer, Chimicles Schwartz Kriner & Donaldson-Smith LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dianne M. Nast, Joseph N. Roda, Michael D. Ford, NastLaw, Philadelphia, PA; Michael L. Roberts, Stephanie E. Smith, Roberts Law Firm US, PC, Little Rock, AR for plaintiffs.
for defendant: Daniel M. Silver, Alexandrea M. Joyce, McCarter & English, LLP, Wilmington, DE; John E. Schmidtlein, Benjamin M. Greenblum, Colette T. Connor, Thomas S. Fletcher, Akhil K. Gola, Williams & Connolly, Washington, DC; Arthur G. Connolly, III, Alan Richard Silverstein, Connolly Gallagher LLP, Wilmington, DE; Christopher J. Marino, James E. Gallagher, Davis Malm & D'Agostine, P.C., Boston, MA; Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Stephen J. McIntyre, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Brett J. Williamson, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Newport Beach, CA; Ben Bradshaw, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC; John W. Shaw, Karen E. Keller, Nathan Roger Hoeschen, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE; Thomas J. Lang, Christina E. Fahmy, Peter M. Boyle, Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, Washington, DC for defendants.
Case Number: D69888
Antitrust claims arising from alleged reverse payment agreements were timely under the statute of limitations where each alleged supracompetitive sale constituted a discrete act that started the limitations period for that sale.
Publication Date: 2022-05-10
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Legal Services | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Michael J. Flynn, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Dale M. Cendali, Joshua L. Simmons, Eric A. Loverro, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY; Daniel E. Laytin, Christa C. Cottrell, Alyssa C. Kalisky, Cameron D. Ginder, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Chicago, IL for plaintiffs.
for defendant: David E. Moore, Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Gabriel M. Ramsey, Warrington Parker, Jacob Canter, Crowell & Moring LLP, San Francisco, CA; Mark A. Klapow, Lisa Kimmel, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC for defendant.
Case Number: D69812
Tying claims under the Sherman Act and state unfair competition statutes permitted to proceed where there was sufficient evidence that bundled products did constitute separate products serving separate markets and where unilateral action was sufficient to support a restraint of trade claim.
Publication Date: 2022-02-01
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Agriculture | Food and Beverage
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Laura D. Hatcher, Chief, Civil Division, Shamoor Anis, United States Attorney’s Office, Wilmington, DE; Brian Hanna, Jonathan Y. Mincer, Jenigh Garrett, Jill Ptacek, United States Department Of Justice, Antitrust Division, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Jack B. Blumenfeld, Brian P. Egan, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE; Lawrence E. Buterman, Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY; Amanda P. Reeves, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC; Elyse M. Greenwald, Latham & Watkins LLP, Los Angeles, CA; Daniel K. Hogan, Daniel C. Kerrick, Hogan McDaniel, Wilmington, DE; Peter J. Schwingler, Stinson LLP, Minneapolis, MN; Kelly E. Farnan, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Amanda L. Wait, Vic Domen, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Washington, DC; Darryl Wade Anderson, Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, Houston, TX; Christine A. Varney, David R. Marriott, Peter T. Parbur, Timothy G. Cameron, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, NY for defendants.
Case Number: D69700
Court declined to transfer government's Clayton Act suit where the government had filed suit in the state of incorporation of the parties to the challenged transaction, where the corporate parties had also agreed to hear claims arising from their transaction, such that the government's of forum was entitled to substantial deference.
Law Journal Press | Digital Book
Authors: George Bochetto, David P. Heim, John A. O’Connell, Robert S. Tintner
View this BookView more book results for the query "*"
Publication Date: 2022-01-25
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Software | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Fallon
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D69692
Motion for leave to amend the complaint denied where plaintiffs failed to provide good reason for its delay where plaintiffs were in possession of most of the facts supporting the new allegations and plaintiffs also waited half a year after obtaining additional facts from defendants.
Publication Date: 2020-04-22
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Federal Government | Technology Media and Telecom | Travel and Tourism
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Stark
Attorneys: For plaintiff: David C. Weiss, Laura D. Hatcher, Shamoor Anis, United States Dep’t of Justice, Wilmington, DE; Julie S. Elmer, Scott A. Westrich, Sarah P. McDonough, Robert A. Lepore, Aaron Comenetz, Brian E. Hanna, Craig W. Conrath, Dylan M. Carson, Rachel A. Flipse, Michael T. Nash, Jeremy P. Evans, Vittorio Cottafavi, Seth J. Wiener, John A. Holler, Grant A. Bermann and Katherine A. Celeste, United States Dep’t of Justice, Washington, DC for plaintiff.
for defendant: Joseph O. Larkin, Veronica A. Bartholomew, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE; Tara L. Reinhart, Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, DC; Matthew M. Martino, Michael H. Meni-tove and Evan R. Kreiner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, New York, NY for Sabre defendants. Daniel A. Mason, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Wilmington, DE; Kenneth A. Gallo, Jonathan S. Kanter, Joseph J. Bial and Daniel J. Howley, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC for defendants Farelogix Inc. and Sandler Capital Partners V, LP.
Case Number: D68956
The government failed to demonstrate a relevant market in this case involving companies that provided airline booking ser-vices, so the court allowed the merger to proceed.
Publication Date: 2019-08-14
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Aerospace | Manufacturing
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Judge: Judge McKee
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D68663
Plaintiff could not, pursuant to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, establish antitrust liability by alleging that it would have had better business performance had defendant not petitioned the government for action.
Publication Date: 2019-02-27
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Health Care
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge: District Judge Noreika
Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard H. Cross, Jr., Cross & Simon, LLC, Wilmington, DE; Daniel W. Tarpey and Matthew M. Showel, Tarpey Wix LLC, Chicago, IL for plaintiff. Raymond J. DiCamillo, Chad Shandler and Katharine L. Mowery, Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, DE; Steven F. Barley, Marc A. Marinaccio and J. Robert Robertson, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC for Laboratory Corp. of America defend-ants.
for defendant: Jody C. Barillare, Eric Kraeutler, Steven A. Reed, R. Brendan Fee, Zachary M. Johns and Alexandra M. Lastowski, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Wilmington, DE and Philadelphia, PA for AmeriHealth de-fendants.
Case Number: D68476
Plaintiff lacked standing to assert an antitrust claim and it failed to adequately allege a relevant market.
Publication Date: 2017-08-16
Practice Area: Antitrust
Industry: Aerospace | Technology Media and Telecom
Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
Judge:
Attorneys: For plaintiff:
for defendant:
Case Number: D67834
Allegations of injury to a competitor did not state an antitrust claim. However, where plaintiff alleged facts relating to an agreement that foreclosed all competition for training services and requ
Legal Speak is a weekly podcast that makes sense of what’s happening in the legal industry.
1 minute read