Deirdre McEvoy is Counsel in the firm's Litigation department and a member of the firm's White Collar Defense and Investigations Team. Ms. McEvoy most recently served as Chief of the New York Field Office of the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. Under her leadership, the Office experienced unprecedented change, growth and development. Ms. McEvoy managed the Office's first trials in close to a decade and, under her supervision, the Office secured several important convictions. The staff of 25 federal prosecutors and other legal staff that she managed handled primarily criminal antitrust enforcement matters, with a focus on cartel and other fraudulent conduct in financial markets.
Prior to heading the Antitrust Division's New York Field Office, Ms. McEvoy served for ten years in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, where she spent three years as Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division. During her time in the Southern District, she successfully investigated and prosecuted a wide array of complex securities and commodities fraud offenses, including accounting fraud, insider trading, investment adviser fraud, market manipulation, broker bribery and mail and wire fraud.
In 2010, Ms. McEvoy received a Prosecutor of the Year Award from the Federal Law Enforcement Foundation for the investigation and prosecution of securities fraud at a major international public company.
Following law school graduation, Ms. McEvoy served as a Law Clerk to the Honorable Chester J. Straub in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and to the Honorable Nina Gershon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
White Collar Defense and Investigations
Representation of a European bank in connection with an industry-wide investigation into alleged manipulation of ISDAFIX.
Defense of an art dealer in connection with an investigation conducted by the New York State Attorney General's office regarding alleged violations of the False Claims Act and New York tax law.
Representation of a charitable foundation in response to subpoena issued by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.
Representation of a foreign private equity firm in an internal investigation regarding the unauthorized transfer of client funds by a large financial institution.
Representation of a corporate client in response to subpoena issued by a New York State investigative commission.
Investigation on behalf of a Fortune 500 publicly traded energy company regarding sexual harassment allegations.
Representing a contact lens manufacturer in the defense of an antitrust lawsuit brought by a discount retailer alleging anticompetitive pricing. Also defending our client in follow-on consumer class action suits that have arisen over the alleged price-fixing of contact lenses.
Represent chocolate manufacturer in antitrust case alleging price discrimination.
Commercial and Class Action Litigation
Representation of a European bank in connection with a class action alleging violations of the Sherman Act and Commodity Exchange Act based on the alleged manipulation of ISDAFIX.
Representation of a monoline insurer asserting contract and fraud claims relating to mortgage-backed securities transactions.
•Contributor to www.AntitrustUpdateBlog.com
•Co-Author, FTC v. St. Luke's: Is the Efficiencies Defense Dead or Alive? Competition Policy International's CPI Antitrust Chronicle (April 2015)
• 2nd Circ. Lays Out New Rules For Restitution, Law360 (February 23, 2015)
•Co-Author, Foreign Competition Authorities Revamp Cartel Enforcement Regimes, ABA Section of Antitrust Law's Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee Newsletter (Fall 2014)
•Co-Author, The Use of Expert Witnesses for Penalty Determinations in Criminal Antitrust Cases: A Study of United States v. AU Optronics, Antitrust Magazine, Summer 2014, Vol. 28, No. 3, American Bar Association
• 5 Steps for Handling an Antitrust Subpoena or CID, ” Corporate Counsel (April 9, 2014); “ KBR Case May Impact Internal Investigations, ” Law360 (March 17, 2014)
September 15, 2015 Antitrust Inside Counsel Article Series February 2015 Second Circuit Lays Out New Rules for Restitution January 2015 Supreme Court Permits Appeal to Go Forward In LIBOR Antitrust Lawsuit July 2014 The Use of Expert Witnesses for Penalty Determinations in Criminal Antitrust Cases: A Study of United States v. AU Optronics July 2014 Appeals Court Confirms that Results of Internal Investigation are Privileged June 2014 Antitrust Update: Second Circuit Adopts Rule Making it Easier to Find Liability for Foreign Anticompetitive Conduct May 2014 FCPA Update: Eleventh Circuit Defines Instrumentalities of Foreign Governments April 2014 5 Steps for Handling an Antitrust Subpoena or CID March 2014 U.S. District Court Rules that Results of Internal Investigations Conducted in the Ordinary Course of Business are Not Privileged and Must be Produced to Whistleblower
Antitrust Update Blog
Antitrust Update Blog is a source of insights, information and analysis on criminal and civil antitrust and competition-related issues. Patterson Belknap's antitrust lawyers represent clients in antitrust litigation and counseling matters, including those related to pricing, marketing, distribution, franchising, and joint ventures and other strategic alliances.
Recent Blog Posts
In re Capacitors Antitrust Class Action Update: Claims Slightly Narrowed, Parties Continue Discovery When we last wrote in June 2015 about In re Capacitors Antitrust Litig., No. 14-03264-JD, consolidated putative class actions pending before Judge James Donato in the Northern District of California, the plaintiffs had just largely survived a motion to dismiss. That blog post, which describes the background of the case and the first round of motions to dismiss, is available here. Recently, on December 30, 2015, the court ruled on several additional motions to dismiss based on plaintiffs' amended complaints.By
Polar Air Cargo Settles Antitrust Claims for $100 Million A settlement agreement last week in the long-running U.S. Cargo Antitrust Class Action brought the settlement fund in that case to over $1.1 billion.Polar Air Cargo, Polar Air Cargo Worldwide, and Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings agreed to pay $100 million in three installments. The settlement is the second-largest so far in this case, after Korean Air Lines's agreement in December 2013 to pay $115 million. It is subject to approval by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, where the case is pending.As
EU General Court Overturns EU Commission's Decision to Fine Airlines 790 Million in Connection with Price-Fixing Cartel On December 16, the General Court of the European Union, the second highest court in the EU, overturned the decision of the European Commission, the EU's competition authority, to fine 11 airlines a total of 790 million ($864 million) in connection with an air cargo price-fixing cartel. As we previously reported here, this freight price-fixing cartel was brought down by a cooperative investigation by the EU Commission and the Department of Justice, and the DOJ ultimately levied $1.8 billion in
Second Bite at the Apple in AT & T Aftermarket Case? On December 14, 2015 Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers heard oral argument on a motion to dismiss filed by Apple in an antitrust action brought against the company in connection with its 2007 deal to sell iPhones exclusively to AT&T Mobility. The next day, Judge Rogers denied Apple's motion. The lawsuit, one of several arising from the Apple-AT&T agreement, raises interesting questions about how to define a relevant product market using an “aftermarket” theory. Ward v. Apple, Inc. was first filed
Breaking News: FTC Rejects Staples' Proposed Divestiture in Office Depot Merger As we previously reported here, the FTC recently filed suit to challenge Staples' $6.3 billion bid for Office Depot. In response to the FTC's challenge, Staples offered to divest up to $1.25 billion in commercial contracts to ease concerns about reduced competition and higher prices in the market to service the office supply needs of large companies. The FTC rejected this concession without making a counteroffer. While Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, who is overseeing the case, said he was “frustrated”
EU Competition Commissioner Levels Charges Against Qualcomm In yet another high-profile enforcement action, last week EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager announced charges against Qualcomm Inc., a world leader in 3G, 4G, and next-generation wireless technologies and the world's largest supplier of baseband chipsets, for allegedly abusing its dominant position in the baseband chipset market. The Commission preliminarily concluded that Qualcomm illegally paid a major customer to exclusively use Qualcomm chipsets, and also engaged in predatory pricing by selling chipsets below cost with the aim of forcing a
FTC Moves to Halt Merger Between Staples and Office Depot The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) last week challenged Staples' $6.3 billion bid for Office Depot, claiming that the proposed merger would significantly reduce competition nationwide in the market for office supplies to large companies. Large companies rely on competition between the two suppliers to hold down the cost of items such as pens, pencils, notepads, sticky notes, file folders, paper clips, and paper used for printers and copy machines, the FTC said.The market the FTC defined in its complaint-sale and
Fifth Circuit Considers Independent Conduct in Vertical Agreements to Facilitate Horizontal Conspiracy On November 25, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the $156 million antitrust judgment in MM Steel, L.P. v. JSW Steel (USA) Incorporated; Nucor Corporation, upholding a jury verdict that found one defendant steel manufacturer (JSW Steel) liable for participation in an illegal conspiracy to block distributor MM Steel from entering the market. The Court of Appeals reversed the jury verdict as to defendant Nucor, another steel manufacturer. In so doing, the Fifth Circuit identified evidence
What Does the Yates Memo Mean for Antitrust Cases? Just over two months ago, the United States Department of Justice made waves when a memorandum from Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates (the “Yates Memo”) announced an increased focus on individual accountability to combat corporate misconduct. The Yates Memo explains DOJ's view that individual accountability is important because it deters future illegal activity, incentivizes changes in corporate behavior, ensures the proper parties are held responsible for their actions, and promotes the public's confidence in the justice system.On November 16,
FTC Asserts That Its Failure to Object to a “Reverse Payment” Settlement Should Not Be Interpreted as Approval On November 17, 2015, the FTC submitted an amicus brief to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in In re Effexor XR Antitrust Litigation, where the district court had dismissed the plaintiffs' claims of antitrust violations based on an alleged reverse payment under FTC v. Actavis, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013). In its brief, the FTC argues that its failure to object to a pharmaceutical patent settlement should play no role whatsoever in evaluating the legality of alleged reverse...