Practice Areas & Industries: Pepper Hamilton LLP

Practice Group Overview

Pepper Hamilton LLP represents companies, and, often, their officers and directors, in civil and criminal antitrust matters in federal and state courts and before various agencies. We deal with the investigative and enforcement staff of the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and the offices of State Attorneys General nationwide. Our practice in this area includes matters involving the Sherman and Clayton Acts, the Robinson-Patman Act and state antitrust laws, as well as civil RICO claims, consumer protection statutes, franchise laws and a range of other antitrust, trade regulation, and competition statutes and regulations.

Services Available

A significant portion of our practice involves counseling clients in various industries to avoid antitrust liability and assisting them to implement effective compliance programs.

As an adjunct to our corporate transactional practice, we also handle merger approvals under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act and corollary state antitrust legislation. We regularly shepherded transactions through this process and obtain approval for a number of transactions initially questioned by regulatory authorities.

Representative engagements include:

• LePage's Inc. v. 3M Co. - representing the plaintiff in a monopolization claim in a jury trial in which the jury returned a $22.8 million verdict, before trebling. Defendant's Petition for Certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court was denied in 2004. The case was one of the most closely watched antitrust cases in the nation
• defending glass manufacturer in In Re Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1200 (W.D. Pa.), as well as various related state and federal indirect purchaser antitrust actions (continuing)
• representing defendant in proposed class action alleging that companies manufacturing abrasives products engaged in price fixing (continuing)
• represented a U.K. parts manufacturer in defense of patent and monopolization claims brought by a terminated distributor
• obtained verdict at trial for a "Big Three" automobile manufacturer in defense of a suit by a distributor charging various antitrust violations in connection with the sale of branded replacement parts
• as co-counsel to the American Bar Association, obtained summary judgment in a private antitrust action brought by an unaccredited law school claiming that the ABA's refusal to accredit the school was a group boycott
• represented a biomedical manufacturing company in prosecution of patent infringement claims and expected antitrust counterclaims
• defended a major automotive parts wholesaler in Robinson-Patman Act "mass action" brought by almost 200 plaintiffs
• represented an international electronics manufacturer in defense of claims brought under the Sherman and Robinson-Patman Acts
• represented manufacturer of abrasives in a grand jury investigation and later private civil litigation
• defended a major oil company against claims that a group of competitors engaged in an anticompetitive information exchange
• represented cosmetics manufacturer in a criminal antitrust investigation involving division of markets; no indictments returned
• represented a national pizza franchisor in an action brought by its franchisees alleging monopolization in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act and tying in violation of Section 1 of the Act
• represented a major health maintenance organization in a suit alleging tying in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
• defended Consolidated Rail Corporation against charges of conspiracy involving transportation of iron ore on the Great Lakes; obtained a favorable settlement after six weeks of trial
• represented Consolidated Rail Corporation in monopolization claims brought by smaller connecting railroads
• defended companies involved in Water Heaters Antitrust Litigation and Glassine and Greaseproof Paper Antitrust Litigation
• defended an airline in price-fixing litigation
• defended a film distribution and production company in defense of refusal to deal case charging violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Pennsylvania's film distribution statutes.