Robert L. Magielnicki is a partner in the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Practice Group. He has a multi-disciplinary practice and engages in a diverse commercial practice with emphasis on antitrust, domestic and international business transactions, and complex civil and criminal litigation.
Areas of Practice
Mr. Magielnicki has more than 40 years of experience in the fields of antitrust and trade regulation, and business law, both domestically and internationally, including having served as General Electric Company's Associate Litigation and Antitrust Counsel. In addition, Mr. Magielnicki also served as the Division General Counsel of GE’s Factory Automation Products Division in Charlottesville, Virginia and was counsel to GE at its corporate headquarters in Fairfield, Connecticut.
Mr. Magielnicki provides antitrust counseling on a broad spectrum of business matters including mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, licensing, distribution systems, trade association and standards development issues, Robinson-Patman Act issues, physician-hospital arrangements, teaming agreements, and joint buying arrangements. His experience includes counseling clients on the requirements of and numerous filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act, as well as Exon-Florio and Office of Foreign Assets Control matters.
Mr. Magielnicki represents a broad range of clients in corporate and commercial matters, including companies engaged in telecommunications, aerospace and defense, semiconductors, consumer goods, commercial and industrial products, pharmaceuticals and health care. He also has represented a diverse array of clients in acquisitions, dispositions and joint ventures, both domestic and international, as well as in numerous complex contracting and licensing matters. His clients range from privately-owned to Fortune 100 companies and include both domestic and foreign corporations.
On the international front, Mr. Magielnicki has represented clients in numerous transactions including acquisitions, dispositions, joint ventures, distribution arrangements and licensing agreements. He also has represented clients in investigations by the Competition Directorate of the European Union, as well as the national competition authorities of a number of European and South American countries, and the Japan Fair Trade Commission.
Mr. Magielnicki’s litigation experience includes representing corporations and individuals in both civil and criminal investigations and litigation, including class actions, involving Sherman Act and Clayton Act claims, securities fraud claims and contract claims. He also represents clients before the Antitrust Division and the Federal Trade Commission.
•Martindale-Hubbell Business and Commercial Washington, D.C. Top Rated Lawyer, 2014
•Who's Who in America
Publications & News
•Chinese Outbound Newsletter - September 2014
September 17, 2014
•Inside The HSR Annual Report On Merger Review
Law360, June 3, 2014
•Chinese Outbound Newsletter - March 2014
March 21, 2014
Antitrust Law Blog Posts
•Some Interesting Numbers Regarding Merger Review: The Hart-Scott-Rodino Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2013, May 22, 2014
•FTC Issues Revised 'Green Guides', October 11, 2012
•FTC Proposes Amendments to the Premerger Notification Rules to Expand the Reportability of Transfers of Exclusive Patent Rights in the Pharmaceutical Industry, August 16, 2012
•New Amendments To Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger Notification Rules, July 11, 2011
•Antitrust Division Hogties Smithfield Foods with a $900, 000 Civil Penalty for Gun-Jumping, April 28, 2010
•FTC Chair Calls for Ban to Pay-For-Delay Settlements, January 25, 2010
•Antitrust Enforcement in the Obama Era: Back to Basics -- Vigorously, June 12, 2009
•Penalties for Failing to File Under the HSR Act Can Be Stiff, November 7, 2005
Covering Your Ads Blog Posts
•Will The Revised Green Guides Do More Harm Than Good? October 14, 2010
Corporate & Securities Law Blog Posts
•Higher Filing Thresholds for HSR Act Premerger Notifications and Interlocking Directorates Announced, January 15, 2015
•Tampering with documents in connection with a merger investigation can land you in jail! May 10, 2012
Global Trade Law Blog Posts
•Shedding Light on CFIUS: Appeals Court Holds That CFIUS Review Lacks Constitutional Due Process, July 18, 2014
Life Sciences Law Blog Posts
•Sham Hatch-Waxman Infringement Suits And FDA Citizen Petitions; A Potential For New Liability For Innovators? August 12, 2014
Examples of Mr. Magielnicki's representations include:
Key negotiator and principal draftsman of joint venture agreement and implementing agreements forming a joint venture in industrial systems between a Fortune 10 client and a Latin American company.
Lead counsel in $295 million sale of a consumer products subsidiary. Key participant in formulating disposition strategy and negotiating with the buyer. Principal draftsman of sale agreement, as well as earlier agreements “spinning off” certain of the subsidiary’s operations.
Lead counsel in $289 million sale of unwanted product lines by a high technology company. Key negotiator and draftsman of numerous agreements disposing of assets and foreign subsidiaries.
Principal negotiator and principal draftsman of joint venture agreement and implementing agreements forming a four-company worldwide joint venture in automation controls between a Fortune 10 client and a leading Japanese controls manufacturer.
Lead counsel in asset sale of a cemented-carbide business to a major European company, including arranging critical supply and purchase agreements.
Lead counsel for an agreement “swapping” client’s minority interest in money-losing, privately-held joint venture for stock and warrants of a publicly-traded company. A special warrant provision yielded an additional $1.3 million upon the subsequent takeover of the purchaser.
Assisted clients in the commercial and consumer product fields in formulating and implementing international distribution programs.
Successfully represented the Division President of a Fortune 100 company in a major criminal antitrust case charging a nationwide conspiracy to fix prices. After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict of not guilty in less than two hours.
Provided antitrust counseling and representation in numerous domestic and international transactions including a worldwide joint venture in the industrial sector, the disposition of manufacturing operations by an international telecommunications company, the sale of an aerospace defense company, the sale of a beverage company and the purchase of a pharmaceutical company.
Represented an international telecommunications equipment company in arbitrations with Korean and Taiwanese government agencies.
Successfully challenged a proposed telecommunications standard on behalf of an international equipment supplier.