skip to main content

Antitrust matters are rarely isolated within a single state or federal agency or jurisdiction. We represent clients facing multi-dimensional antitrust challenges on the transactional, regulatory and litigation fronts, mobilizing an unmatched combination of courtroom excellence, government experience and legal, economic and academic prowess on our clients’ behalf.

Representative Engagements

ANTITRUST LITIGATION

  • Amazon in a putative class action brought on behalf of consumers alleging that Amazon’s “fair pricing” policy, which requires third-party sellers not to use pricing practices that harm customer trust, has raised the prices of products sold by those third-party sellers, violating antitrust law.
  • The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), the oldest and largest U.S. music performing rights organization, in leading efforts with respect to amendment of ASCAP’s 80-year-old consent decrees.
  • Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD), a global medical technology company, in numerous antitrust-related matters over the past decade, including most recently in:
    • the dismissal with prejudice of an antitrust action brought by a putative class of U.S. healthcare providers who purchased safety syringes and catheters, alleging that BD, along with several distributors and group purchasing organizations unlawfully conspired to restrain trade. Paul, Weiss previously defeated a separate suit brought against BD by two Georgia hospitals asserting similar claims regarding group purchasing organizations; and
    • defense of an antitrust lawsuit brought by competitor Retractable Technologies, Inc. (RTI) regarding RTI’s alleged exclusion from various medical device markets. Paul, Weiss defeated 11 of the 12 antitrust claims at trial and secured the dismissal of the final claim on appeal, achieving a landmark appellate victory reversing a $340 million jury verdict and rendering judgment for BD.
  • Bumble Bee Foods in defense of multidistrict litigation brought by putative classes of direct purchasers, indirect purchasers and commercial food preparers, as well as in related individual actions by large merchants, alleging a price fixing conspiracy in the U.S. packaged tuna industry.
  • Cigna, a global health insurance service company, in several antitrust matters:
    • in defense of the DOJ and several states’ antitrust challenge to its proposed $54 billion acquisition by Anthem Inc.;
    • in multidistrict litigation in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania concerning allegations that generic drug manufacturers engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to allocate customers and fix prices in violation of federal antitrust law;
    • the largest owner of Surescripts, in a lawsuit brought by the FTC, alleging that Surescripts participated in unfair trade practices related to its e-prescribing business; and
    • in connection with its participation as a third party to Aetna’s proposed $37 billion acquisition of Humana.
  • Citigroup Inc. in:
    • defense of a consolidated multidistrict litigation alleging that Citigroup and various other banks conspired in a group boycott to reduce competition in interest-rate swap trading, effectively raising prices for purchasers of the swaps; and
    • parallel regulatory investigations.
  • Deutsche Bank in multi-regulator, multi-jurisdictional inquiries concerning the setting of numerous Interbank Offered Rates (IBORs) — the largest investigations ever faced by the bank — and in 50-plus individual and class actions concerning IBOR rates in multiple currencies. Paul, Weiss negotiated coordinated resolutions of the investigations with U.S. and UK authorities, secured the dismissal of numerous private claims and negotiated resolutions in four major class actions.
  • The Dow Chemical Company, along with its corporate parent company DowDuPont, in defense of multidistrict litigation alleging that Dow, together with several other manufacturers and sellers, conspired to raise prices for the sale of chemicals primarily used in the production of polyurethane products.
  • Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) in the Relevent Sports v. USSF dispute, in which sports promoter Relevent Sports alleges the United States Soccer Federation (USSF) engaged in anticompetitive behavior by refusing to grant Relevent permission to organize a regular season professional football game, between two non-U.S. teams, in the United States.
  • Mastercard in numerous government and private antitrust actions over the past decade, including most recently in:
    • defense of consolidated multidistrict antitrust litigation comprising two putative class actions brought on behalf of every U.S. merchant that accepts Mastercard and/or Visa payment cards, as well as separate individual actions brought by nearly 100 of the largest merchants in the U.S., challenging payment card “interchange” fees and certain rules governing merchants’ acceptance of payment cards;
    • defense of three putative antitrust class actions brought on behalf of independent ATM operators and two groups of ATM consumers challenging Mastercard’s ATM access fee non-discrimination rule, which protects cardholders from being charged ATM access fees that are higher than the fees charged to cardholders using other networks; and
    • defense of a putative antitrust class action brought on behalf of U.S. merchants alleging that major payments networks, together with card-issuing banks, conspired to shift fraud costs for certain card transactions from the issuing banks onto merchants in connection with the roll-out of EMV-chip cards in the U.S.
  • Morgan Stanley & Company in defense of multidistrict litigation, including a putative class action brought on behalf of any individual that bought or sold a U.S. Treasury security for several years, alleging that 26 of the largest financial institutions rigged auctions to manipulate the pricing of U.S. Treasury securities. Paul, Weiss was selected by all 26 defendants, each separately represented by a major law firm, to serve on the defense steering committee.
  • News Corporation and its subsidiary News America Marketing (NAM) in several antitrust matters, including most recently in:
    • in defense of an antitrust action brought by competitor Valassis Communications, Inc. alleging that NAM monopolized an alleged market for third-party promotions by engaging in a variety of exclusionary practices;
    • securing the dismissal of an antitrust claim brought by competitor Valassis Communications, Inc. alleging that NAM violated a consent order resolving an earlier dispute through unlawful bundling and tying; and
    • the favorable settlement of a significant antitrust class action brought by customers of NAM’s in-store marketing products, including consumer products companies Dial, Heinz and Smithfield Foods, claiming that NAM illegally monopolized an alleged market for in-store promotional services by engaging in a variety of alleged exclusionary practices.
  • National Music Publishers’ Association (NMPA) in the settlement of a high-profile copyright infringement action against Peloton Interactive, and in the dismissal of Peloton’s countersuit alleging antitrust violations. The suits surrounded Peloton’s alleged use of the publishers’ musical works in workout videos in violation of the copyright laws.
  • Nomura Securities International, Inc. and Nomura Holdings, Inc.:
    • in securing the dismissal, along with other joint defense firms, of a consolidated class action alleging that Nomura and other major global financial institutions conspired to manipulate prices in the multitrillion-dollar global market for supranational, sub-sovereign and agency (SSA) bonds; and 
    • in a putative antitrust class action alleging that the defendant banks participated in an anticompetitive conspiracy to purchase European government bonds in the primary market and sell them at fixed prices in a secondary market.
  • SAP, a German multinational enterprise software company, in defense of an action brought by business analytics provider Teradata alleging that SAP misappropriated trade secrets and infringed copyrights, in addition to alleging violations of the Sherman Act, related to SAP's product, HANA.
  • Several major quick-service restaurant and other franchisors in the successful settlement of multiple antitrust investigations brought by the Washington State Attorney General regarding the franchisors’ use of employee non-solicitation and “no-poach” provisions in their franchise agreements. Paul, Weiss also represents several of these franchisors in related antitrust class actions regarding the use of "no-poach" provisions.
  • Uber Technologies in securing a victory in a high-profile, long-running action brought on behalf of users of Uber’s ride-hailing app, challenging the legality of Uber’s business model under the Sherman Act and seeking a nationwide injunction against surge pricing. In his complaint filed in the SDNY, a customer alleged that the Uber app constituted an illegal agreement between Uber and drivers to coordinate high surge-pricing fares to charge prices set by an algorithm in the app.
  • Zuffa LLC, the promoter of the Ultimate Fighting Championship, in a high-stakes, high-profile antitrust suit filed in 2014 in the District of Nevada by a proposed class of mixed martial arts fighters alleging that the organization pushed out rival promoters and intentionally kept compensation low. 

CARTEL

  • Nippon Chemi-Con (NCC), a Japan-based electronic components manufacturer, and its U.S.-based subsidiary United Chemi-Con, in defense of multidistrict litigation comprised of two class actions brought by direct and indirect purchasers, as well as in several opt-out suits, alleging price fixing in the market for aluminum electrolytic, tantalum electrolytic, and film capacitors. Paul, Weiss also represented NCC in a DOJ Grand Jury investigation as well as in an investigation and resulting Statement of Objections from the European Commission regarding similar claims.
  • A manufacturer of compact construction, agricultural and maintenance equipment in a criminal antitrust and civil False Claims Act (FCA) investigation by the DOJ and the General Services Administration’s Office of Inspector General.
  • A U.S. holding company and its subsidiary in a criminal antitrust investigation and private litigation concerning the cement and ready mix concrete markets in the southeast United States.
  • An international placement agency in a criminal antitrust investigation.
  • A major international beverage manufacturer regarding a criminal antitrust investigation relating to a potential no-poach/non-solicit agreement.
  • A major security industry company in a criminal antitrust investigation. The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating allegations of potential bid rigging and we are providing advice to the client’s counsel regarding the DOJ’s ongoing investigation.
  • A multinational insurance company in an internal criminal antitrust investigation into its U.S. insurance operations. This internal investigation stemmed from an investigation by a European regulatory agency into suspected anticompetitive conduct by insurance brokers in the European market.
  • A major U.S.-based insurance company in connection with a criminal antitrust investigation by an inspector general into potential bid rigging and price fixing in the market for certain insurance services products.

MERGER CLEARANCE

  • ADT Inc. as corporate and antitrust counsel in a $450 million investment from Google in connection with the companies’ establishment of a long-term commercial partnership to create the next generation of smart home security offerings.
  • Anheuser-Busch InBev in connection with antitrust aspects of its proposed acquisition of Craft Brew Alliance, a publicly traded U.S.-based beer brewing company.
  • CDK Global, Inc., a supplier of dealer management software used by car dealerships, in its acquisition of ELEAD1ONE, a leading provider of fully integrated CRM software solutions to automotive dealers.
  • Cigna, a global health insurance service company, as lead antitrust counsel in numerous matters, including in:
    • its proposed $54 billion acquisition by Anthem Health and in subsequent suits from the DOJ and several states seeking to enjoin the merger; 
    • the regulatory clearance of its $67 billion acquisition of pharmacy benefits manager Express Scripts; and
    • the regulatory clearance of its $6.3 billion sale of its group life and disability insurance business to New York Life.
  • Elanco Animal Health Incorporated, a Indiana-based animal health company that develops products and knowledge services to prevent and treat disease in food animals and pets, in its $7.6 billion acquisition of the animal health business of Bayer AG, a German-based enterprise with core competencies in the life science fields of health care and nutrition.
  • Farelogix, an information technology company that connects travel agencies directly with airlines and travel services, as lead antitrust counsel in connection with the DOJ’s investigation and subsequent civil antitrust lawsuit seeking to block its proposed acquisition by Sabre, a leading global travel distribution intermediary between ticket agents and airlines and travel services, alleging that the merger would eliminate competition for booking services in the online and traditional travel agency markets. Following a two-week bench trial in federal court, the court issued an opinion in favor of Farelogix, ruling that the DOJ did not establish harm to competition on both sides of the two-sided market.
  • The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company as antitrust counsel before the FTC in connection with its joint venture with Bridgestone Corporation to combine their U.S. wholesale tire distribution businesses to create TireHub.
  • KPS Capital Partners and its portfolio companies as antitrust counsel in a variety of transactions, including:
    • in its sale of the attachment business segment of International Equipment Solutions to Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., which included coordinated merger filings in the U.S. and Brazil; and
    • counsel in the sale of Crenlo Cab Products, LLC, a Minnesota-based independent manufacturer of operator cabs, locomotive sub-assemblies, electronic enclosures and other complex fabrications in North America and South America, to Angeles Equity Partners, LLC.
  • Kraft Heinz Company in the $3.2 billion sale of its natural and cultured cheese businesses to Groupe Lactalis, a French multinational dairy products corporation.
  • Mastercard in the DOJ Antitrust Division’s review of Mastercard’s nearly $1 billion proposed acquisition of Finicity, Inc., a fintech company that aggregates data from consumers’ bank accounts.
  • Mitsubishi Chemical Corporation in connection with its acquisition of a U.S. chemical manufacturer, including the CFIUS case and obtaining and/or coordinating antitrust approvals in North America and Europe. 
  • The Nielsen Company, a leading U.S. provider of television audience measurement services, as lead antitrust counsel in connection with the FTC’s second request investigation of its $1.3 billion acquisition of Arbitron, a U.S. leader in radio audience measurement services.
  • Oak Hill Capital as corporate and antitrust counsel in connection with its investment, alongside Riverside Partners, in Calero Software, a technology expense management software provider, to finance Calero’s merger with MDSL, an expense management platform.
  • Refinitiv, a leading financial information provider, in the clearance aspects for its $27 billion sale from Blackstone and Thomson Reuters to the London Stock Exchange.
  • Teladoc Health, Inc., the global leader in virtual healthcare with 70 million customers in the U.S. alone, in its $18.5 billion acquisition of Livongo Health, Inc., the leading provider of technology to remotely monitor chronic conditions such as diabetes.
  • The Medicines Company in its all-cash $9.7 billion sale to Swiss pharmaceutical giant Novartis AG, via Novartis’s indirect subsidiary, Medusa Merger Corporation.
  • Uber Technologies in the DOJ Antitrust Division’s review of its $2.65 billion acquisition of Postmates.

© 2021 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

Privacy Policy