Antitrust and Unfair Competition


The practice of antitrust has evolved significantly since its inception in the 19th Century. In the 20th Century, trusts were the desired corporate structure to organize businesses. The breakup that was ordered in the Standard Oil and American Tobacco cases of 1911 reflected this newly established legislative effort. "Cartels, horizontal mergers of monopolistic proportions and predatory business tactics" were identified as problems to be solved, as the late Judge Robert H. Bork pointed out in The Antitrust Paradox. Trust Busters were complementary words.  So in order to break up these trusts, the Sherman Act was enacted in 1890 and the concept of "anti-trust" was enshrined in our laws. Today, the antitrust laws while still concerned with consumer welfare have been widely viewed as the very foundation of our charter of economic rights.  As the Sherman Act states, the Act is intended as a "comprehensive charter of economic liberty aimed at preserving free and unfettered competition as the rule of trade."


Antitrust now informs most every decision of businesses, whether start ups or Fortune 100 companies. Anderson Kill’s attorneys have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of well-known civil cases, including class actions seeking treble damages  and injunctive relief under federal and state antitrust laws. The firm’s depth and experience in defending large scale private antitrust class actions includes its extensive experience with respect to class certification issues and its involvement in multidistrict litigation. Over the last 25 years the firm’s expertise has been evidenced by its representations in the following cases: 

1.  A major telecommunications carrier in litigations alleging tying and conspiracies to impair competition. 2003-2 Trade Cases, para 74, 133 (SDNY 2003); 385 F. Supp. 2d 403 (SDNY 2005); 238 F.R.D. 130 (SDNY 2006).  In Re Wireless Telephone Services Litigation. Representation of a national wireless provider in treble damage actions alleging tying conspiracy and monopolization in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Summary Judgment was granted in favor of the defendants.

2.    Representation of companies and individuals in grand jury investigations, indictments and multiple civil litigations. Represented Korean defendants in the Landmark ADM private treble damage, civil and criminal conspiracy litigations.  In Re Amino Lysine Antitrust Litigation, MDL  No. 1083, C.A. No. 95 C 7679 (ND Ill.; U.S. v, Ajinomoto Co., Criminal No. 96-CR-00520 (ND Ill.).

3.    Japanese Auto Parts Investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Criminal Enforcement Section (2012-2016). Price fixing and bid rigging in the largest criminal, antitrust investigation in the history of the Antitrust Division. Represented the US, Canadian and Mexican CEO and President of a Japanese auto parts subsidiary, who was targeted for indictment. The investigation involved allegations that the company participated in a conspiracy with competitors to fix prices and rig bids for auto parts sold in the U.S. The Plea Agreement and Judgment are public documents. A “carve in status” was secured for the client resulting in his non-prosecution and a grant of immunity. Twenty-six Japanese Executives had received jail sentences as a result of the Japanese Auto Parts Investigation, the largest investigation in the history of U.S. Department of Justice. Over $2.4 billion in criminal, antitrust fines have been secured against all of the auto parts manufacturers since 2013.

4.    Darush v. Revision and Lovely Skin. U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Judge Gary Feess) (2014). Represented the defendant, Lovely Skin, in a price fixing claim under California’s Antitrust statute, the Cartwright Act. The Court granted defendants  Motion to Dismiss. As plaintiff was given a right to replead, the case was settled for a nominal amount.

5.    Genesis Corp. v. Solomon-Page (2011-2012). Actions in the New York State Supreme Court and U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York involving a business dispute between competitors. Claims under the Lanham Act and in contract and tort. Case was amicably settled.

6.    In Re Polyurethane Antitrust Litigation (MDL Docket N. 2196). U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio (2010) (Judge Jack Zouhary). Represented Defendant, Hickory Springs Manufacturing Co. in a price fixing and allocation of customer case: two class actions involving direct and indirect plaintiffs, along with opt out plaintiffs.

7.    Acquisition of Dialysis Corp of America by US Renal Care (2010). Represented Dialysis Corp. in a $120 million transaction, which was approved by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission within 20 days.

8.    Macquarie Group Ltd. v. Pacific Corp. Group, LLC, 2009 WL 539928 (2009), U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (Chief Judge Irma Gonzalez). Defended Macquarie’s Chairman, CEO and the five most senior executives in a business dispute with a former joint venture partner. Plaintiffs asserted claims for $100 million but after Defendant’s four counterclaims survived the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, the parties settled for a nominal amount. The case involved actions in both California federal and state courts. 

9.    Mountain West Football Conference (2009). Presented testimony to the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the antitrust violations of College football structure, the BCS, Bowl Championship Series. 

10.    The Book Exchange v. Barnes & Noble College Booksellers, In the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, West Virginia (2008). Defended Barnes & Noble Booksellers in a price fixing and a consumer protection case in West Virginia State Court that resulted in our Motion to Dismiss being granted with prejudice.

11.    Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC et al v. Glen Billing, U.S. Supreme Court (2007). Submitted an Amicus Curiae Brief in support of Petitioner for W.R. Hambrecht & Co., LLC arguing for antitrust immunity for permissible underwriting conduct. The U.S. Supreme Court held in support of a grant of antitrust immunity for underwriting activities.

12.    Acquisition of Tyco Toys by Mattel Toys (1997).  Represented Tyco Toys in a $1 billion transaction by Mattel Toys, which was approved by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission after clearing a Second Request.



Since the antitrust laws play such an important role in every aspect of a firm’s domestic or international business, our antitrust group works closely with clients to maximize their competitiveness in the real world without running afoul of the antitrust laws. Our ability to counsel clients effectively is enhanced by our familiarity with current governmental practices,  policies and decisions issued by the federal and state courts. Our firm’s expertise enables it to counsel clients on a wide range of commercial matters potentially raising antitrust concerns, including competitor relations, supplier, customer or dealer relationships and terminations, refusals to deal/group boycotts, tying arrangements, marketing plans or pricing policies, acquisitions and mergers, joint ventures, franchising research and development, trade associations, licensing and regulatory compliance, including Hart-Scott-Rodino filings with the FTC or DOJ.  The use of trained paralegals and sophisticated data and document maintenance and retrieval programs enables the firm to provide its antitrust compliance and litigation services in a cost-effective and efficient manner. 

Our Mission is to provide our clients with the advice to enable them to avoid exposure to liability under the antitrust laws and, if necessary to provide the required litigation skills as effectively and efficiently as possible.