Antitrust

Saul Ewing Arnstein & Lehr attorneys have represented the following clients in these select antitrust matters:

• An insurance broker accused in Florida state court of attempting to monopolize the market for reinsurance broking through its use of restrictive covenants.
• A life sciences services provider in the successful outcome of an antitrust claim brought by a generic pharmaceutical company alleging that our client illegally conspired with its branded pharmaceutical supplier to monopolize the market for a kidney stones drug.
• A chemical company in connection with multi-district antitrust litigation, which has been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and in related state-court cases pending in Illinois and Virginia.
• A pet food company in recovery of damages in an international price-fixing case in a Washington, D.C. court.
• A manufacturer in defeating antitrust claims brought by a distributor of industrial pumps against it in a California district court alleging wide-spread antitrust conspiracy in connection with a new form of a distribution agreement and other market activities, helping the client not only defeat the litigation but obtain the distributor’s signature on the new distribution contract.
• A car rental provider in a class action in Illinois alleging deceptive advertising and violations of consumer fraud act.
• Stockholders in a beer, wine and spirits distribution company in the sale of their remaining 89 percent of common stock to several trusts owned by the principals of another beverage distribution company, which included advising on Hard-Scot Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act matters.
• A technology company when it was served with a non-party document subpoena as part of a federal antitrust suit in the Southern District of Florida. The subpoena related to the company’s sales of electronic article surveillance (EAS) security tags in the U.S. retail market and sought a significant amount of its sales information, including proprietary and confidential business records. After two hearings, a magistrate judge denied a motion to compel, ruling that the client had complied in good faith with the subpoena and that the request for the confidential materials was irrelevant and disproportionate to the needs of the case.. The district court later affirmed the magistrate judge’s decision denying the motion to compel.
• A NASDAQ-listed company that manufactures and supplies casino table game equipment in the successful negotiation and execution of a merger agreement to sell 100 percent of the company for $110 million in a going-private transaction to a large Japanese gaming supplies manufacturing group. Our team successfully addressed a variety of deal complexities, including antitrust issues.
• A contact center services company as co-counsel in its sale to an investment firm, which included advising on antitrust matters.
• A Canadian public cannabis company that operates a number of cannabis assets throughout the U.S. in its acquisition of a medical cannabis grower and a medical cannabis processor based in the U.S. Our team advised on multiple areas of deal complexities, including helping to ensure antitrust compliance with the supply agreements being negotiated as part of the deal.