ABA Section of Antitrust Law International Committee March 2015 ...
1 April 2005 In-House Counsel Antitrust Update ABA Section of Antitrust Law Corporate Counseling...
-
Upload
lenard-mills -
Category
Documents
-
view
214 -
download
1
Transcript of 1 April 2005 In-House Counsel Antitrust Update ABA Section of Antitrust Law Corporate Counseling...
1
April 2005 In-House Counsel
Antitrust Update
ABA Section of Antitrust LawCorporate Counseling Committee
3
Substantial Compliance
• FTC v. Blockbuster No. 05-463. On March 4, FTC filed a complaint and motion for temporary restraining order against Blockbuster to block consummation of its proposed merger with Hollywood Video
• FTC alleged that Blockbuster failed to substantially comply with the Second Request issued by the FTC
4
FTC v. Blockbuster, No. 05-463
• FTC alleged Blockbuster’s response to Second Request was incomplete and inaccurate:– Approximately 60,000 of 120,000 data
points related to rental fees were incorrect
– Failed to provide data regarding late fees for over 4,000 out of a total of 4,600 stores
5
FTC v. Blockbuster, No. 05-463
• FTC alleged that needed these data for its economic analysis
• FTC notified Blockbuster of alleged deficiency in two letters and stated that statutory waiting period of 30 days (16 C.F.R. § 803.10(b)(2)(i)) had not begun to run
6
FTC v. Blockbuster, No. 05-463
• Blockbuster contended that any deficiencies were insufficient to give rise to finding of failure to substantially comply with the Second Request
• Blockbuster continued to assert that its initial certification was sufficient and that it intended to close the transaction as early as March 7
7
FTC v. Blockbuster, No. 05-463
• On March 9, FTC and Blockbuster agreed that Blockbuster would not consummate any transaction with Hollywood Video before March 21
• Ultimately, Blockbuster abandoned transaction, in part because of “the unlikely resolution of our request for regulatory clearance on an acceptable timetable”
8
Remedy of Divestiture
• In the Matter of Cytec Industries Inc., Dkt. C-4132, on March 1, FTC and Cytec entered a consent decree relating to Cytec’s acquisition of UCB Surface Specialties division
• Consent decree required Cytec to divest UCB’s Amino Resins Business, including two manufacturing facilities
9
In the Matter of Cytec Industries Inc., Dkt. C-
4132• Consent decree allowed Cytec
to close acquisition without having completed anticipated divestiture
• Provides Cytec 180 days to divest business at issue
10
HSR - Unincorporated Entities
• New HSR rules regarding unincorporated entities took effect April 7, 2005
• New instructions and HSR Notification and Report Form available on FTC website http://www.ftc.gov/bc/hsr/hsr.htm
11
Merger Process Reform
• On March 28, FTC Chairman Deborah Majoras gave presentation on state of the FTC
• She included a section discussing merger process reform
12
Merger Process Reform
• Marian Bruno, Assistant Director, Premerger Notification Office, will lead task force of FTC attorneys and economists to recommended ways to improve FTC merger review process
• Chairman Majoras invited “everyone’s creative input and cooperation in this effort”
13
Merger Process Reform
• FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division will hold joint retreat among their competition managers
• The retreat is intended to address best practices
14
Merger Guidelines Commentary
• Chairman Majoras also announced task force to develop Commentary on the Merger Guidelines
• Jeff Brennan, Associate Director, Bureau of Competition, will lead task force, which will include staff from both the FTC and the Antitrust Division
15
EC Competition Law
• Neelie Kroes, European Competition Commissioner, made several speeches over past two months regarding her views on European competition policy
• She emphasized that recent modernization has provided Commission with ability to actively look into out areas of particular concern
16
EC Competition Law
• Sector Inquiries– Commissioner Kroes announced new
investigations into financial services and energy sectors
• “Changing hearts and minds”– The Commission “need[s] to begin changing
general perception of the competition rules”– Explain why competition is good for
consumers
17
European Private Enforcement
• Commissioner Kroes encouraged increased private enforcement in Europe and reported that Commission will present a Green Paper setting out options for improving the current system by the end of the year
• France just began work on legislation to allow U.S.-style class actions
19
Criminal Developments
• Plea Agreement:
– On April 21, Hyhix Semiconductor Inc., Korean manufacturer of dynamic random access memory (DRAM), agreed to plead guilty in federal court in San Francisco to felony charge of conspiring to fix prices in DRAM market
– DRAM is most prevalent semiconductor memory product and provides high speed electronic storage and retrieval capabilities in variety of computer, telecommunication, and electronic products
20
Criminal Developments
• Hyhix agreed to pay $185 million fine
– Third largest criminal antitrust fine in U.S. history
– Largest fine in five years
21
Criminal Developments
• DOJ’s ongoing price fixing investigation in the DRAM industry has resulted in aggregate fines of over $346 million
22
Criminal Developments
• Hyhix is second major semiconductor company after German manufacturer Infineon Technologies AG to plead guilty
– four Infineon executives serving prison terms
– three of those executives are German citizens
23
Criminal Developments
• DRAM investigation highlights international scope of cartel investigators and DOJ’s continued success in obtaining jail terms for foreign citizens
24
Criminal Developments
• Stolt-Nielsen v. United States, 352 F. Supp. 2d 553 (E.D. Pa. 2005)
– Stolt provides transportation of bulk liquids in parcel tanker ships
– Stolt filed civil action to enforce its rights under immunity agreement in DOJ’s corporate leniency program
25
Criminal Developments
– From August 1998 into 2002, Stolt had express agreements with its competitors to allocate customers
– Stolt’s in-house counsel had raised antitrust concerns in early 2002 and subsequently resigned in March of that year; later filed constructive discharge suit
– In December 2002 Stolt’s counsel met with DOJ who warned that if in-house counsel was fired for exposing antitrust violations, Stolt would not be admitted into amnesty program
26
Criminal Developments
– Stolt was first company to approach DOJ regarding amnesty
– Stolt claimed it had heeded in-house counsel’s warnings and circumstances of resignation were not related to allocation scheme
– corporate leniency letter agreement signed January 15, 2003, did not specify date of discovery of anticompetitive activity
27
Criminal Developments
• Based on cooperation by Stolt, DOJ obtained guilty pleas from Odfjell and Jo Tankers; companies, in the aggregate, paid fines in excess of $60 million
• On March 2, 2004, DOJ notified Stolt it was revoking agreement and revoking amnesty claiming Stolt’s participation in conspiracy continued until November 2002
28
Criminal Developments
• Court held Stolt did not breach agreement
– Agreement did not specify March 2002 as date of discovery
– Government “got what it had bargained for” – successful prosecution of other conspiracy members and break-up of cartel
30
Legislative Criminal Developments
• Senate Judiciary Committee reported bill (S.555) on April 14 to allow federal antitrust enforcers to remove any antitrust exemption from challenging collusive practices in price setting of petroleum products by OPEC members
31
Legislative Criminal Developments
• NOPEC Act response to continuing increase of gasoline and fuel prices
– designed to reverse series of federal cases holding OPEC’s price fixing activities governmental acts protected by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
32
Legislative Criminal Developments
• On February 17, 2005, Senate Introduced S. 443 – “Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of 2005”– Would permit wire-tapping for
criminal violations of Sherman Act
33
Criminal Developments
• March 30 address by Deputy Assistant Attorney Scott Hammond:– Effect of U.S. v. Booker would be limited on
Antitrust Division’s sentencing practices– DOJ will continue oppose guidelines
adjustments and departures not supported by facts or law
– Cautioned that “the risks remain high for non-cooperating defendants”
34
Legislative Criminal Developments
– Deputy Assistant Attorney Scott Hammond testified before the U.S. Sentencing Commission on April 12, regarding the proposed 2005 amendments to §2R1.1
– Proposed amendments would implement increased Sherman Act maximum terms of imprisonment enacted as part of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004
35
Legislative Criminal Developments
• Proposed Amendments:
– Increase base offense level in §2R1.1(a) from 10 to 13
– Adjust volume of commerce table in §2R1.1(b)(2) upward reflecting increased levels of international conspiracy cases
36
Legislative Criminal Developments
• Proposed amendments would bring antitrust sentences into line with other white-collar offenses carrying similar statutory penalties
37
European Criminal Developments
• Commissioner Kroes in March 10 speech to International Bar Association reported:
– Commission planning to institute new Directorate devoted exclusively to cartel enforcement
38
European Criminal Developments
• EC’s leniency program resulted in 49 applications for leniency in 25 different cases during 2004
• Leniency programs now in place in 17 member states; considering ways to facilitate leniency filings within multiple EU member states
40
Robinson-Patman Developments
• Reeder-Simco GMC, Inc. v. Volvo GM Heavy Truck Group, 374 F.3d 701 (8th Cir. 2004)
– §2(a) discrimination claim brought by Arkansas truck dealer
– Competitive bidding process in truck industry
41
Robinson Patman Developments
• Plaintiff contended Volvo refused to grant it concessions available to other dealers– One instance where plaintiff claimed to have
received smaller price concession than competing dealer selling to same end-user
– Sales where plaintiff won the bid but received smaller concession than given to other dealers in connection with sales to different end-users
– Unsuccessful bids when competing with non-Volvo dealers
42
Robinson Patman Developments
• Volvo argued:
– Unsuccessful bidder can not qualify as purchaser under the Act
– Failure to show reasonable possibility of competitive injury where no proof that lower concessions granted to other dealers resulted in lost sales to plaintiff
43
Robinson Patman Developments
• 8th Circuit affirmed jury verdict for dealer holding:
– Fact that dealer was successful bidder in some other instance sufficient to grant purchaser status to an otherwise unsuccessful bidder
– Plaintiff put forth sufficient evidence for jury to conclude its lost profits and sales were result of Volvo’s discriminatory price concessions
44
Robinson Patman Developments
• Volvo raised following issues in its petition for certiorari:
– Whether an unaccepted offer that does not lead to a purchase can be the basis for liability under the Act?
– Whether the Act allows for recovery of damages by a disfavored purchaser that loses sales or profits to a competitor that does not purchase from the defendant, but does not lose sales or profits to any purchasers actually receiving the benefit of defendant’s discriminatory prices?
45
Robinson Patman Developments
• Supreme Court granted certiorari on March 7, 2005
– First RP case Court has taken since Brooke Group in 1993
47
Bradburn Parent Teacher Store, Inc. v.
3M (E.D. Pa.)• Private plaintiff brought class action
against 3M on heels of Third Circuit’s decision in LePage’s v. 3M
• Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on their monopolization claim
• Court denied summary judgment, but found that certain facts were established by collateral estoppel as result of LePage’s case
48
Bradburn Parent Teacher Store, Inc. v.
3M (E.D. Pa.)•Court held
– relevant market was invisible and transparent tape for home and office use;
– 3M possessed monopoly power in relevant market;
– 3M willfully maintained its monopoly power; and
– 3M’s conduct harmed competition
49
Bradburn Parent Teacher Store, Inc. v.
3M (E.D. Pa.)•Court declined to find
liability, however, because plaintiffs had not demonstrated antitrust injury, necessary element of all § 2 claims
50
Verizon Communications v.
Trinko• In the year since Verizon
Communications v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004), was decided by Supreme Court, lower federal courts have consistently interpreted it to limit plaintiffs’ monopolization claims
• Two recent decisions continue that trend
51
Covad v. Bell Atlantic
• On March 1, D.C. Circuit upheld dismissal of Covad’s claims against Bell Atlantic
• The Court upheld dismissal of Covad’s refusal to cooperate and price squeeze claims because they are barred by Trinko.
52
Covad v. Bell Atlantic
• To survive a refusal to cooperate claim must allege either:– “that the defendant had previously
‘engaged in a course of dealing with its rivals” or
– that it “’would ever have done so absent statutory compulsion’”
• Here, Covad made neither allegation
53
Covad v. Bell Atlantic
• Price squeeze claims cannot survive where there is no duty to deal under the antitrust laws
• Thus, because Bell Atlantic’s duty to deal arose out of Telecommunications Act of 1996, and not antitrust laws, the price squeeze claim was properly dismissed
54
Covad v. Bell Atlantic
• D.C. Circuit also upheld dismissal of Covad’s false pre-announcement claim and its claim against Bell Atlantic for prosecuting baseless and bad faith patent suit
55
Covad v. Bell Atlantic
• Finally, court reversed dismissal of Covad’s refusal to deal claim
• Court held that Covad could succeed on this claim if it showed that “refusal to deal reflected [Bell Atlantic’s] willingness to sacrifice immediate profits . . . in the hope of driving Covad out of the market . . . .”
56
Greco v. Verizon Communications
(S.D.N.Y.)• Putative class claim against
Verizon for tying its local telephone service to DSL service dismissed because it was barred by Trinko
• Deciding case would insert court into the role of regulator, a step court was unwilling to take
57
Greco v. Verizon Communications
(S.D.N.Y.)• This was inappropriate according to
the court because:– It “runs a substantial risk of skewing
investment incentives: the constantly changing competitive landscape makes it very difficult for a court to set a reasonable price for services;”
– Determining “the optimal configuration of services and prices” requires the court to act as a “central planner;” and
– “[R]emediation would require ‘continuing supervision of a highly detailed decree.’”
58
State News – Conspiracy Litigation
• Indirect Purchaser Class Actions
– In Romero v. Philip Morris Inc. (N.M. Ct. App. No. 24,034), the New Mexico Court of Appeals held antitrust injury to class members can be established based on generalized methodologies
– No need for precise calculation of damages on an individual basis
59
State News – Conspiracy Litigation
– Court found that proof of class wide injury presented was sufficient to grant certification
– Reach of decision and others like may be limited with enactment of Class Action Fairness Act
60
State News – Conspiracy Litigation
– Decision upholds certification of class of consumers seeking to recover overcharges for alleged price fixing conspiracy among tobacco manufacturers during seven year period
– Plaintiffs’ expert estimated dollar amount New Mexico consumers were damaged based upon publicly available sales and market data and concluded that the aggregate damages could be apportioned to class members based upon their smoking habits
61
Schering-Plough v. FTC,No. 04-10688
• Patent infringement lawsuit settlement agreements, in which a generic manufacturer either:
1. Receives anything of value; and2. Agrees to suspend research
development, manufacture, marketing, or sales of its product for any period of time.
62
Schering-Plough v. FTC,No. 04-10688
• Hatch-Waxman Act– ANDA applicant submitting Paragraph IV
certification must notify patent holder that it made certification
– Section 271(e)(2) of the Act permits patent holder to challenge ANDA application before patent expires
– Patent holder has 45 days to bring suit for infringement and FDA approval of ANDA is delayed 30 months
63
Schering-Plough v. FTC,No. 04-10688
• Hatch-Waxman Act – Cont’d– If court finds patent is invalid or not infringed, the
30-month delay ends– If court finds patent valid and infringed, approval
date is set for on or after patent’s expiration date– When listed drug is subject to more than 1
Paragraph IV certification, approval of any of ANDAs is delayed until 180 days from earlier of first commercial marketing of drug under earlier application or date court determines that patent held by earlier applicant is either invalid or not infringed
64
Schering-Plough v. FTC,No. 04-10688
• Upsher Settlement - 1997– generic competitor agreed not to enter the
market until 2001 – Schering received licenses to market five
unrelated Upsher products– Schering to pay $60 million initial royalty
plus milestone payments and royalties on sales
65
Schering-Plough v. FTC,No. 04-10688
• ESI Settlement - 1998– second potential generic competitor agreed
not to enter the market until 2004 – Schering paid $15 million for license to
market 2 ESI products – Schering also agreed to pay $5
million in legal fees and $10 million contingent on ESI’s FDA approval
66
Schering-Plough v. FTC,No. 04-10688
• In April 2001, FTC charged Schering had monopolized market for oral potassium chloride supplements and engaged in unlawful restraints of trade in that market through Upsher and ESI settlements
67
Schering-Plough v. FTC,No. 04-10688
• ALJ findings– ALJ found that Upsher payment was bona fide
product license payment, not to delay generic – ALJ found that there was insufficient evidence to
show that ESI payment was for the purpose of delaying ESI’s entry
– ALJ also reasoned that Complaint Counsel was entitled to no presumption that Schering’s patent was invalid or that Upsher or ESI was not infringing the patent
– Lawful settlements of legitimate patent lawsuits
68
Schering-Plough v. FTC,No. 04-10688
• Commission’s Opinions– Reversed ALJ decision– Focused on entry dates absent
payments– Payments to Upsher and ESI were not
legitimate license payments• Standard of Review for
Administrative Agency decisions– Substantial evidence standard
69
Schering-Plough v. FTC,No. 04-10688
• ALJ and Commission both applied rule of reason
• Based on Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharms., 344 F.3d 1294 (11th Cir. 2003), court rejected application of per se and rule of reason analysis
• Both approaches “ill-suited” for patent cases because seek whether conduct has anticompetitive effect, and, patents, by “nature, . . . create an environment of exclusion”
70
Schering-Plough v. FTC,No. 04-10688
• Court concluded:– Upsher settlement payment was an “up-
front royalty” – Commission finding that Upsher license
worth nothing overlooked nature of pharmaceutical industry
– Commission’s characterization of ESI settlement payments ignored nature of prolonged litigation process
– Payments to settle patent disputes are not inappropriate
71
Schering-Plough v. FTC,No. 04-10688
• Restraints are ancillary • Objectives of patent
settlements were efficiency-enhancing
• Public Policy– Benefits of settlement of patent
infringement litigation
72
Independent Ink, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
• Federal Circuit considered tying claim based on defendant printer-head manufacturer’s requirement that computer printer manufacturers use only ink manufactured by the defendant– Patented product – ink jet device for
printing bar codes– Unpatented product – ink
73
Independent Ink, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
• Antitrust consequences of patent tying governed by Federal Circuit law, as are antitrust claims based on patent procurement or enforcement
• market definition and whether market power exists remain the purview of regional circuit courts
74
Independent Ink, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
• Patent and copyright tying, unlike other tying cases, do not require an affirmative demonstration of market power
• Patent presumptively defines the relevant market as the nationwide market for the patented product itself and creates a rebuttable presumption of market power
75
Independent Ink, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.
• Defendant can rebut presumption in Section 1 claim
• In Section 2 claim, plaintiff bears burden of defining market and proving defendant’s power in market
76
Presenters
• Marc Machlin has extensive antitrust counseling and litigation experience, particularly with respect to regulated industries
• Barbara Mather, chair of Pepper’s Litigation Department, has extensive experience in Section 1 and Section 2 litigation and defending government investigations
77
Presenters
• Larry Shiekman is an experienced litigator of Section 1 and 2 cases as well as handling government investigations
• Barbara Sicalides, head of the Commercial Litigation Group’s Antitrust Section, focuses her practice on antitrust litigation and counseling, mergers, compliance programs, government investigations and distribution disputes
78
Contact Information
Marc D. Machlin Laurence Z. Shiekman
[email protected] [email protected]
202.220.1200 215.981.4347
Barbara W. Mather Barbara [email protected]
[email protected] 215.981.4783