Our Antitrust & Trade Regulation lawyers take pride in having expansive knowledge and extensive experience handling the full range of antitrust challenges facing businesses in today’s highly competitive and changing landscape.
We regularly represent clients in criminal antitrust matters (investigations and trials), class-action antitrust lawsuits, actions brought by customers and suppliers, actions by or against competitors, and monopolization cases. We have significant experience litigating the full range of antitrust claims, including price fixing, bid-rigging, vertical restraints, and price discrimination, on both the plaintiff and defense sides.
Our lawyers advise on the competitive and antitrust impact of proposed corporate transactions. We help clients engaged in mergers and acquisitions with analysis of the potential competitive impacts of the proposed transactions, and we assist them in navigating obstacles presented by competition agencies when transactions are challenged. The lawyers in our practice have industry-leading experience in the often difficult analysis required for preparing and filing Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (HSR Act) notifications with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and the team counsels on the application of the HSR Act and compliance with its provisions.
While we are capable of litigating and trying even the most complex antitrust cases, we recognize that our role is to serve our clients’ business strategies and goals and that settlement can be — and often is — the best option. Working with each client at the outset of a matter, we help the client assess the likely value of the matter and, based on that calculation, determine the best strategy to effectively and efficiently resolve the matter. Some matters are “bet the company” situations and justify large expenditures of time and money, and some are not; it is always in our clients’ best interest to make that determination up front and proceed accordingly.
Our lawyers immerse themselves in our clients’ businesses and industries to better understand clients’ goals, operations, market positions, and competition, and to better tailor clients’ business strategies and conduct to comply with antitrust laws. We regularly counsel clients concerning the antitrust implications of a wide range of business practices, such as distribution policies and programs, pricing policies, trade associations, information exchanges, and issues that regularly impact companies with large market shares.
We also work closely with our clients’ compliance officers to ensure that their companies adhere to the law while at the same time avoiding excessive measures that could prevent them from using legitimate instruments of competition. We have designed and executed corporate antitrust compliance programs, including awareness presentations, antitrust trainings, and full antitrust audits for corporations and organizations from different industries, including consumer products, energy, electricity, gas, electronic appliances, chemicals, and health care.
CNN quotes Jeffrey Blumenfeld in an article noting that the outcome of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) appeal of the lower court’s decision permitting AT&T’s $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner will depend on the views of the judges on the panel. The DOJ will have a more difficult time winning if the judges are skeptical of government intervention in business matters, which is often the case with more conservative judges Blumenfeld states, but may find a court more sympathetic to its arguments against the merger if the judges on the panel are less skeptical of such intervention.
Wired, the Riverdale Standard, and LNR quote Jeffrey Blumenfeld in an article profiling Incompas CEO Charles Pickering and his support of net neutrality. Blumenfeld notes that, after the government forced AT&T to break into several smaller carriers (Baby Bells), Incompas (then called Comptel) played a key role in the telecom industry during post-breakup litigation over what the Bell companies could—and could not—do under the court decree that broke up the AT&T monopoly.
The Hill, The Washington Post, the Houston Chronicle, and theEast Bay Times quote Jeffrey Blumenfeldin an article reporting that the U.S. Department of Justice has invited attorneys general from some states, but not other important state attorneys general such as those from New York, California, Connecticut, and Washington – where the attorneys general are Democrats – to participate in a meeting in Washington, D.C., to assess whether tech companies such as Twitter, Facebook, and Google are hurting competition by deliberately stifling certain types of speech. Blumenfeld notes he does not know of a time when the DOJ selectively invited some but not others when issuing invitations to coordinate investigations.(subscription required to access certain content)
Bloomberg Law – Big Law Business, The Washington Post (July 12, 2018; July 19, 2018), CNBC’s “Squawk Alley,” Law360, and Mobile World Live cover Jeffrey Blumenfeld’s perspective on the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) appeal of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s decision permitting AT&T’s $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner. Blumenfeld’s observations include noting that: The appeal may cause companies to pause on plans for industry vertical mergers pending the case’s outcome; the appeal shows the DOJ wants clarity on the AT&T/Time Warner merger and similar transactions and that the DOJ’s action means pending and future deals may come under increased scrutiny; the district court judge “simply credited everything that AT&T said and discounted almost everything the government said”; an appellate defeat could hinder “efforts to challenge similar vertical deals the future”; the appellate court might apply a burden of proof standard that the DOJ may have difficulty meeting in later cases; and, even if the DOJ loses, it could sue in the future to break up the merged entity if there were evidence of negative market impact or if, at a later date, there were evidence of anticompetitive conduct. (subscription required to access certain content)
The Washington Postquotes Jeffrey Blumenfeld in an article discussing the implications of the Supreme Court’s decision to leave in place a ruling that allows American Express to enact “anti- steering provisions” on merchants who accept its credit cards. Blumenfeld notes that, since this decision will not change how American Express interacts with merchants, it’s an open question whether it will have an effect on merchants’ pricing.
Law360 quotesJeffrey Blumenfeld in an article discussing the antitrust enforcement implications of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s decision permitting AT&T’s $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner. Blumenfeld notes how surprising it was that the judge placed greater emphasis on defendant executives’ court testimony than on contemporaneous documents showing what the executives were thinking and discussing while the deal was being negotiated because testimony reflects preparation with lawyers, but contemporaneous documents “tell the real story.” Blumenfeld also notes that the government faces a difficult decision on whether to appeal the decision based, in part, on the judge’s treatment of the documents, both because there would be a high burden of proof and because of the risk that an adverse appellate decision could have greater impact. (subscription required to access article).
CNNMoneyquotes Jeffrey Blumenfeld in an article discussing the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia’s decision permitting AT&T’s $85 billion acquisition of Time Warner and the parties’ possible next steps. Blumenfeld notes that if the U.S. government does not get an injunction to prevent the deal closing during what is likely to be a lengthy appeals process, the companies will merge their operations, making it that much more difficult to undo.
Law360quotes Jeffrey Blumenfeld on the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit seeking to block AT&T’s proposed merger with Time Warner. Blumenfeld comments on the risks of relying too heavily on economic evidence, the potential for AT&T documents to reveal the true motivations for the merger, AT&T’s burden of proof in defending against assertions of the deal’s negative economic impact, and the impact of the judge possibly imposing arbitration as a remedy. (subscription required to access article)
CNNMoney quotes Jeffrey Blumenfeld on the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit that seeks to block AT&T’s proposed merger with Time Warner. Blumenfeld notes the judge’s broad discretion in adjudicating the case and that the judge's questions to witnesses may not be clues as to his decision.
The Hill,USA Today,CNN, andLaw360 quote Jeffrey Blumenfeld on the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit that seeks to block AT&T’s proposed merger with Time Warner. In The Hill, Blumenfeld notes the ineffectiveness of imposing behavioral conditions to avoid anticompetitive behavior following major industry mergers. In USA Today, he notes that this litigation offers consumers a real-world lesson in the antitrust issues that can affect everyday activities such as watching cable television and streaming programs. CNN quotes Blumenfeld on the difficulties AT&T customers might face should the deal be approved when attempting to obtain content that is not owned by AT&T. In Law360, Blumenfeld discusses the parties' back-and-forth regarding confidentiality concerns and notes how greater evidentiary openness in this case can offer consumers a look at antitrust law as applied to an industry they understand and interact with every day.
Jeffrey Blumenfeld comments in Washington Lawyer on how Lowenstein Sandler capitalizes on international legal networks and a collaborative culture to meet our clients' legal needs in today's globalized economy.
In Law360, Jeff Blumenfeld discusses what to expect in the new administration's approach to antitrust and merger enforcement under AAG nominee Makan Delrahim.
Jeff Blumenfeld is quoted in Variety on how the AT&T-Time Warner merger will affect content competitors such as Netflix and Hulu.
Jeff Blumenfeld comments in a Bloomberg BNA article about possible ramifications of the 2011 joint agreement between Comcast and NBCUniversal on the AT&T-Time Warner bid.
In Law360, Jeff Blumenfeld discusses AT&T's $84.5B Time Warner takeover and the likely shift in incentives and conduct once the two companies merge.
In The Capitol Forum, Jack Sidorov discusses HSR Act compliance issues raised by stock acquisitions made in the context of a hostile takeover battle.
Jack Sidorov is highlighted in the National Journal for bringing his antitrust premerger notification expertise to Lowenstein after more than thirty years with the Department of Justice Antitrust Division.