Over the past decade, technology and globalization have destroyed numerous barriers to entry in many industries. The heightened competition that has resulted requires new and innovative business responses that comply with a complex body of federal, state, and foreign antitrust laws and regulations. Lowenstein Sandler's Antitrust & Trade Regulation practice has in-depth experience in the various facets of antitrust practice–counseling; civil litigation; criminal investigations and defense of prosecutions; and Hart-Scott-Rodino counseling and filings–to help companies meet these business challenges.
Effective antitrust representation begins with a thorough understanding of the statutory and jurisprudential antitrust framework and how this body of law and its underlying economic theories apply to and affect particular markets for products and services. Lowenstein Sandler's Antitrust & Trade Regulation practice comprises practitioners who are keenly familiar with all facets of this antitrust framework and its application. We immerse ourselves in our clients' businesses and industries, to better understand their goals, operations, market positions, and competition, and to better tailor their business strategies and conduct to comply with antitrust laws. When litigation cannot be avoided, Lowenstein Sandler's seasoned litigators and trial lawyers efficiently handle the full range of antitrust lawsuits, from private treble-damage actions to class actions to government civil actions to criminal proceedings, with a track record of excellent results for our clients.
Our Antitrust & Trade Regulation practice also advises on the competitive and antitrust impact of proposed corporate transactions. We help clients, particularly those engaged in acquisitions, divestitures, and joint ventures, to prepare and file Hart-Scott-Rodino antitrust notifications with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, and we counsel on the application of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Notifications Act and compliance with its provisions. We take pride in having expansive knowledge and extensive experience in handling the numerous antitrust challenges facing businesses in a highly competitive, changing landscape.
Lowenstein Sandler's antitrust and trade regulation counseling is grounded in our comprehensive grasp of the vast range of relevant laws and regulations, including the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act (as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act), and the Federal Trade Commission Act; the decisional law that has construed these statutes; and the economic theories informing that decisional law. This considerable knowledge informs our compliance counseling and helps our clients avoid litigation.
In instances when litigation cannot be avoided, Lowenstein Sandler's attorneys develop a litigation strategy that is effective and efficient with respect to matters including federal and state criminal antitrust investigations and trials, private treble-damage antitrust class actions, multidistrict litigation, and a variety of other lawsuits brought under the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Robinson-Patman Act, and various state antitrust laws. These cases have dealt with price-fixing, bid-rigging, attempted monopolization, abuse of monopoly power, vertical restraints, and price discrimination, involving industries such as pharmaceuticals, financial services, automotive, telecommunications, furniture, and liquor.
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)
Wired and the Riverdale Standard 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.
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.