O’Melveny offers seamless antitrust and competition representation on three continents, with offices in Washington, DC, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, London, Brussels, Tokyo, and Beijing. At any given moment, we are shepherding mergers through global clearance processes, designing antitrust-compliant licensing or distribution agreements, and vindicating our clients’ interests in the courtroom.
Members of our practice group routinely represent clients before antitrust and competition agencies around the world. Our more than 70 antitrust and competition lawyers include former high-ranking regulatory officials who maintain close contact with the enforcement agencies, providing clients with invaluable insights into governmental decision-making processes.
The Firm has extensive experience coordinating the global premerger review of complex international mergers and obtaining clearance in challenging situations. If litigation of a high-stakes acquisition becomes necessary, we are among the few law firms that have the courtroom experience necessary to litigate these complex cases successfully. For example, in 2004, in one of the few litigated merger cases in recent years, O’Melveny lawyers successfully defended Triton Coal’s acquisition by another major coal producer when the FTC sued to block the transaction.
O'Melveny's antitrust lawyers possess unsurpassed trial and litigation skills as denoted by the precedent setting results achieved by the firm in antitrust treble damages litigation. For instance, the firm prevailed in New York's highest court in what the Global Competition Review termed "a landmark ruling" when the unanimous court held that treble damages class actions are not cognizable under New York's antitrust statute, the Donnelly act (see Sperry v. Crompton Corp., 863 n.e.2d 1012 (2007)). The firm also recently achieved the dismissal of foreign claims under the rapidly evolving case law of the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act (see In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation, 504 F. Supp.2d 777 (N.D. Cal. 2007)). Finally, by way of example, the firm successfully defended a Japanese company in precedent setting criminal antitrust case which marked the first time criminal charges had been brought against wholly foreign conduct (see United States v. Nippon Paper Indus. Co. Ltd., 62 F. Supp.2d 173 (D. Mass. 1999) (granting judgment of acquittal)).
Many of the Firm’s current antitrust litigation partners began their careers trying monopolization cases for IBM in the 1970s and defending antitrust treble-damages cases for the banking, insurance, and airline industries in the 1980s. In the 1990s, our attorneys handled the airline price-signaling litigation, often cited as a template for antitrust analysis for B2B e-commerce exchanges. The firm’s involvement in high-profile antitrust litigation continues today: we currently represent Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. against Intel Corporation in the United States, Europe, and Asia in one of the largest antitrust and competition cases ever commenced.
Key Facts
- Global Competition Review (2006) ranked our competition practice in the top tier globally.
- The International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers (2006) acknowledged our lawyers as foremost practitioners in competition law.
- The Legal 500 (2006) recommends our Brussels office for matters concerning competition, customs, trade, antidumping, European Union regulations, and the World Trade Organization.
- Our practice co-chairs are former high-ranking officials in the US Federal Trade Commission: Tim Muris served as FTC Chairman from 2001 to 2004, and Rich Parker was Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition from 1999 to 2001.
- We have represented clients in proceedings before the European Commission and the European Union, and have obtained either significant reductions in or voiding of fines at the EC Court of First Instance.
- Our lawyers are qualified in many European Union member countries, have successful track records with many national laws and procedures, are fluent in various languages, and work closely with local authorities.
- We have a robust presence in Asia. In Japan, we submitted the first application under the Japanese Fair Trade Commission’s leniency system—within three months of its introduction in January 2006. We have represented clients before the Korean Fair Trade Commission, and have closely monitored the developing Anti-Monopoly Law in China.
Industry Reach
- Aviation
- Banking and Financial Services
- Consumer products
- Defense
- Energy
- Health Care
- Information Technology Development and Manufacturing
- Manufacturing, Including Chemicals
- Media, Entertainment, and Publishing
- Pharmaceuticals
- Retailing
- Shipping
- Telecommunications
Practice Strengths
-
Asia Antitrust and Competition
Cartels and Criminal Investigations
-
- Customer and market allocation
- Participation in amnesty programs in the United States, European Union, Canada, and elsewhere
- Price fixing and bid rigging
-
Civil Litigation
-
- Direct and indirect purchaser class actions
- Litigation between corporations alleging monopolization and other antitrust violations
-
Counseling Related to Business Practices
-
- Exclusive dealing
- Mergers and joint ventures
- Monopolization and attempted monopolization
- Patent and know-how licensing
- Purchasing agreements and monopsony power
- Refusals to deal
- Standard-setting organizations and trade association activities
- Vertical price and non-price restraints on distribution
-
European Antitrust and Competition
-
Price-Fixing Investigations
-
Unfair Trade Practice Regulations