Antitrust Litigation: Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider LLP

Related Practices

AVH's antitrust litigation practice is defined by the broad array of matters litigated and the sophisticated yet practical approach it applies to all of its cases. Drawing upon its considerable antitrust experience and trial skills, AVH has developed a thriving and well-respected antitrust litigation practice that has resulted in major successes for firm clients, whether after a full trial or through settlement. The firm represents corporate clients as both defendants and plaintiffs in matters involving price-fixing, especially class actions; single firm conduct (monopolization, attempts to monopolize, monopsony or “buyer dominance”), often involving intellectual property rights; bundling, tying or other “leveraging” claims; price discrimination; claims implicating restraints imposed on distribution or distributors; and claims arising out of the settlement of patent litigation.

AVH partners have litigated major antitrust claims on behalf of companies in a wide variety of industries including: aerospace, air frame manufacturing, automotive and truck parts and equipment, avionics, biotechnology, cable television, chemicals, digital data storage, distilled spirits, earth-moving equipment, entertainment, factory automation equipment, fittings, health care financing, pharmaceuticals, plastics, power tools, and telecommunications.

AVH partners have handled approximately three dozen class action proceedings, the majority being multidistrict private damage class action antitrust lawsuits for defendants in many of the industries mentioned above, all to a successful conclusion.

AVH's deep litigation capabilities have been recognized both by the Antitrust Division, which retained AVH lawyers to represent the United States in challenging the merger of WorldCom and Sprint under Section 7 of the Clayton Act, and by the New York Attorney General's office, which hired AVH to file suit against Service Corporation International for monopolizing the Jewish funeral home industry in New York City.

AVH is selected by diverse companies to defend complex antitrust lawsuits. For example, AVH partners:

Served as counsel to Tyson Foods in connection with its sale of a processing facility to George's. After completion of the sale, the Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice challenged the transaction and listed George’s as a defendant. George’s chose to retain AVH as trial counsel and within a matter of weeks, the case was successfully concluded through the entry of a minor consent decree.
Are counsel to The Affinia Group and Wix Filtration LLC in a substantial treble damage price fixing multidistrict class action proceeding in Chicago. The plaintiffs include direct and indirect purchasers of light duty automotive filters as well as certain states and other political subdivisions making claims in their parens patriaecapacity.
Represented GIH when the City of New York challenged the company’s merger with HIP. Upon the conclusion of discovery, AVH successfully persuaded the district court to grant summary judgment to the merging parties. The City of New York appealed the case to the Second Circuit. In August of 2011 the original decision was upheld by the Second Circuit.
Recently obtained a dismissal of price discrimination litigation brought by numerous wholesalers against two major suppliers of automotive parts in New York Federal Court. Coalition for a Leval Playing Field, L.L.C. v. AutoZone, Inc., 737 F. Supp. 2d 194 (S.D.N.Y. 2010)
Served as counsel to Omnicare, the leading institutional pharmacy in United States, in its lawsuit against United Health and PacifiCare. AVH advanced the claim that these two leading insurance companies violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act when, prior to merging, they conspired to lower the reimbursement rate that they paid to Omnicare. This was the first private action ever brought by a private plaintiff implicating pre-merger conduct by merging parties.
Represent Hexcel in ongoing price fixing claims against BP Amoco brought in California Federal Court. The claims relate to a carbon fiber cartel that allegedly existed in the 1990’s and beyond.
Are acting as counsel to Secalt, S.A., a Luxembourg company who, along with some 90 other leading industrial companies, was made a defendant in the Southern District of New York for participating in the “Oil for Food” program at the behest of the regime of Saddam Hussein. The claim is being brought by the current regime of Iraq in its own right and as parens patriae on behalf of the people of Iraq. It is alleged that the Iraqi people would have received more goods if not for the payment of the surcharges, and the defendants' payments are alleged, among other things, to violate the Robinson-Patman Act as commercial bribes.
Defended a Pennsylvania health insurer in major antitrust litigation brought by a provider hospital. AVH negotiated a successful and early outcome for the client prior to going to trial
Represented United Technologies Fire & Security in Walker Process monopolization claims brought in the Northern District of Illinois and the District of Maryland.
Represented Tyson in the Northern District of Alabama with respect to a class action brought under the Packers & Stockyards Act.
Represented Yeshiva University in a class action complaint brought against the nation's medical residency programs over the so-called "Match" program, which assigns medical school graduates to residency programs. Through AVH’s efforts, the client was dismissed from the complaint.. Jung v. Ass'n. of Am. Med. Colleges, 300 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.D.C. 2004).

AVH has the demonstrated and trial-tested ability to respond quickly where time considerations require a quick resolution. For instance;

In United States v. SunGard Data Sys., 172 F.Supp. 2d 172 (D.D.C. 2011), the Antitrust Division challenged an HSR that AVH had filed on behalf of SunGard. AVH responded instantly by obtaining an expedited trial and securing a victory in less than three weeks after the complaint had been filed.
In Enron International Korea v. Credit Suisse First Boston in the Southern District of New York, AVH filed an antitrust suit challenging a rigged auction and obtained an expedited discovery that led to a favorable business settlement.

AVH frequently represents companies in governmental antitrust or competition investigations, be they civil, criminal, federal or state investigations. In each case, AVH’s services are not engaged for litigation purposes, but rather for avoiding litigation in the first place. AVH has been extraordinarily successful towards this end. Whether it is an appearance before a grand jury or a response to a comprehensive document subpoena, our lawyers are adept at protecting our client's interests while minimizing the burden and disruption often associated with governmental inquiries. The firm has represented clients in governmental investigations in a wide variety of industries, including virtually all of those listed above.

Related Practices

News

Articles & Newsletters

Attorney Contacts