Antitrust and Competition

LEADERSHIP: Jeremy Heep and Barbara T. Sicalides

Antitrust Litigation

  • In re Lamictal Indirect Purchaser Antitrust Litigation – obtained partial dismissal of a putative antitrust class action alleging that a “reverse payment” settlement of patent litigation between a major biopharmaceutical company and a generic drug manufacturer violated antitrust laws. Dismissal resulted in limitation of potential damages exposure from treble damages for multiple state classes and actual damages for nationwide class to only actual damages for New York class.
  • In re Class 8 Transmission Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, No. 1:10-cv-260-SLR – 2015 complete dismissal, at class certification stage, of indirect purchaser class action alleging a conspiracy to install a monopolist transmission supplier
  • International Construction Products LLC v. Caterpillar Inc. et al. – obtained dismissal of a federal antitrust complaint alleging that a construction equipment company conspired with two competitors to prevent an equipment importing company from selling Chinese-made construction equipment directly to consumers via an online auction site
  • Symphony Health Solutions Corp. v. IMS Health, Inc. – currently defending major health care data company against claims of monopolization and prosecuting counterclaims for misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition
  • Methodist Health Services Corp. v. OSF Healthcare System – currently defending major Central Illinois hospital system against claims of attempted monopolization
  • Wallach v. Eaton Corp., et al. and Avenarius v. Eaton Corp., et al. – currently representing two major truck manufacturers in a putative class action regarding alleged price fixing in the U.S. heavy duty transmission market
  • In re Lamictal Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation obtained dismissal of a putative antitrust class action alleging that a “reverse payment” settlement of patent litigation between a major biopharmaceutical company and a generic drug manufacturer violated antitrust laws.
  • In re Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation – defence of two Capper-Volstead egg producer cooperatives and a trade association in a series of antitrust putative class actions alleging an industry-wide supply restriction scheme to fix the prices of eggs and egg products sold in the United States during an eight-year period. We successfully argued the dismissal of the trade association defendant. Representation also includes acting in capacity of liaison defense counsel. The defendants successfully defeated the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs damages class.
  • West Penn Allegheny Health System v. UPMC and Highmark, Inc. – represented the second-largest hospital system in Pittsburgh in an antitrust action against its largest competitor and the region’s dominant health insurer for alleged illegal monopolization and conspiracy to monopolize
  • Toledo Mack Sales & Service v. Mack Trucks, Inc. – full defense verdict following four-week jury trial for a major truck manufacturer in claims alleging violations of the Robinson-Patman Act, the Sherman Act and state laws, and awarded $11.3 million on counterclaims, later reduced to $1.6 million; on appeal a new trial was ordered on the Sherman Act claims, and at the retrial we again obtained a full defense jury verdict
  • Just New Homes v. Beazer Homes – represented a national homebuilder in defense of price-fixing and monopolization antitrust claims; obtained dismissal on summary judgment
  • Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Motor Vehicle Dealers Board – successful termination of independent truck dealership following a two-week hearing for misappropriation of trade secrets
  • LePage’s, et al. v. 3M (Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing Company) – won jury verdict and $65 million judgment (after trebling) for plaintiff in monopolization (“bundling”) claim. The case tried in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and defendant’s petition for certiorari before the United States Supreme Court was denied.
  • RDK Truck Sales & Service, Inc. v. Mack, Trucks, Inc. – secured summary judgment for a major truck manufacturer on antitrust claims brought by independent truck dealer for alleged conspiracies between manufacturer, dealers, and truck body suppliers
  • Ayodeji O. Bakare, M.D. v. Pinnacle Health Systems – obtained summary judgment for Pinnacle Health Systems against Sections 1 and 2 claims that the hospital allegedly instituted peer review proceedings as part of an alleged scheme to monopolize the market for OB/GYN services
  • In re: Flat Glass Antitrust Litigation I and II – represent a leading glass manufacturer in several putative class actions alleging a conspiracy to fix prices for flat glass in the second antitrust MDL action involving the flat glass industry;  Pepper also represented the same glass manufacturer in the first flat glass antitrust MDL against price fixing allegations brought by direct and indirect purchasers, as well as in various related state indirect purchaser antitrust actions.

Antitrust Counseling

  • counsel various trade or industry groups and joint purchasing organizations regarding compliance, information exchanges, membership restrictions, lobbying and other matters with potential antitrust risk
  • represented one of the largest manufacturers of newsprint in an acquisition investigation
  • advised an international yeast manufacturer in connection with its purchase of a competitor
  • represented a major international glass manufacturer in structuring a joint venture with a competitor and handling the premerger review of that transaction
  • designed and supported implementation of  resale price policies and minimum advertised pricing programs for manufacturers
  • advised a chemical manufacturer on structuring and analyzing a proposed manufacturing joint venture among competitors
  • an elevator manufacturer regarding a proposed joint bid for competitor
  • design and implement compliance training programs and related materials, including on-line training, mock search warrant exercises and audits.

Criminal Antitrust

  • targets of two active and high-profile criminal antitrust investigations in New York and Philadelphia
  • importer/distributor in price fixing investigation
  • plastic pipe manufacturer in price fixing investigation
  • United Kingdom corporate officer in U.S. price fixing prosecution
  • oil exploration and development company in price fixing investigation concerning posted price of crude oil
  • roofing shingle manufacturer in price fixing investigation 
  • abrasive grain manufacturer in price fixing investigation
  • manufacturing company in antitrust investigation and prosecution
  • individual in investigation of collusion in the automotive parts industry.

Data protection laws have changed, so we have revised our Privacy Policy.