|
- We secured the largest settlement in antitrust history as lead counsel to a class of retailers in their payment card tying claim against Visa and MasterCard.
- We represent plaintiffs and defendants in some of the country's largest current commercial antitrust cases.
- We have represented parties advocating for or challenging transactions and/or business practices before federal and state antitrust enforcement agencies.
- We represent parties to multi-billion dollar transactions in merger review proceedings before federal antitrust enforcement agencies.
- We counsel companies on all aspects of antitrust, including antitrust compliance programs, distribution arrangements, licensing agreements, agency business reviews, merger analysis, litigation risk assessment as well as issues related to standard setting groups and the interface between intellectual property and antitrust law.
- We have submitted amicus curiae briefs on important antitrust issues to the United States Supreme Court and to Appellate Courts.
We have represented clients on antitrust matters that required a specialized and detailed understanding of the following industries: high technology, health care & pharmaceutical, telecommunications, insurance and reinsurance, electronic payment systems, media & publishing, retail, airlines, and consumer electronics industries.
Our attorneys are both experts in antitrust law and seasoned litigators. Our approach to every case, whether on the plaintiff's side or the defense, is to be prepared to take the case to trial. Through technology, optimization of resources, and the specialized expertise of CAAS LLC, a consulting entity with which the firm has an existing relationship, we are able to contain the rapidly increasing costs of litigation better than other firms.
Our counseling services include advising clients on the antitrust issues raised by certain business practices; enforcement agency investigations and business reviews; litigation risk assessment; merger analysis; management and employee training; advice on competitor collaborations, including joint ventures, standard setting organizations, and trade associations; and investigations into alleged antitrust violations.
Stand-Up MRI of the Bronx, P.C. et al. v. CareCore National, LLC, et al.
The firm represents a group of outpatient diagnostic imaging clinics in a Sherman Act Section 1 litigation pending in the Eastern District of New York against a health insurance company "gatekeeper" owned by competing diagnostic imaging providers. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant has exclusive contracts with some of the largest health insurance companies in New York and that plaintiffs and other competitors have been excluded from servicing patients covered by these insurance companies due to the acts of exclusion and market allocation by the defendant and its co-conspirators. The plaintiffs seek both damages and injunctive relief.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. and MasterCard International Inc. (a/k/a In Re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation)
Constantine Cannon is lead counsel for the plaintiffs in this antitrust class action against Visa and MasterCard, on behalf of the more than five million retailers in the United States that accept Visa and MasterCard credit and debit cards. The firm secured a record-breaking settlement for its clients, consisting of $3.05 billion in payments from Visa and MasterCard along with reductions of fees to retailers valued by the courts at between $25 and $87 billion. The firm filed the lawsuit on behalf of its clients Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., The Limited, Inc., and other retailers as well as three retail trade associations. These retailers contended that Visa and MasterCard attempted to monopolize the debit card market by tying merchant acceptance of debit cards to credit cards and other anticompetitive conduct. Constantine Cannon continues to administer the class settlement, according to which over $2.5 billion of the settlement monies have already been distributed to over half a million merchants, including most of the largest and many of the smallest merchants in the country.
Discover Financial Services, et al. v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., Visa International Service Association, MasterCard Incorporated and MasterCard International Incorporated
In October 2008 Constantine Cannon and its co-counsel secured a settlement of $2.75 billion, the third largest antitrust settlement in U.S. history, for Discover Financial Services. Constantine Cannon's prosecution of the case was led by Jeffrey I. Shinder and Matthew L. Cantor, who were also among the lead attorneys in the In Re Visa Check class action. Discover sued Visa and MasterCard for damages sustained as a result of Visa's and MasterCard's exclusionary rules that, from the early 1990s until 2004, prohibited U.S. banks from issuing Discover credit and debit cards to their customers. This action followed from the decision in United States v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., Civ. No. 98-7076 (S.D.N.Y.) (BSJ), which held that the implementation and enforcement of Visa bylaw 2.10(e) and MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Funeral Consumers Alliance Inc., et al. v. Service Corporation International et al.
The firm represents several individual consumers as well as the leading consumer rights group in the deathcare industry with roughly 400,000 members, in an antitrust challenge against the country's three largest funeral home chains and largest casket manufacturer. The basis for the challenge is that the defendants have conspired to fix the prices that consumers pay for caskets at artificially high levels by, among other things, entering into a group boycott of casket stores and Internet sellers that sell caskets at significantly discounted prices. The case is currently pending in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas.
Dolan et al. v. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company et al.
Constantine Cannon represents New York consumers in this proposed antitrust class action against the country's four largest title insurance companies. The central complaint is that defendants, through their participation in the title industry's rate setting body, have illegally fixed the rates they charge consumers for title insurance in New York. The case is currently pending in U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York.
Park West Radiology, P.C. et al. v. CareCore National et al.
The firm represents an outpatient diagnostic imaging clinic in a Sherman Act Section 1 litigation pending in the Southern District of New York against an insurance "gatekeeper" owned by competing diagnostic imaging providers. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant has exclusive contracts with some of the largest health insurance plans in New York and that it has been excluded from servicing patients whose medical services are covered by these health plans due to the acts of the defendant and its co-conspirators. The plaintiff alleges that defendant has excluded other competitors as well and that these acts of exclusion have harmed competition and led to a per se unlawful market allocation. The plaintiff seeks both damages and injunctive relief. Trial in the case is scheduled to start on November 30 before the Honorable Victor Marrero.
Ortho Biotech v. Amgen
The firm represented Ortho Biotech, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, in a Sherman Act Section 1 and 2 litigation against Amgen, Inc. in the District of New Jersey. Ortho alleged that Amgen used its monopoly in the market for white blood cell growth factor (WBCGF) drugs to the detriment of consumers that purchase red blood cell growth factor (RBCGF) drugs. WBCGF and RBCGF drugs are given to patients undergoing cancer chemotherapy that have sustained substantial losses in either white or red blood cells. Specifically, Ortho alleged that Amgen engaged in its exclusionary tactics by providing massive rebates to cancer clinics on its WBCGF drugs only on the condition that the clinics purchase all or substantially all of their RBCGF drugs from Amgen (as opposed to Ortho). Ortho alleged that this conduct led to anticompetitive effects by, among other things, foreclosing it from substantial portions of RBCGF sales and that this conduct constitutes an illegal tying arrangement, a maintenance of monopoly power and/or an unlawful attempt to monopolize. Ortho sought damages and injunctive relief in this matter. In a settlement that the parties announced on July 11, 2008, Amgen agreed to pay Ortho $200 million.
Inquivosa S.A. v. Ajinomoto Co., Inc. (a.k.a. In re Monosodium Glutemate Antitrust Litigation)
Constantine Cannon represented the Government of Japan as an amicus curiae to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in this global price-fixing lawsuit. The Eighth Circuit, agreeing with Japan's view that American federal courts lacked jurisdiction over the foreign conduct alleged in the case, affirmed the lower court's dismissal of foreign purchasers' claims.
Bartholdi Cable Company, Inc. (formerly Liberty Cable Company, Inc.) v. Time Warner Inc., et al.
Constantine Cannon represented Liberty Cable in its monopolization case against the former Time Warner. Liberty alleged, among other things, that Time Warner stifled competition in the cable television market in the New York metropolitan area through a campaign of predatory and deceptive conduct. The firm secured a favorable settlement for its client on the first day of the trial.
Kesmai Corporation, et al. v. America Online, Inc., et al.
Constantine Cannon represented Kesmai, a developer of on-line video games, in this monopolization case against America Online. Kesmai alleged that AOL used its monopoly position in the Internet service provider market to gain an unfair competitive advantage and monopoly power in the multi-player on-line games market. Constantine Cannon secured a favorable settlement for Kesmai on the eve of trial.
Diskin v. Daily Racing Form, Inc.
Constantine Cannon successfully defended Daily Racing Form, a daily newspaper dedicated to coverage of thoroughbred horse racing, against this purported class action, which alleged that Daily Racing Form violated the antitrust laws when it purchased the assets of a competitor newspaper. The firm secured a settlement following the first stage of discovery.
Solla, et al. v. NYS Health Maintenance Organization Conference, Inc., et al.
Constantine Cannon successfully defended New York Life Insurance Co. in an action brought against the major Health Maintenance Organizations in the New York metropolitan area. The case alleged, among other things, that the HMO defendants conspired to boycott chiropractors. The trial court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
Heary Brothers Lightning Protection Co., Inc., et al. v. National Fire Protection Association, Inc., et al.
Constantine Cannon defended the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), a standard-setting association, in a suit alleging that NFPA conspired with plaintiffs' competitors through its standard setting process to exclude plaintiffs' allegedly innovative technology in the lightning protection industry. The NFPA, alone among the defendants, was able to settle this case on very favorable terms prior to any significant discovery in the case.
|
|
Antitrust Litigation and Counseling
Government Agencies
Commercial Litigation
Compliance, Monitoring and Investigations
e-Discovery
Government Relations and Legislative Affairs
Trusts and Estates
Environmental Litigation and Counseling
Intellectual Property and Technology
|
|
