Eduardo has Ph.D. from PUC-SP. He is a former Visiting Fulbright Scholar at the New York University School of Law – NYU (2010-2011). Eduardo has in-depth knowledge of the Brazilian regulatory framework, having worked for 2 years as an enforcer at the Brazilian Antitrust Authority (CADE). He has successfully led complex and high-profile cases related to mergers, national and international investigations, civil and criminal cases for cartel practices, frauds, corruption schemes, such as bid rigging. Gaban has experience with complex litigation in several practice areas (antitrust and civil, criminal, antitrust, and intellectual property), and with disputes and advocacy in regulatory affairs involving logistics and transport, aviation, energy, telecommunications, and education. Eduardo receives recognition by clients, peers, and authorities as one of the leading lawyers in these areas. He brings a rare and differentiated experience, and a holistic and interdisciplinary approach in both national and international spheres.
135
On August 20, 2014, the General Superintendence of the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (“CADE”) rendered two legal opinions in investigations related to sham litigation practices recommending to CADE’s Tribunal: (i) the conviction of the companies Eli Lilly do Brasil Ltda. and Eli (...)
92
I. Summary of the cases Each of the four concentration acts (“Monsanto Cases”) refer to non-exclusive licensing agreements for the development, testing, production and commercialization of seeds using Intacta RR2 PROTM technology in Brazil, executed between Monsanto, as licensor, and Syngenta, (...)
321
The author gives thanks to Mr. Bruno Droghetti Magalhães Santos, who gave support in research that was very useful to build this article. I. Summary of the case CADE decided to veto the Votorantim/Cimpor and Votorantim/Lafarge transactions and approve Camargo Corrêa/Cimpor transaction, (...)
134
The author gives thanks to Ms. Natali de Vicente Santos, who gave support in research that was very useful to build this article. I. Summary of the case For the first time, CADE applied the “declining markets” argument to justify that the transaction between two ammunition companies was not (...)
308
The author gives thanks to Mr. Bruno Droghetti Magalhães Santos and to Ms. Christine Holland, who gave support in research that was very useful to build this article. I. Background to the dispute The case refers to a Preliminary Investigation introduced by the Secretariat of Economic Law of (...)
550
Summary of the case In connection with a non-public investigation into a possible monopoly in the distribution or sale of condoms, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) petitioned for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (“Court”) for an order enforcing a subpoena duces tecum and (...)
433
The author thanks Natali de Vicente Santos for researching and debating this case law with him, which contributed for this article. I. Summary of the case In this case, the discussion at CADE focused on the corporate relationship between rivals being able to raise anticompetitive effects even (...)
401
SDE/MJ ex officio v. AGA S.A et al., better known as the medical and industrial gases Cartel - price fixing and market division conspiracy in the medical and industrial gas market. The investigation began in December 2003, and CADE’s decision was reached in May 2008. Some customers who suffered (...)
732
A producer of mail sacks that was one of the suppliers of the USPS sued the latter for terminating, without justification, their supply Agreement. The USPS has a dominant position in several postal markets in the US and was challenged under Section 2 of the Sherman Act (i.e., attempt to (...)
19 avenue Jean Aicard
106 West 32nd Street, Suite 144
New York, NY, 10001, USA
