Kathryn M. Fenton

One important procedural difference between merger challenges by the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission is that FTC may challenge a non-consummated merger through both a district court preliminary injunction and administrative litigation (Part 3 adjudication). Recent (...)

The United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio has unsealed its summary judgment opinion in The Medical Center at Elizabeth Place v. Premier Health Partners. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants—four hospital systems that operated pursuant to a joint (...)

Although Section 8 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 19, which prohibits competing corporations from sharing directors or officers, is an important concern for the business community, the statute has received surprisingly little attention from government enforcers or judicial opinions in recent (...)

A plea agreement entered into last week with the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) provides a sobering reminder of the serious consequence of obstruction of justice, and highlights the fact that such obstruction issues can arise even in connection with seemingly routine merger (...)

The FTC has brought an FTC administrative action alleging price fixing and other anticompetitive behavior involving three of the largest U.S. suppliers of ductile iron pipe fittings (DIPF), which are used in municipal water systems. It now has published for public comment a proposed consent (...)

A unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld a district court decision enforcing the Federal Trade Commission’s administrative subpoena and civil investigative demand in an ongoing FTC investigation. The December 13, 2011, opinion is noteworthy (...)

A recent court decision on alleged “signaling” of competitive plans between airlines highlights the antitrust risks of making detailed public statements about future business plans. On August 2, 2010, a federal district court in Atlanta refused to dismiss an airline passenger class action (...)

Reaching the end of a three-year investigation, today the Department of Justice Antitrust Division asked a New York federal court to approve the DOJ’s settlement of claims that KeySpan violated the antitrust laws by manipulating the NYC wholesale electricity market. The DOJ claimed KeySpan (...)

Until last week, the U.S. Department of Justice had not sought to obtain disgorgement as a remedy in a civil Sherman Act case. In the antitrust lawsuit and settlement filed on February 22 in U.S. v. KeySpan, the Antitrust Division asks that the court approve a settlement requiring the defendant (...)

On January 21, 2010, the Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“DOJ”) announced a consent agreement with Smithfield Foods and Premium Standard Farms requiring the companies to pay $ 900,000 for violating Hart-Scott-Rodino (“HSR”) Act premerger waiting period requirements. The DOJ alleged that (...)

On January 7, 2010, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a 3-0 decision, reversed a district court’s judgment against Sodexo, Inc., and another defendant in a Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) bench trial and directed entry of judgment in favor of the defendants. (Feesers, Inc. v. Michael (...)

On October 7, 2009, Department of Justice Assistant Attorney General Christine Varney used a speech to the National Association of Attorneys General to reaffirm the DOJ’s commitment to a closer cooperation with the state enforcers. She also devoted a major portion of her remarks to offering a (...)

The enactment of a Maryland state antitrust law prohibiting minimum resale price maintenance (RPM) agreements and U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee hearings on similar pending federal legislation are reminders that minimum RPM programs must be approached with caution. (...)

The enactment of a Maryland state antitrust law prohibiting minimum resale price maintenance (RPM) agreements and U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee hearings on similar pending federal legislation are reminders that minimum RPM programs must be approached with caution. (...)

For much of the last decade, virtually all antitrust policy development arising out of Washington has come from the enforcement agencies. The other traditional Washington actors responsible for key shifts in antitrust policy and enforcement-Congress and the Supreme Court-have been largely (...)

For much of the last decade, virtually all antitrust policy development arising out of Washington has come from the enforcement agencies. The other traditional Washington actors responsible for key shifts in antitrust policy and enforcement-Congress and the Supreme Court-have been largely (...)