Cartel Digest


You may share a link to this page on any of the sites listed below:



The Italian Unilever Judgment on Exclusive Dealing

Partner Geert Goeteyn (Brussels-Antitrust) has co-authored the article “The Italian Unilever Judgment on Exclusive Dealing: Helpful Clarification or Misguided Limitation of the Court of Justice’s Intel Ruling?”

Pharmaceutical Industry Antitrust Handbook

Associate Timothy Slattery (Antitrust-Washington, DC) has contributed to the Pharmaceutical Industry Antitrust Handbook (2nd Ed.) published by the American Bar Association.

Sample Shaming : FDA’s Open Letter on Access to Samples

Senior associate Timothy Slattery (Washington, D.C.-Antitrust) has authored the article “Sample Shaming: FDA’s Open Letter on Access to Samples Under REMS Programs Publically Calls Out Branded Drug Manufacturers to Aid Generic Entry” in Antitrust Advisors, a publication of the American Health Lawyers Association Antitrust Practice Group. The article was published in September 2018.

ICLG : Cartels & Leniency 2019

Partners Matthew Readings (London-Antitrust), Elvira Aliende Rodriguez and Geert Goeteyn (both Brussels-Antitrust); counsel Paolisa Nebbia (Rome/ Milan-Antitrust) and Mathias Stöcker (Frankfurt-Antitrust); and associate Ruba Noorali authored various chapters of the International Comparative Legal Guide to: Cartels & Leniency 2019.

IP & Antitrust Know-How 2018

Partners Jessica Delbaum (New York-Antitrust) and David Higbee (Washington, D.C.-Antitrust) co-authored the chapter “United States” for IP & Antitrust Know-How 2018” published by Global Competition Review.

The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2019

Partners David Higbee, Djordje Petkoski (both Washington, D.C.-Antitrust), Jessica Delbaum (New York-Antitrust), John Cove (San Francisco-Antitrust), Ryan Shores (Washington, D.C.-Antitrust/Litigation) and Todd Stenerson (Washington, D.C.-Litigation); and associate Mark Weiss (Washington, D.C.-Antitrust) authored the chapter “United States: Cartels” for The Antitrust Review of the Americas 2019 published by Global Competition Review in October 2018.

Insights on Designing Effective Merger Remedies

Partners David Higbee (Antitrust-Washington, D.C.), Geert Goeteyn (Antitrust-Brussels), Djordje Petkoski (Antitrust-Washington, D.C.), senior associate Özlem Fidanboylu (Antitrust-London) and associates Aleksandra Petkovic (Antitrust-New York) and Caroline Préel (Antitrust-Brussels) authored the chapter “Giving Effect to Remedy” in the 2018 edition of The Guide to Merger Remedies published by Global Competition Law Review in August 2018.

AG Wathelet Opinion: No Half-Baked Excuses on State Aid and the Incentive Effect

Advocate General Wathelet has issued his opinion in the Eesti Pagar preliminary ruling, [1] which if followed could have significant implications for Member States, national authorities and beneficiaries of State aid. Wathelet’s opinion is of particular interest as judgments on the existence and test for incentive effect are rare and the incentive effect is an essential element required for an aid measure to benefit from the General Block Exemption Regulation (GBER). It remains to be seen if the CJEU will follow the opinion in its judgment, expected later this year or in 2019.

DOJ Announces Reforms to Merger Review Process

Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General for the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (“Division”), announced a series of reforms that aim to expedite the Division’s merger review process.

Stenerson and Shores Author Chapter for ICLG Guide to Competition Litigation

Partners Todd Stenerson (Washington, D.C.-Litigation) and Ryan Shores (Washington, D.C.-Antitrust), with the assistance of associate Rachel Mossman (Washington, D.C.-Antitrust), authored the USA chapter for the International Comparative Legal Guide (ICLG) to: Competition Litigation 2019, published by Global Legal Group.

United States Supreme Court Upholds Rejection of the Government’s Antitrust Challenge to American Express’ Merchant Contracts

On June 25, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision by Justice Thomas, held that provisions in American Express Company’s (“American Express”) and its operating subsidiary’s contracts with merchants that restricted the ability of these merchants to steer customers to other credit or charge cards did not violate the Sherman Act. Ohio v. American Express Co., 585 U.S. __, slip op. at 1 (2018). The Court held that plaintiffs—the United States Department of Justice and the Attorneys General of several states—failed to satisfy their burden of proving anticompetitive effects in the relevant market under the rule of reason. 

To Control or Not to Control? That Is the Question

The “standstill obligation” under Article 7 of the Regulation 139/2004 on Merger Control (EUMR)[2] prevents parties from implementing their transaction before receiving merger clearance from the European Commission (EC). Failure to comply with this obligation (known as “gun-jumping”) may result in fines up to 10% of their aggregate worldwide turnover and the obligation to reverse any step taken by the parties.