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?”

The long-awaited judgment of the General Court (GC) in the pay-TV saga (case AT.40023 Cross-border access to pay-TV) has finally been delivered, two years after the annulment action was brought.

A senior executive of a public company has agreed to pay $609,810 in civil penalties for acquiring additional voting securities in the company without first making a Hart-Scott-Rodino Act filing and observing the statutory waiting period.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Counsel Paolisa Nebbia (Rome-Antitrust) has authored for the second consecutive year the chapters on “Merger Control in Italy” and “Cartels in Italy”  that were published by Lexology in September 2018.

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.

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.

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.

Partners Geert Goeteyn (Brussels-Antitrust) and John Cove (San Francisco-Antitrust & Litigation) have conducted a comparative analysis of parental liability in cartel infringements in the EU and the U.S. for Getting The Deal Through’s – Cartels published in August 2018.

Partners Geert Goeteyn and Elvira Aliende Rodriguez (both Brussels-Antitrust), and associate Ruba Noorali (London-Antitrust) have authored the “European Union: Cartels and Leniency” chapter of Global Competition Review’s The European, Middle Eastern and African Antitrust Review 2019 published in July 2018.

The Commission’s decisions of 24 July 2018, fining Philips, Asus, Denon & Marantz and Pioneer for fixing online retail prices, inaugurates a much-awaited wave of verdicts on vertical restrictions, with the noteworthy peculiarity that they involve the use of algorithms.

Shearman & Sterling’s bi-annual Trends & Patterns in FCPA Enforcement report provides insightful analysis of recent enforcement trends and patterns in the US, the UK and elsewhere, as well as helpful guidance on emerging best practices in FCPA and global anti-corruption compliance programs.

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. 

On June 14, Justice Ginsburg, writing for a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, reversed a 2016 opinion by the Second Circuit and held that a foreign government’s interpretation of its own law is not binding on U.S. courts.

On June 12, 2018, following a six-week-long bench trial, Judge Richard J. Leon of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled that AT&T’s proposed acquisition of Time Warner does not violate the antitrust laws, rejecting the United States Department of Justice’s (DOJ) challenge to the merger.

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.