1

Monthly Antitrust Update: February 2010

ABA Corporate Counseling Committee March 5, 2010

Presenters:

Philip Torbøl Joel Grosberg

Craig Seebald Carrie Amezcua

Jon Dubrow

2

Topics

• International Developments• Private Litigation Developments• FTC/DOJ Non-Merger Enforcement Developments• FTC/DOJ Merger Enforcement Developments• Legislative Updates

3

International Developments

• Procedural Issues in EU Antitrust Law• Cartel Cases –EU• Cartel Cases – Other Jurisdictions• Single Firm Conduct – EU• Single Firm Conduct – Other Jurisdictions• Mergers & Acquisitions – EU• Mergers & Acquisitions – Other Jurisdictions

4

Procedural Issues in EU Antitrust Law

• Hearing at the European Court of Justice in the Akzo Nobel Case On 9 February, the European Court of Justice held the hearing in the Akzo Nobel

case (C-550/07P), the landmark appeal case concerning the question whether legal privilege applies to communications from in-house lawyers providing legal advice within their company and to internal requests for such advice

The case stems from a cartel investigation where Akzo Nobel opposed that the European Commission seized two e-mails containing communications from one of its in-house lawyers who was a member of the Netherlands Bar

In first instance, the General Court rejected privilege for in-house lawyer communications, even where the in-house-lawyer is a member of a Member State bar association or is subject to professional ethics

Advocate General Kokott will deliver her opinion to the Court of Justice on 29 April. • Antitrust Proceedings before the Commission

A public consultation on the Commission’s Best practices for antitrust proceedings was closed on 3 March. This issue seems to be a high priority for the new Commissioner for Competition Joaquín Almunia

5

Cartel Cases - EU

• Air Freight Forwarding Cartel The EU Commission sent formal charges - Statement of Objections - to a

number of companies concerning their alleged price collusion on the provision of air freight forwarding services

The companies reported to be involved include Panalpina, Kuehne & Nagel, and Deutsche Post

Four separate infringements involving the provision of these services from the UK to outside the EEA, from the EEA to the US, from China to the EEA, and from Southern China/Hong Kong to the EEA

• EU Commission ‘Dawn Raids’ Electrical Equipment Producers The EU Commission confirmed it has inspected the offices of producers of

Flexible Alternating Current Transmission Systems on suspicion of breaching EU rules against cartels

ABB and Siemens confirmed that their offices have been investigated by the Commission

6

Cartel Cases – Other Jurisdictions

• Bread Cartel in South Africa South Africa’s Competition Tribunal for the first time has imposed the maximum

fine that it is entitled to levy on Pioneer Foods for its role in a bread cartel; A fine of 196 million rand (US $ 26 million) represents 10% of the 2006 turnover

for Pioneer’s Sasko bread-baking divisions It is also the first time that one of the Competition Commission’s cartel

investigations reached the Tribunal for adjudication – and the first occasion where the respondent decided to fight a matter before the Tribunal

Later this month, the Commission had concluded an investigation into another cartel in which Pioneer Foods is involved, but the company announced that this time it is committed to reaching a settlement

• First Judicial Settlement over Cartel Fines in Brazil CADE, Brazil’s Council for Economic Defence, for the first time executed a

judicial settlement with fine reduction concerning the crushed rock cartel case The companies that settled with the CADE include Embu Engenharia e

Comércio, Lúdice Mineração, and Pedreira Sargon Previous settlements in cartel cases occurred while proceedings were at

administrative stage

7

Single Firm Conduct - EU

• European Companies Complain against Google The EU Commission confirmed that it has received three complaints against

Google’s alleged abusive behaviour in the internet search market The Commission will now carry out a preliminary investigation of the alleged

conduct to assess whether or not to take any formal action against Google Google stated that the complaints were lodged by Foundem, a UK price

comparison site, EJustice.fr, a French site specializing in legal search inquiries, and Ciao!, a subsidiary of Microsoft

Foundem and EJustice.fr allege that Google’s search algorithm demoted their sites in Web search results favouring its own products over those of rivals; Ciao! complains about Google’s standard terms and conditions

Earlier this month, Navx, a content provider for mapping services, also logged a complaint against Google with the French Competition Authority; Navx alleges that Google abused its dominant position by terminating its Adwords contract and refusing to display Navx’s advertisements

8

Single Firm Conduct – Other Jurisdictions

• Unfair Pricing by Japan’s Mobile Communications Operator Japan’s Communication Ministry together with the Fair Trade Commission is

investigating NTT DoCoMo Inc. for unfair pricing of cellular phone infrastructure to Mobile Virtual Network Operators (MVNOs) and misuse of information acquired during negotiations for leasing.

• South African Airways (SAA) Found to Have Abused its Dominance South Africa’s Competition Tribunal ruled that SAA’s incentive scheme with travel

agents was an abuse of its dominant position; Between 2001 and 2005 the airline made loyalty rebate payments (lump sums) to

travel agents which were awarded at the end of the financial year if they attained defined targets for tickets sales;

The Tribunal's decision opened the way for SAA’s rivals – Nationwide and Comair – to pursue civil damages claims.

9

Mergers & Acquisitions - EU

• Microsoft Acquires the Yahoo Internet Search Business The EU Commission (as the US DoJ) has cleared the proposed acquisition of the

internet search and search advertising businesses of Yahoo! Inc. by Microsoft According to the Commission, “not only market participants do not expect the

transaction to have any negative effects on competition or on their business but they also expect it to increase competition in internet search and search advertising by allowing Microsoft to become a stronger competitor to Google”

In the EEA, Microsoft’s and Yahoo’s combined market shares in internet search and online search advertising are below 10%, whereas Google enjoys market shares of above 90%

• Abbott Acquires Solvay Pharma The EU Commission cleared the proposed acquisition of Solvay Pharma

(Belgium) by Abbott Laboratories (USA), subject to conditions The Commission’s decision is conditional upon the divestment of the Cystic

Fibrosis testing business of Solvay Pharma’s subsidiary Innogenetics in the EEA The Commission had concerns that the parties’ high combined market shares in

the field of Cystic Fibrosis testing could have harmed competition in that market

10

Mergers & Acquisitions – Other Jurisdictions

• Denmark Revokes Merger Approval for the First Time Denmark’s Competition Authority revoked a clearance for agricultural feed

manufacturer Danish Agro’s takeover of rival Landbrugets Andel on the ground of insufficient information provided to the authority

After the deal was approved, the authority was notified of another transaction – a joint takeover of Aarhusegnens Andel by Danish Agro and rival agricultural cooperative DLG

The Danish Agro/Landbrugets merger will now be subject to a new assessment; Carefully review the information provided to the competition authority!

• Pre-merger Consultations in India India’s Competition Authority plans to introduce a scheme for pre-merger

consultations that would allow companies to approach the authority prior to filing a merger to get its views on the compliance of the proposed transaction with the Competition Act

Pre-merger consultations will reduce the time needed for the clearance to 40 days, as opposed to 210 days under the current regime

11

Private Litigation Developments

• In re Micron Technology Inc. Securities Litigation• In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation • Dolan v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co. • Fleischman v. Albany Medical Center • Fullerton Medical Group v. Sideman & Bancroft • Other

– Mercatus Group

– AT&T

– U.S. Information Systems Inc.

12

In re Micron Technology Inc. Securities Litigation (D.D.C.)

• Court rules that securities class may not compel DOJ to produce information relating to Micron’s amnesty application

• In October 2002, Micron entered into the DOJ’s amnesty program• Securities class alleged that Micron should have disclosed its illegal cartel conduct• Plaintiffs sought records of interviews of Micron employees in the DOJ investigation DOJ

defended based on the federal law enforcement privilege • Judge Kessler agreed with DOJ that producing the documents would be an undue burden

– The law enforcement privilege applies to the subpoenaed material and defeats any interest in finding reasonable conditions and restrictions for its production

– Designed to prevent disclosure of information that would be contrary to the public interest in the effective functioning of law enforcement

– It was “readily apparent that a refusal to recognize the law enforcement privilege for information obtained through the DOJ Antitrust Division’s leniency program would chill future informants from coming forward”

13

In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.)

• SM recommended that plaintiffs stated a price fixing claim • Defendants argued that the plaintiffs alleged only a CRT, not a CRT products, cartel

– SM: “CRTs only” distinction “is contrary to the repetitive allegations” of the defendants' conduct regarding CRT Products and to their distribution, purchase, and sale in the United States.”

– SM found that the plaintiffs presented “extensive allegations” of meetings, communications, and agreements to fix prices and production levels”

• Defendants also argued regarding the insufficiency of allegations against each particular defendant– “‘Each defendant's pleading' is not a rule requiring detailed recitation, but is to be evaluated under

the principle of the adequacy of fair notice to the defendants.” – Found that the moving defendants have “more than adequate notice of what that defendant is

charged with” • SM rejected argument that the court lacked jurisdiction under FTAIA

– The defendants again attempted to cast the alleged conspiracy as encompassing only CRTs, which were manufactured and sold only among foreign companies

– There was jurisdiction because the CRT Products were imported to the U.S.• Judge is awaiting objections before ruling

14

Dolan v. Fidelity Nat'l Title Ins. Co. (2nd Cir.)

• Plaintiffs alleged the defendants conspired to fix the price of NY title insurance• District court determined that the filed rate doctrine barred the complaint• Second Circuit stated that any ‘filed rate'—that is, one approved by the governing

regulatory agency—is per se reasonable and unassailable in judicial proceedings brought by ratepayers

• Plaintiffs argued:– Filed rate doctrine does not apply because rates were improperly filed– Court should “fill a regulatory vacuum” created by an alleged lack of authority over

title agents– NY Insurance Law banned the payments of commissions– Questioned whether the filed rate doctrine should ever be applied to NY’s title

insurance system– District court erred in dismissing claim for injunctive relief

• 2nd Cir. disagreed with the plaintiff’s arguments and affirmed the dismissal

15

Fleischman v. Albany Medical Center (N.D.N.Y.)

• Nurses alleged that conspiring hospitals agreed to exchange, and regularly exchanged, detailed and nonpublic information about nurse wage rates

• In a July 2008 decision, the court certified a class of registered nurses with respect to two issues: “whether there has been a violation of antitrust law and whether there has been injury to the class that the Sherman Act was designed to prevent.” Fleischman v. Albany Medical Center, 2008 WL 2945993, at *7 (N.D.N.Y. July 28, 2008). However, the court concluded that the predominance requirement was not satisfied as to the issues of injury-in-fact and damages

• Court most recently denied plaintiffs’ motion to amend class certification on the issues of impact and damages as to a narrower class of registered nurses because the nurses have not shown that information uncovered during discovery constitutes the “changed circumstances” envisioned by Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(c)(1)(C) for proper amendment of class certification

• In addition, plaintiffs have not met their burden to show that common issues regarding injury-in-fact and damages predominate over individual issues

16

Other Private Litigation

• Mercatus Group LLC v. Lake Forest Hospital, N.D. Ill., No. 1:07-cv-2042 – lobbying efforts of a hospital against the development of a stand-alone surgical center are protected by the

Noerr-Pennington doctrine • AT&T, 5th Circuit class action

– Affirmed district court’s ruling that class plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that their alleged geographic market – a single apartment building – was sufficient to allege that AT&T and several subsidiaries violated antitrust law by entering agreements with apartment building owners to be their exclusive provider of telephone, video and Internet “triple play” services

• U.S. Information Systems, Inc., 2nd Circuit– Affirmed lower court's grant of summary judgment to International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local

No. 3 dismissal of U.S. Information Systems Inc.'s suit accusing a union and other electrical contractors of conspiring to muscle the company out of the market for telecommunications wiring and systems installation work

• Fullerton Medical Group v. Sideman & Bancroft (Cal. Ct. App.)– Fullerton alleged legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and constructive fraud, among other claims

against Sideman & Bancroft; Court reversed grant of summary judgment on the legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty because expert’s declaration raised triable issues of material fact regarding the underlying antitrust claims

17

FTC/DOJ Non-Merger Activities – Civil and Criminal

• Significant Civil Cases / Investigations

– Keyspan – DOJ Challenge To Power “Swap” Contracts

– Microsoft / Yahoo Investigation Closed

– In re Androgel Antitrust Litigation

• Business Review Letters

– MyWire Global News Service

• Criminal Antitrust Developments

– Marine Hose Cartel plea

– Ian Norris Extradition

– New investigation – Automotive component suppliers

• DOJ Speech Reveals Criminal Enforcement Trends

18

U.S. v. KeySpan

• U.S. v. KeySpan Corp. (S.D.N.Y., filed Feb. 22)– Complaint and stipulated final judgment – Civil Case– “Swap / hedging” agreement alleged to restrain trade

• KeySpan one of three major NY power suppliers• New capacity entry left KeySpan with two options, both worse than status quo: a)

withholding some capacity to sell less at higher price, or b) selling out capacity at lower price

• Considered purchasing rival (Astoria), but realized would create “market power” issues• DOJ alleges KeySpan accomplished similar outcome by contracting through a thrid

party intermediary– “Swap” with intermediary gave KeySpan a “financial interest in substantially all of

Astoria’s capacity”– “KeySpan would pay Astoria’s owner a fixed revenue stream in return for the

revenues generated from Astoria’s capacity sales” in power auctions• DOJ alleged swap “effectively eliminated KeySpan’s incentive to compete for sales” in

the same way as a KeySpan purchase of Astoria would have done– $12 million disgorgement

• Highly unusual remedy – DOJ says it has not previously sought disgorgement as Sherman Act remedy

– Noted here that private suit would “face significant obstacles imposed by the filed rate doctrine,” which bars damages claims when prices charged are based on a tariff / filed rate

19

Microsoft / Yahoo Investigation

• DOJ closes investigation of Microsoft / Yahoo Internet search and paid advertising collaboration (Press release, Feb. 18)

• Improved product: Combining search provides larger set of queries to accelerate automated learning of Microsoft algorithms

• Strong remaining competition from Google

• DOJ says deal creates a more viable competitive alternative to Google

20

In re: Androgel Antitrust Litigation

• In re: Androgel Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Ga., Feb. 22)– Consolidated claims of FTC, direct purchasers and indirect purchasers

• FTC loses another “pay-for-delay” / reverse payments case– Solvay had patent on Androgel– Patent litigation against Watson and Par, settled before any decisions on motions

in the infringement cases• Solvay shares profits with Watson ($15-30 million per year) and Par ($6

million)• Watson and Par agree not to enter themselves until 2015

• Claims based on reverse payments dismissed for failure to state a claim– Eleventh Circuit rule from Valley Drug and Schering cases precludes liability for

settlement that does not exceed the scope of the patent• Settlement applied only to infringing products, and did not extend beyond the

patent expiration date– Judge Thrash rejects FTC argument that “scope of a patent” includes the

likelihood that a patent holder could assert its claims in court and win• Requiring analysis of who would win on the merits creates uncertainty that

would discourage settlements of patent cases• Would require second guessing litigation outcomes, with treble damage

exposure

21

DOJ Business Review Letters

• MyWire Global News Service– DOJ has no current intention to challenge– Interconnection service among different publishers’ online content on

the same topic• One publisher’s site can link to other publisher stories on the same

topic• May cut out the need for searching by allowing direct jumps to

related content– Non-exclusive agreements (so publishers can join other networks)– MyWire would sell subscriptions, but sets its own prices– Publishers establish their own pricing– Potential procompetitive impact allowing access to broad network of

related content, which may be more efficient than searching

22

Criminal Antitrust Developments

• Marine Hose– Parker ITR R.r.l. - Italian manufacturer

• Fourth supplier to be charged in conspiracy• $2.29 million criminal fine• Cooperation agreement

– Civil fine of >$15million to be paid by 14 companies involved• Whistleblower to receive 15-20% of the $15 million

• Municipal bonds– Former employee of CDR Financial Products pled guilty (Feb. 23)

• Israeli citizen– Trial scheduled for February 2011 for CDR and several executives

23

Criminal Antitrust Developments

• New investigation –automotive electronic component suppliers

– DOJ / FBI Raids (Feb. 23)

• Denso Corp.

• Yazaki North America Inc.

• Tokai Rika Co. Ltd.

• Others

– Other regulators raided companies oversees simultaneously

24

Criminal Antitrust Developments

• Ian Norris Extradition

– Long running saga – US has been trying to extradite former CEO of Morgan Crucible since 2003 after indicting him on conspiracy and obstruction of justice

• UK blocked extradition on conspiracy charge

• UK judge allowed extradition on obstruction of justice

– In February - UK High Court refused to block extradition on obstruction of justice charges

25

DOJ Speech Reveals Criminal Enforcement Trends  (S. Hammond, Feb. 25)

• Leniency program is a "carrot" leading to more investigations– 1 program 1990– 50+ programs 2010– About half of all investigations initiated or advanced through leniency program

• More severe sanctions are a "stick" to deter behavior– Trend of corporate fines by decade

• 1970s: $48 million• 1980s: $188 million• 1990s:  $1.6 billion• 2000s: $4.2 billion

– Increasing percentage of individual defendants sentenced to jail . . .  for longer average jail time

• 2000: 38% sentenced, 10 months average term• 2009: 80% sentenced, 24 months average term

• Continuing increase in international cooperation

26

FTC/DOJ Merger Enforcement Developments

• Bemis/Alcan Packaging

• PepsiCo/PBS/PAS

• Polypore/Microporous

27

Bemis/Alcan Packaging (February 24, 2010)

• DOJ approves Bemis’ acquisition of Alcan Packaging Food Americas business from Rio Tinto, with conditions

– Bemis and Alcan are two leading US manufactures of flexible-packaging rollstock for chunk, sliced, and shredded natural cheese packaged for retail sale and flexible-packaging shrink bags for fresh meat

– Complaint alleges unilateral effects due to dominant share in some markets

– Complaint also alleges coordinated effects in “fresh meat” market, reducing the number of significant competitors from 3 to 2

– Consent order requires the divestiture of Alcan’s business, including contracts, intellectual property and manufacturing plants

28

PepsiCo/PBS/PAS (February 26, 2010)

• FTC approves PepsiCo’s acquisition of two of its bottlers, subject to behavioral relief

• Bottlers have exclusive license to distribute DPSG (“Dr. Pepper”) brands• PepsiCo and DPSG are direct competitors in “highly concentrated” branded

concentrate carbonated soft drinks market• Complaint alleges that PepsiCo would obtain access to competitively sensitive

marketing and brand information from Dr. Pepper• Complaint alleges that PepsiCo could misuse the information, making Dr. Pepper

a weaker competitor or would facilitate coordination• Consent requires that PepsiCo implement firewalls, preventing PepsiCo

employees responsible for “concentrate-related functions” from access to DPSG information

• Consent also provides for 5-year appointment for Monitor Trustee

29

Polypore/Microporous

• FTC ALJ ruled that the $76 million consummated transaction was anticompetitive

• FTC complaint alleged that the merger, completed in March 2008, illegally created a monopoly in North America for flooded battery separator markets

• ALJ’s opinion has not been publically released

• According to a statement from Polypore, the ALJ recommended that Polypore divest all of the acquired Microporous assets

30

Legislative Updates

• Sen. Leahy filed written report on Feb. 2 supporting the passage of a bill that prohibits/limits reverse payment and pay-for-delay settlements [S. 369]– Chairman Leibowitz issued statement supporting end of pay-for-delay settlements– Pres. Obama supports giving FTC enforcement to regulate pay-for-delay practice

• McCarran-Ferguson repealer bill introduced in the House on Feb. 22, which passed it 406 to 19 on Feb. 24 [H.R. 4626]; now on Senate Calendar– Pres. Obama issued Statement of Administration Policy supporting passage of

H.R. 4626

• Joint DOJ/USDA workshops on competition in the agriculture industry begin in March

31

Presenter Bios

Philip TorbølPartner

Brussels+32 2 230 50 59ptorbol@mwe.com

Education:Copenhagen University, Master of Law, 1999

Copenhagen University, Bachelor of Law, 1994

• Philip Torbøl is a partner in the Brussels office of the international law firm of McDermott Will & Emery/Stanbrook LLP.  He joined McDermott in 2005 together with his colleagues from Stanbrook & Hooper and is now a partner in the Firm’s EU regulatory practice and EU Competition Group.  His practice focuses on EU competition law, State aid and government strategies.  Philip began his career in the European Parliament in Brussels and was also an Executive Committee Member of the European Commission’s Youth Forum.

• Competition:   Philip’s competition experience includes advising clients in matters related to the conduct of dominant companies, cartel investigations, merger control, and State aid.  In addition to defending clients before the European institutions, Philip’s practice focuses on helping companies define their distribution strategies within the framework of EU competition law – not only preventively, but also to ensure that clients make the most of the competition law tools available.

• Government Strategies:   As a former EU official, Philip has substantial experience representing clients in strategic regulatory and legislative processes before the European institutions, including the Commission, Parliament and Council.  New EU regulations and their implementation process often present strategic opportunities to companies.  Philip’s objective is to actively take advantage of the EU’s regulatory framework to ultimately put his clients in a favorable commercial position.

• Philip is a regular contributor to the debate on EU and competition law policy.  He has written numerous articles and spoken on many occasions on competition issues to both general and specialized business audiences.  He was shortlisted for Global Competition Review’s 40 under 40 list in 2008.

• Philip is a member of the Lawyers’ Society of Denmark and the Brussels Bar (French).• Philip speaks Danish, English, French, Norwegian, and Swedish

32

Presenter Bios

Craig SeebaldPartner

Washington, DC202 756 8127cseebald@mwe.com

Education:George Washington University Law School, J.D. (cum laude), 1992

Franklin & Marshall College, B.A., 1989

• Craig P. Seebald is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm's Washington, D.C. office.  Craig focuses his practice on all aspects of antitrust law, including defending companies involved in government investigations, defending mergers and joint ventures before the antitrust agencies, providing antitrust counseling and representing clients in civil and criminal litigation. 

• A key area of Craig’s practice is defending companies involved in cartel and price fixing investigations.  He has successfully defended companies in grand jury investigations and coordinated the defense of multi-jurisdiction cartel investigations.  He has also represented clients in obtaining amnesty from the Department of Justice.  He has successfully defended companies in state and federal class actions in cartel cases.  

• Another key area of Craig’s practice is representing clients in antitrust matters involving intellectual property.  He has counseled clients on patent pools, standard setting, patent acquisition and licensing.  He has litigated several antitrust cases involving patent pools, licensing agreements, standard setting and the enforcement of invalid patents.

• Craig has also successfully defended large-scale acquisitions, mergers, joint ventures and other collaborations before the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice and Department of Defense.  In addition, Craig also regularly counsels clients on distribution issues and is a member of the Firm’s Distribution Practice Group.   

• Craig is ranked in Chambers USA – America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, which reported that Craig “impresses clients with ‘his in-depth knowledge of our business and the issues we confront.’”

33

Presenter Bios

Jon DubrowPartner

Washington, DC202 756 8122jdubrow@mwe.com

Educations:University of Pennsylvania Law School, J.D. (cum laude, Order of the Coif), 1992

University of Virginia, B.A., 1988

• Jon B. Dubrow is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm's Washington, D.C. office.  He focuses his practice on defending mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures before the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission and foreign competition authorities, as well as antitrust and commercial litigation.  Jon also provides counseling on distribution issues and a wide variety of other competition-related matters. Jon is listed in Who’s Who in American Law.

• Transactions/Counseling: Jon has provided antitrust counseling on several hundred transactions.  Jon has filed and/or managed the preparation of hundreds of HSR premerger notification forms and provided HSR counseling on many additional matters.  Jon has also managed multinational merger filings in numerous transactions.  He has appeared before the FTC/DOJ in dozens of substantive merger investigations, including numerous “second requests.”  Jon regularly represents the interests of third-parties who are threatened with harm by mergers or acquisitions involving their competitors or suppliers.  Jon regularly counsels clients on a broad range of antitrust issues including information exchanges, joint venture ancillary restraints and distribution issues.  He also has successfully defended clients in a criminal antitrust grand jury bid rigging investigation and a civil group boycott investigation.

• Litigation: Jon has handled a wide variety of antitrust claims in litigation.  These litigations have involved industries including hospitals, construction equipment, defense equipment, space launch vehicles, medical devices, biotech/pharmaceuticals and aircraft.  These cases have involved Sherman Act monopolization and conspiracy claims involving a variety of conduct including alleged price fixing, market allocation, tying, "bundled discounts," "aftermarket" parts and services, and a variety of other alleged anticompetitive conduct.  Jon has also defended governmental challenges to mergers or acquisitions under Section 7 of the Clayton Act.

34

Presenter Bios

Joel GrosbergPartner

Washington, DC202 756 8207jgrosberg@mwe.com

Education:Cornell Law School, J.D., 1996

University of Michigan, B.A. (high distinction), 1992

• Joel R. Grosberg is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm's Washington, D.C. office.   He focuses his practice on defending mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures before the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice, state antitrust authorities, foreign competition authorities, as well as antitrust litigation.  Joel has significant experience in the high tech, chemical, health care and life sciences industries.  His experience includes counseling on matters related to pricing and distribution practices and other competition related matters.

• Prior to joining McDermott Will & Emery, Joel was an attorney with the Federal Trade Commission, where he handled a full range of antitrust matters involving the computer hardware and software, semiconductor, chemical, automotive parts, plastics, toy and paper industries.

• Joel is admitted to practice in the state of New York and the District of Columbia.

35

Presenter Bios

Carrie AmezcuaAssociate

Washington, DC202 756 8309camezcua@mwe.com

Education:American University, Washington College of Law, J.D. (magna cum laude, Order of the Coif), 2008

John Carroll University, B.S.B.A., 1998

• Carrie G. Amezcua is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C. office. As a member of the Antitrust and Competition practice group, she focuses her practice on antitrust litigation.

• During law school, Carrie was a teaching assistant for the Legal Rhetoric and Research program for two years and a note and comment editor for the American University Law Review. She also authored, Of Protection and Sovereignty: Applying the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act Extraterritorially to Protect Embedded Software Outsourced to China, American University Law Review, Volume 57.1, October 2007.

• Before joining the legal profession, Carrie was a manager with a major consulting firm, specializing in business process and technology consulting in the Telecommunications industry.

• Carrie is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and the state of Pennsylvania.