What to Do If Your Company Receives a U.S. DOJ Grand Jury Subpoena

You have just received notice of a grand jury subpoena duces tecum from the Department of Justice Antitrust Division in connection with a price-fixing investigation. Indeed, the likelihood of doing so may be on the rise. In 2008, the Division had 137 pending grand jury investigations, filed 54 criminal cases and charged 59 individuals and 25 corporations. The Division currently has nearly 150 open cartel investigations. In 2009, the Division collected over $1 billion in criminal fines. And the Obama administration has made clear that it intends to continue pursuing price-fixing conspiracies. What should you do if your company receives a subpoena? Below are 10 practical steps.

1. Inform the company’s key decision-makers
Receiving a grand jury subpoena is a critical event. The company’s key decision-makers should be informed immediately. This is an appropriate time to present a brief overview of the Sherman Act, the DOJ’s authority and the nature, scope and purpose of a criminal investigation.

2. Ensure that no relevant evidence is destroyed
You must take immediate steps to preserve relevant evidence, including both paper and electronic documents, to avoid even the appearance of an unwillingness to cooperate with the investigation, or worse, the obstruction of justice. Therefore, the company and its lawyers should circulate a memorandum or e-mail to the effect that a subpoena has been, or will be, received and that documents relating to prices, price levels, price terms, competitor contacts, etc., should not be destroyed. The memorandum should indicate that document-retention policies that would otherwise call for the destruction of these documents should be suspended. Although at the very outset of an investigation you may not necessarily know all the appropriate recipients of such a memorandum, you can likely identify the more obvious ones (e.g., decision-makers who had any authority relating to pricing, as well as their assistants). As you learn more, there may be good reason to circulate such a memorandum more widely.

3. Retain outside antitrust counsel
Although in-house counsel are often adequately equipped to deal with many aspects of a criminal investigation, outside counsel with experience in antitrust investigations will also likely be required. The general counsel’s office is part of the same corporate management that may be under suspicion by government attorneys. Not only do inhouse counsel face potential personal and professional conflicts if colleagues are implicated, but the numerous demands of the investigation, especially in its critical early stages, can often overwhelm in-house counsel.

4. Consider contacting the DOJ
It is important to contact DOJ to establish an atmosphere of cooperation. You may also learn something about the DOJ’s focus and true interests, especially in negotiating the scope of the subpoena. You will probably want to try to narrow the usually overbroad subpoena or, at least, identify areas of higher priority that can be addressed first. For example, the DOJ may be willing to allow the company to search its headquarters files first and produce them. Then, if the DOJ wants additional documents, but not before, the company would search its offsite locations or branch offices. You should not make any statements to the DOJ about the burden of compliance or the locations, existence or nonexistence of files unless you are absolutely sure that they are accurate.

5. Determine the company’s status and consider the leniency program
Knowing whether your company is a subject or a target of the investigation has important ramifications. You may want to ask whether the company is the subject or a target. Often, the DOJ does not make this determination until late in the investigation, so the fact that a company is classified as a subject may convey a misleading sense of security. Another way to probe the issue is by asking permission for the company’s counsel also to represent individual employees. If the DOJ objects, there is likely a serious issue.

The Antitrust Division has a corporate leniency program, which essentially insulates from criminal liability the first company (and its officers) in a cartel that provides information to the government. Leniency also may eliminate treble-damages exposure in certain civil contexts. The leniency program puts a premium on learning the facts quickly to maximize the company’s possibility to obtain leniency if there has been wrongdoing. You do not want to guess about whether leniency is available. The Antitrust Division is always fishing until they “get” someone, but you can ask: “As we conduct our own investigation, and without suggesting any guilt, should we be considering a leniency application?” If the answer is yes, it is possible to place a “marker” with the DOJ to preserve the company’s position for a limited time while conducting the investigation.

6. Ascertain the key players
Identifying the key players will affect the scope of the file search and determine, at least initially, the universe of information available. Every company has a different organization, but the group must include everyone with pricing authority or input, as well as their assistants and secretaries. The group is likely to include former employees if the investigation relates to events that happened more than a few years ago.

7. Determine the scope of file searches
Once the key players are identified, it becomes possible to identify existing files that must be searched. These files will almost always include pricing files, competitor contact files and significant customer files. Market analyses and reports also will be relevant. But do not overlook other areas of possible interest–including trade association files, telephone logs and travel expense/reimbursement files–which are often the focus of a government investigation.

8. Prepare a memorandum for corporate employees
The existence of an investigation is likely to prompt discussions between and among corporate employees. In addition, the company probably would prefer to designate one or several people to communicate with the DOJ. However, the company and individuals must be scrupulous to avoid even the appearance of interfering with a criminal investigation, witness intimidation or obstruction of justice, which can be prosecuted as separate offenses under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1503, 1505 and 1512(b). In addition, employees’ interests may or may not be totally aligned with that of the company, and they may have Fifth Amendment rights not to testify. Although every company is different, one way to balance these competing interests is to circulate a memorandum from counsel to the effect that an investigation has begun, that counsel is representing the corporation, that individuals may wish to consult their own counsel, that individuals have the right to discuss the case with the government but also have the right to have counsel present if they choose, and that if counsel is indicated, the company will pay the fees. Employees should also be requested to inform corporate counsel of any discussions or contacts with the government.

9. Interview key personnel
You should interview the company’s key personnel, making sure that employees are aware that counsel is representing the corporation, and that the communications are protected by the corporate privilege. But if separate counsel for employees is advisable, you may want to advise the affected employees that the company will provide counsel for them. The interviews should focus on competitor contacts, knowledge of competitors’ pricing and the company’s prices and pricing practices.

10. Determine if competitors or former employees should be contacted
You may want to contact competitors to learn about the government’s investigation, competitors’ negotiations with the government over subpoena scope, etc. Careful consideration should be given to the use of a joint defense agreement to maximize preservation of the attorney-client and other privileges. Former employees also may have valuable information regarding the period of time in question. In fact, it may be essential to talk with them. But care must be taken to ensure that they are aware whom counsel represents. Company executives should refrain from discussing the investigation with others, and particularly with their counterparts at competitors.

Concluding thoughts
Coping with a grand jury antitrust investigation can be a daunting task. But with careful and meticulous preparation and organization, it does not have to be overwhelming.

Changes at the Helm of the European Commission: Commissioner Neelie Kroes Steps Down

The position of Commissioner for Competition, formerly occupied by Ms. Neelie Kroes, was handed over to Mr. Joaquín Almunia on February 10, 2010. The Commissioner oversees the work of the Directorate General for Competition (DGCOMP), the part of the European Commission responsible for enforcing the antitrust rules of the EU.

Ms. Kroes’ Tenure
During her five-year term as Commissioner, Ms. Kroes earned a reputation for aggressive enforcement of European competition rules. Her tenure saw record fines levied against several prominent international companies for alleged abuse of dominance of Article 102 TFEU. Ms. Kroes also clamped down on cartels. Since 2004, the Commission has adopted over 30 cartel decisions, issuing fines totaling over €9,000 million. Merger regulation was less prominent, principally due to reduced levels of activity since 2007. Only one merger was blocked during her tenure–that between Irish airlines Ryanair Ltd. and Aer Lingus Ltd. Several mergers, however, were abandoned without the Commission having to issue a prohibition decision, and others were allowed to proceed only after the parties made commitments in response to competitive concerns. Ms. Kroes became a central figure in the global banking and economic crisis because of her strict stance on state aid to restructure Member States’ banking institutions. Ms. Kroes’ “no-nonsense” approach to enforcement has helped cement the Commission’s position as a popular forum for companies to bring complaints against competitors for abuse of dominance.

The Future Under Mr. Almunia
Mr. Almunia, who formerly served as the Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, succeeded Ms. Kroes as Commissioner for Competition on February 10, 2010. Mr. Almunia’s appointment has, in general, been well received. He is widely regarded as being knowledgeable in the functioning of the EU. His hearing before the European Parliament, perhaps unsurprisingly, had a clear economic focus, and he stated that his “absolute priority” is “to overcome the crisis and ensure that Europe comes out of it better equipped for balanced and sustainable growth.” The day after he assumed his new position, Mr. Almunia issued a statement that included the following: “As Competition Commissioner, I’m here to ensure that competition policy delivers for consumers and for businesses. To that end I will focus on fighting against cartels, preventing dominant companies from abusing their market power in any sector or any country in Europe and maintaining a rigorous scrutiny of proposed mergers. I also intend to further consider how to achieve effective compensation for victims of illegal antitrust behaviour.”

Regional Developments: United States

Legislative Developments

Resale Price Maintenance. In 2007, in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a nearly 100-year-old precedent and held that minimum resale price maintenance should be evaluated under a Rule of Reason analysis. In January 2010, the House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 3190, a bill that would overturn Leegin. A similar bill, S. 148, is pending in the Senate.

Patent Suit Reverse Payments. Several U.S. circuit courts, the FTC and the DOJ have taken different positions regarding reverse cash settlements in patent suits—settlements in which the pharmaceutical patent owner pays cash to the alleged infringer, whose entry into the market, while typically prior to patent expiration, is permitted only after some period of time following the settlement. Bills have been introduced in Congress to limit such arrangements. S. 369, H.R. 3962.

Insurance Antitrust Exemption. Under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, the “business of insurance” is generally exempted from the antitrust laws. Proposed health care legislation in Congress would either repeal the exemption or construe it not to permit health insurers or medical malpractice insurers to engage in price-fixing, bid-rigging or market allocation. The bill passed the House of Representative on February 24, 2010. H.R. 4626.

Pleading Standards. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court raised the bar for antitrust (and other) plaintiffs, who now must make detailed, specific factual allegations in their complaints to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Bills have been introduced in Congress to repeal these two decisions. S. 1504, H.R. 4115.

Agency Guidance

Horizontal Merger Guidelines. The DOJ and FTC adopted horizontal merger guidelines in 1992, which were revised in 1997. In September 2009, the agencies announced that they would conduct five workshops with an eye toward revising or updating the Guidelines. Those workshops are now completed, but no publication date for the update has been announced. More information can be found here.

Section 5 of the FTC Act. The FTC recently has made efforts to use Section 5 to reach conduct outside the reach of the Sherman and Clayton Acts. Although it held a workshop in October 2008, it is unclear whether or when the FTC will issue a report providing guidance as to Section 5. More information can be found here.

Regional Developments: Europe

DGCOMP Guidelines and Guidance. On January 6, 2010, the Competition Directorate of the European Commission (DGCOMP) launched a public consultation of its draft guidelines on Best Practices in antitrust proceedings and Best Practices for the submission of economic evidence (Guidelines). At the same time, the DGCOMP Hearing Officers–who supervise the procedural aspects of DGCOMP investigations–published their draft Guidance Paper. These three papers aim to build on existing practice in some areas of DGCOMP and to ensure a coherent application across units within DGCOMP. The Guidelines will be applicable to all proceedings under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (formerly Articles 81 and 82 EC Treaty), including investigations into abuse of dominance and cartels. Although the public consultation period closed on March 3, 2010, and DGCOMP has not yet adopted the final form, the Guidelines are provisionally applicable to all current investigations being carried out by DGCOMP. The draft Guidelines are available here.

Vertical Agreement Block Exemption Regulation. The current regulation exempts certain supply and distribution agreements from the ban on restrictive business practices contained within Article 101 TFEU. It is due to expire on May 31, 2010. In 2009 the Commission opened a period of consultation on a new regulation. The main suggestions for amendments intend to take account of recent market developments–in particular, the evolution of online sales on the Internet. The draft regulation is currently under consideration by the Member States and their respective National Competition Authorities, with formal adoption expected in May, in time for the regulation to come into force on June 1, 2010. More information can be found here.

Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation. The current regulation exempts certain agreements relating to the distribution and repair of motor vehicles from the ban on restrictive business practices contained within Article 101 TFEU. It is due to expire on May 31, 2010. In December 2009, the Commission released a draft regulation extending the validity of the provisions of the current regulation that relate to vertical agreements for the purchase, sale or resale of new vehicles until May 31, 2013. As of June 1, 2013, vertical agreements for the purchase, sale and resale of new motor vehicles will be covered by the general Vertical Agreement Block Exemption Regulation. Vertical agreements relating to the purchase, sale or resale of spare parts for motor vehicles or repair and maintenance services for motor vehicles will continue to be regulated by the sector-specific Motor Vehicle Block Exemption Regulation. More information can be found here.

Significant Cases: Legal Professional Privilege. On February 9, 2010, the European Court of Justice (“ECJ”) heard a landmark case regarding legal professional privilege (“LPP”). Akzo Nobel Chemicals and Akcros Chemicals v. Commission stemmed from a cartel investigation in 2003 where chemicals company Akzo Nobel disagreed with the Commission’s seizure of communications, including those involving its in-house lawyer, who was a member of the Dutch bar. Legal action ensued with Akzo Nobel arguing that LPP meant documents shared with in-house lawyers who are members of the bar were beyond the reach of investigators. However, the General Court (formerly the Court of First Instance) ruled that bar membership did not necessarily make in-house counsel independent, and that communications between in-house counsel and businesspeople are not covered by LPP. The Court did, however, extend LPP to internal papers drafted in order to seek advice from an external lawyer. The ECJ will rule on the case after Advocate General Kokott delivers her opinion on April 29, 2010.

Regional Developments: Asia

China Anti-Monopoly Law Guidelines. Since the enactment of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law on August 1, 2008, guidelines and subsidiary legislation have been passed. The latest include “Measures for the Notification of Concentrations of Business Operators” and “Measures for the Review of Concentrations of Business Operators,” which went into effect on January 1, 2010. The Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) also published interpretation notes concerning these two measures on January 15, 2010.

China Anti-Monopoly Law Enforcement. On October 23, 2009, the Shanghai First Intermediate People’s Court dismissed the claim by Beijing Sursen Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. against Shanda Interactive Entertainment Limited and Shanghai Xuanting Entertainment Information Technology Ltd. that they abused their dominance in the “online literature” market. On October 23, 2009, the Beijing Second Intermediate People’s Court announced the settlement of a complaint by a Chinese lawyer, Zhou Ze, against China Mobile Limited, the world’s largest telecom operator, claiming that China Mobile Limited abused its dominant market position by imposing unreasonable trading conditions and applying differential treatment.

Client Case Studies

Favorable FTC Settlement for Whole Foods in Wild Oats Merger. Orrick recently obtained a highly favorable settlement for Whole Foods to end the Federal Trade Commission’s challenge to Whole Foods’ consummated merger with Wild Oats. In early 2008, a U.S. district court refused to block the merger in a case brought by the FTC. In August 2008, the FTC obtained a reversal of that decision, allowing it to attempt to make its case in federal court, and then began its own administrative investigation. Whole Foods launched a counteroffensive to the FTC’s investigation, including: (1) suing the FTC, claiming violations of Whole Foods’ equal protection rights and fundamental due process; (2) persuading members of the Senate and House to send letters to the FTC regarding procedural fairness, dual standards of justice and due process raised by the FTC’s treatment of Whole Foods; and (3) a media campaign, resulting in favorable press in the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times and other publications. On March 7, 2009, Whole Foods and the FTC reached a settlement. Orrick’s team included partners Garret Rasmussen, Joshua Galper, Adam Goldberg, senior associate Antony Kim and associates John Pitts and Jonathan Direnfeld.

Decisive Appellate Victory in Antitrust Conspiracy Case. In 2009, Orrick defeated the Missouri Public Service Commission in a suit in which the Commission sued 23 energy companies, including Orrick clients Aquila, Inc. and Aquila Merchant Services, Inc. (now Kansas City Power and Light), based on allegations that the defendants conspired to force local gas distribution companies to pay artificially inflated prices. The court relied on a motion prepared by Orrick to dismiss the entire action as to all defendants, on the ground the Commission lacked standing to sue based on assignments from private businesses. On December 8, 2009, the Missouri Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. The Los Angeles-based Orrick team was led by partner William Molinski, assisted by senior associates Khai LeQuang and Frank Rorie and managing associate Dimitrios Korovilas.

Unanimous Jury Verdict in Vertical Price-Fixing Antitrust Case. In 2009, Orrick won a unanimous defense jury verdict in an antitrust case brought under California’s Cartwright Act (California’s analogue to the federal Sherman Act). In The Consortium Group v. Equifax, Consortium, previously a reseller of Equifax credit reports, alleged that Equifax terminated its relationship as part of a conspiracy to fix prices of credit reports in certain markets. At trial, Orrick’s lawyers demonstrated that Equifax acted unilaterally in terminating Consortium and had clear business reasons for doing so. The Orrick team included Los Angeles partner William Molinski, senior associate Frank Rorie, managing associate Melanie Phillips and associate Geoffrey Moss.

Favorable Ninth Circuit Decision in Monopolization Case. The Ninth Circuit recently affirmed a district court judgment in favor of Orrick’s client, Masimo Corporation. The case concerned competition in the market for pulse oximetry equipment–noninvasive devices that measure oxygen saturation levels in the blood. After Masimo entered the market with superior new technology, Tyco Healthcare Group LP (now Covidien) entered into a series of overlapping contracts with group purchasing organizations and individual hospitals that provided the hospitals lower pricing in return for commitments to purchase almost all of their pulse oximetry equipment from Tyco. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the court’s ruling in Masimo’s favor and its award of $14.5 million before trebling. The Orrick team was composed of San Francisco’s senior litigation counsel M. Laurence Popofsky, partner Scott Westrich and managing associate Deborah Croyle.

French Competition Authority Approves Two Major Acquisitions. In 2009, Orrick’s Paris office secured approval from the French Competition Authority for two back-to-back industrial cleaning and facilities management acquisitions for industry leader Groupe TFN. Groupe TFN sought to acquire two smaller players operating within the industrial cleaning and facilities management markets that held the number 5 and 6 positions in the market. The merger would have made the combined TFN/VPNM entity the number 2 competitor in the market. The French Competition Authority authorized the mergers after the Orrick team established that there were enough players within the industry such that the merger would not hinder competition or augment unfair practices. This transaction was one of the first cases presented before the new French Competition Authority. The Orrick team included Paris corporate partner Philippe Rincazaux, Paris global finance partner George Rigo and Paris corporate associate Lise Damelet Grilli.

Orrick Hölters & Elsing Advises Europe’s Largest Kitchen Manufacturer in Strategic Acquisition. Orrick recently advised Europe’s largest kitchen manufacturer, Nobilia, in the strategic acquisition of 30% of the shares of France’s FBD Group (currently operating under the name the Arthur Bonnet Group), the franchise sales network of the leading Italian kitchen manufacturer Snaidero. The transaction was subject to a merger control clearance condition. Clearance was obtained in all affected jurisdictions (Germany, Austria and France). The Orrick team was led by Düsseldorf partner Oliver Duys and included Frankfurt partner Andrés Martin-Ehlers, Paris partners Alfred Fink and Philippe Rincazaux, Milan partner Anna Spanò, as well as Düsseldorf associate Ulrich Klockenbrink, Frankfurt associate Sebastian Strohmayr and Paris associates Benoit Zagdoun, Nicolas Leveque, Gentien Hoang and Pierre Storck.

Orrick Helps Baidu, Inc. Win China’s First Monopolization Case. In 2009, Orrick assisted Baidu, Inc., the largest Chinese Internet search engine company, in the first case to be accepted by the Beijing First Intermediate People’s Court since the Chinese Anti-Monopoly Law took effect on August 1, 2008. Tangshan Renren Information Services Co. (“Renren”) alleged that Baidu had “monopolized the Chinese search engine market” and had “blacklisted” a Renren subsidiary after it moved to a lower-tier advertising arrangement with Baidu. Orrick’s team of U.S. and China intellectual property and antitrust lawyers successfully advised Baidu as a result of the team’s experience in U.S. and EU antitrust law as well as their knowledge of China’s Anti-Monopoly Law, which was gained by serving on China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) special legal advisory committee. The team included antitrust and competition partner Edward “Ted” Henneberry, Beijing intellectual property partner Xiang Wang, Ph.D, Washington, D.C. managing associate Richard Rinkema, Beijing managing associate Shelley Zhang and intellectual property associates Yali Hu and Carol Yan.

Appointments, Articles and Events

Recent Antitrust and Competition Appointments

Philippe Rincazaux, an Orrick Paris partner, was recently named editor for the International Bar Association’s (IBA) antitrust newsletter. In his new role, Philippe joins a board of 13 lawyers from around the world who comprise the IBA’s Antitrust Committee.

In addition, Philippe will serve a second term as a nongovernmental advisor to the International Competition Network (ICN). Established in October 2001 to facilitate procedural and substantive convergence in antitrust enforcement, the ICN is an informal network of competition authorities from around the world. Its membership is composed of 107 competition authorities from 96 jurisdictions worldwide.

Edward “Ted” Henneberry, an Orrick Washington, D.C. partner, was selected to join an American Bar Association (ABA) special advisory team which provided counsel to the Anti-Monopoly Bureau of the Chinese Government’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM) on best practices in relation to China’s new Anti-Monopoly Law. Ted traveled to Beijing with two other U.S. lawyers and two economists to attend a meeting and private seminar focusing on key issues in merger enforcement and analysis under the Anti-Monopoly Law. In addition, Ted will serve as a Non-Governmental Advisor (NGA) for the International Competition Network’s (ICN) Annual Meeting and consult on ongoing work for the Merger Working Group. He has served as a NGA for ICN since 2006.

David Goldstein, an Orrick San Francisco partner, was recently appointed Vice Chair of the Antitrust Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco. The Section sponsors presentations and panel discussions concerning antitrust and competition counseling, enforcement and litigation.

Recent Antitrust and Competition Publications

On Antitrust,” Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Fall 2009 – Article by Howard Ullman
China’s Chief Price-Regulator Flexes New Antitrust Muscle,” The Price Point, Fall 2009 – Article by Jonathan Palmer
China Moves To Implement Its New Merger Control Regime,” Orrick Client Alert, March 2009 – Article by Edward Henneberry, Jonathan Palmer and Vena Cheng
China Outlines Market Definition Criteria for Antitrust Analysis Following Offsite Workshop with U.S. Experts,” Orrick Client Alert, February 2009 – Article by Edward Henneberry and Jonathan Palmer

Upcoming Antitrust and Competition Events

March

Directors Roundtable
Santa Clara, California
March 19, 2010
Orrick partners Robert Rosenfeld and Robert Freitas will join Carl Shapiro from the U.S. Department of Justice and other distinguished speakers to discuss antitrust policy a year into the Obama Administration.

April

ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting
Washington, D.C.
April 21-23, 2010
>Orrick will host a cocktail reception in the Pierce Room of the Willard Hotel on the evening of April 21, 2010, from 5:30 p.m. – 8:00 p.m.

Bar Association of San Francisco, Antitrust Section
San Francisco, California
April 26, 2010
Orrick partner Robert Rosenfeld will participate in a panel discussion on taking document-intensive antitrust cases to trial.

Past Events

January

DOJ/FTC Horizontal Merger Guidelines Review Project
Stanford University, California
January 14, 2010
M. Laurence Popofsky, an Orrick senior counsel, participated in an FTC/DOJ workshop exploring the possibility of updating the Horizontal Merger Guidelines the agencies use to evaluate the potential competitive effects of mergers and acquisitions.

Current Trends and Issues in Antitrust
Stanford University, California
January 15, 2010
Orrick partners Stephen Bomse, David Goldstein and Jessica Persparticipated in a panel addressing Current Trends and Issues in Antitrust. In addition to a general overview of developments in antitrust and competition law, the panelists addressed issues facing today’s in-house counsel, including resale price maintenance, Section 5 of the FTC Act and participation in standards-setting organizations.

February

Biennial ABA/IBA International Cartel Workshop
Paris, France
February 10-12, 2010
Edward Henneberry, an Orrick partner and a member of The ABA’s International Cartel Task Force and Planning Committee, participated in a panel discussion at the ABA’s International Cartel Workshop.

5th Annual In-House Forum on Pharma Antitrust
American Conference Institute
New York, New York
February 17-18, 2010
Orrick partner Robert Reznick participated in a panel on “Avoiding the Appearance of ‘Predatory Pricing’ by Carefully Crafting Pricing and Distribution Strategies that Are in Line with Robinson-Patman.”

Get to Know: Robert Reznick

Robert Reznick recently joined Orrick’s Washington, D.C., office as a partner in the Antitrust and Competition Group and the Life Sciences Industry Group.

“We are excited about Rob’s arrival,” said New York partner and managing director of litigation Jim Stengel. “Over the last several years we have grown our antitrust and competition and life sciences global platforms with significant expertise. We have a track record of seeking innovative, cooperative and collegial methods of serving the needs of our global clients.

Rob’s prominent litigation and counseling expertise is a great complement to our antitrust and competition and life sciences practices, both domestically and globally.”

Rob’s practice focuses on the counseling of pharmaceutical and other life sciences companies in connection with pricing, marketing and M&A activities, and the representation of those entities in multiplaintiff and class action litigation involving claims of price-fixing and other collusive conduct, fraud, RICO and IP-based antitrust claims. He is co-author of a chapter on the arbitration of pharmaceutical industry antitrust claims in International Arbitration: A Practical Handbook (Gordon Blanke and Phillip Landolt, Eds., Kluwer/Aspen), to be published in the spring of 2010. Formerly a partner with Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Rob was co-chair of its Pharmaceutical and Healthcare Industry and Product Safety Practice Groups.

Rob also represents drug industry clients in enforcement actions against the sale of counterfeit and illegally imported and diverted drugs and medical devices, and in connection with Federal Trade Commission investigations and enforcement actions. In addition, he serves as outside counsel to the Pharmaceutical Security Institute, Inc., the brand name pharmaceutical industry’s anti-counterfeiting trade group.Rob also has extensive experience representing clients in product safety matters before the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.

“Orrick’s premier global antitrust and life sciences industry-focused groups offer the highest quality of service in the global markets of most importance to clients,” said Rob. “Working with the lawyers in these groups and having the chance to integrate my practice with theirs has been enormously satisfying. The combined Orrick life sciences antitrust team provides premier service to clients in the key markets in Asia, Europe and the United States and deepens Orrick’s commitment to the provision of wide-ranging and sophisticated legal services worldwide.”