Overview

For more than 40 years, Dickstein Shapiro has successfully represented parties in a variety of industries in complex antitrust and regulatory litigation and governmental investigations. The firm employs its litigation and settlement experience on behalf of defendants, including financial services companies, seeking to avoid litigation, or, when litigation is unavoidable, to escape or minimize exposure in complex disputes, such as multijurisdictional and multiparty litigation, including putative class actions. In addition, the firm has become the leading representative of large companies as plaintiffs in treble damages antitrust actions in the United States, generating recoveries for clients that underscore how a corporate legal department can be a vital source of revenue.

Antitrust Defendant Representation

Dickstein Shapiro’s antitrust defense practice encompasses a wide variety of matters, including the representation of a major automotive parts supplier concerning price-fixing allegations in the automotive filters industry and the representation of a global science company concerning allegations of monopolization in the flexographic printing industry. The firm also is leading the defense of a national energy company in response to allegations that it manipulated prices in California and has defended the company in a parallel federal criminal investigation and investigations by several State Attorneys General.

In past matters, attorneys in the Antitrust and Financial Services Practice have achieved noteworthy successes, including:

In its representation of Pfizer Inc, the firm obtained the dismissal of an antitrust action relating to the importation of pharmaceuticals from Canada, which was affirmed on appeal. In a similar price-fixing case in California, it achieved a favorable summary judgment for Pfizer, which was affirmed by the Court of Appeal and is pending before the California Supreme Court.
In Kendall et al. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc. et al., a member of the practice obtained the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of antitrust claims by merchants against MasterCard International Incorporated relating to payment card interchange fees. The dismissal was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Members of the practice successfully moved to dismiss antitrust claims against MasterCard International Incorporated relating to payment card “chargebacks” in Paycom Billing Services, Inc. v. MasterCard International Inc. (dismissal affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit) and in PSW, Inc. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc.
In Soundview Technologies, Inc. v. Sony Corp., et al., the firm was counsel to a major industry group in a case alleging a conspiracy to boycott licenses for V-chip technology owned by the plaintiff, and summary judgment was obtained for the defendants.

Complementing its representation of defendants, the firm also acts as national settlement counsel for defendants in antitrust cases such as In re Polyester Staple Fiber Antitrust Litigation, In re EPDM Antitrust Litigation, and In re Polychloroprene Rubber (CR) Antitrust Litigation.

Antitrust Plaintiff Representation

Dickstein Shapiro has achieved many notable successes for antitrust plaintiffs. The firm currently represents Novell in Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, a litigation alleging monopolization of the market for word processing and related software used on personal computers in which the firm defeated the defendant’s motion to dismiss the claims. Similarly, the firm represents the plaintiff in ZF Meritor LLC, et al. v. Eaton Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting various antitrust claims, which also successfully survived a motion to dismiss.

A number of years ago, Dickstein Shapiro realized that many of its corporate clients were dissatisfied with their experiences as class members in antitrust class actions. As a result, the firm began representing groups of clients that were among the primary purchasers of products from suppliers that participated in unlawful cartels. These clients opted out of the class actions and filed their own cases directly against the defendants. For example, the firm brought opt-out cases on behalf of a group of poultry and animal feed companies arising from overcharges in the lysine market in In re Amino Acid Lysine Antitrust Litigation; on behalf of food and household products companies against the manufacturers of citric acid in In re Citric Acid Antitrust Litigation; on behalf of a diverse group of purchasers against the manufacturers of corrugated containers in In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation; on behalf of animal feed producers in In re Methionine Antitrust Litigation; on behalf of tire manufacturers against chemical companies in In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litigation; and on behalf of a group of vitamin supplement, food, and animal feed producers against manufacturers of bulk vitamins in In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation. These cases have established the firm’s preeminence in the representation of corporate antitrust plaintiffs.

Financial Services Representation

The firm’s Antitrust & Financial Services Practice attorneys represent financial services companies in a wide array of litigation and provide day-to-day counseling on regulatory and litigation-related issues with an eye toward preventing litigation. They have an excellent litigation record that includes numerous dismissals on the pleadings and have played a leading role in achieving favorable class action and private settlements and enforcing arbitration clauses, including in putative class actions.

The experience of the firm’s attorneys in financial services litigation includes matters involving a wide variety of federal and state statutes and regulations, such as the Truth in Lending Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), Fair Housing Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act (FACTA). In addition, firm attorneys have defended cases brought against financial services clients under the federal and state antitrust laws, RICO, state laws prohibiting unfair and deceptive acts and practices, and common law and equitable theories, such as for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, and unjust enrichment.

The types of financial services matters in which firm attorneys have been involved include:

automobile finance
investment banking
mortgage lending
payment cards
payday loans
personal loans
stock exchange

Notable successes in this area include:

In Klutho v. GE Money Bank, No. 4:06CV1319 HEA, 2007 WL 162291 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 17, 2007), members of the practice successfully moved to dismiss a putative class claim that a prescreened offer for an open-end line of credit was not a “firm offer of credit” under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.
In In re Stock Exchanges Options Trading Antitrust Litigation, 317 F.3d 134 (2d Cir. 2003), a member of the practice obtained summary judgment in favor of the New York Stock Exchange after other defendants had agreed to settle the case; the decision was affirmed on appeal.
In Coleman v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 296 F.3d 443 (6th Cir. 2002), an ECOA case concerning automobile financing practices, a member of the practice argued in the Sixth Circuit and obtained the reversal of class certification under Rule 23(b)(2).

Government Investigations

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the U.S. Department of Justice, and State Attorneys General of the various states are empowered to undertake investigations and prosecutions of individuals or companies whose activities are suspected of violating the laws protecting fair competition. The firm has represented numerous corporations and individuals in such government actions and often has been successful in avoiding litigation. For example, in an FTC antitrust investigation, the firm persuaded the FTC not to proceed against its client even though the FTC required the other party to the allegedly anticompetitive agreement to enter into a consent decree. Dickstein Shapiro’s knowledge of the political process and workings of government agencies also has been instrumental in obtaining the government’s help on behalf of clients who have been damaged by unfair competition or who have concerns about competitors’ conduct or merger plans.

Compliance Programs and Counseling

Dickstein Shapiro helps clients avoid the risks inherent in the antitrust laws by sensitizing them to the boundaries of permissible conduct and helping company management understand the pitfalls that may occur in connection with those laws. The firm’s attorneys have designed and conducted hundreds of antitrust compliance seminars for executives and employees in a wide range of industries. The firm also has advised numerous trade associations with respect to the scope of permissible activities.

Mergers, Acquisitions, and Corporate Restructuring

The firm’s attorneys assist clients in: assessing the antitrust implications of mergers in their industries; making the proper governmental filings necessary to achieve transaction approval, including Hart-Scott-Rodino pre-merger notifications; and responding to enforcement agency challenges to client transactions.