Insights
Search Results
Newsletters
7.08.24
European Antitrust Bimonthly Bulletin – May/June 2024
The firm is pleased to publish the May/June 2024 edition of the European Antitrust Bimonthly Bulletin, which breaks down the major antitrust developments in Europe from the past two months into concise and actionable takeaways.
Newsletters
3.05.24
2023 Antitrust Year in Review
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati is pleased to present its 2023 Antitrust Year in Review, which provides an overview of the significant developments in antitrust law, policy, and enforcement over the past year. This report highlights the most critical global developments in antitrust law, policy, enforcement, and litigation over the past year, with an emphasis on those that will have a lasting impact in the years ahead.
Over the past several years, antitrust issues have come to the fore in public discourse, and that focus has been reflected in significant changes in antitrust law and policy and in more wide-ranging and aggressive enforcement activity. This year’s report provides updates in mergers and acquisitions, civil non-merger enforcement, private litigation, and cartels and criminal enforcement.
Alerts
5.01.23
Court Dismisses DOJ’s Latest “No-Poach” Case Before Jury Deliberations
In another blow to the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) efforts to criminalize “no-poach” and “wage-fixing” agreements, a federal judge terminated the DOJ’s latest “no-poach” case mid-trial before jury deliberations.
Alerts
2.06.23
DOJ Withdraws Support for Healthcare Policy Statements and Increases Information Exchange Scrutiny
On February 2, 2023, Doha Mekki, Principal Deputy Attorney General (DAAG) for the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, announced the agency’s withdrawal of three enforcement policy statements related to information sharing and competitor collaboration in the healthcare industry.1 In practice, however, the statements were relied upon and steered enforcement decisions in other industries as well.2 Thus, the DOJ’s withdrawal of these policy statements signals that companies can no longer rely on the guidance documents to protect themselves from antitrust scrutiny when sharing competitively sensitive information. It is unclear if the DOJ will offer any new guidance on exchanges of competitively sensitive information. But in light of the withdrawal of guidance, clients should consider whether any existing or planned information exchanges may give rise to undue United States (U.S.) antitrust risk.
Newsletters
1.25.23
2022 Antitrust Year in Review
We are proud to share the 2022 Antitrust Year in Review, which discusses significant developments in antitrust law, policy, and enforcement over the past year. First, the report spotlights recent outcomes in court for U.S. agency enforcement litigation and discusses major changes in the law that create substantial new antitrust obligations, as well as updated policy and enforcement guidelines. Then, the merger enforcement section describes significant merger control activity by enforcers in the U.S., EU, and UK, and the civil conduct enforcement section outlines enforcer activity in investigating and challenging non-merger conduct. Finally, the report provides an update on global cartel enforcement policy and activity, and concludes with a survey of significant private antitrust litigation in the United States and UK.
Alerts
11.21.22
U.S. Legislators and State Attorneys General Raise Antitrust Concerns Regarding ESG Collaborations
Over the past year, U.S. legislators and state attorneys general (AGs) have raised concerns that collaborations among firms to achieve environmental, social, and governance (ESG) goals are violations of the antitrust laws. As a result, ESG collaborations may face oversight hearings in the U.S. House of Representatives and additional investigations from state AGs. Accordingly, companies should ensure any ESG collaborations they undertake anticipate possible antitrust issues in the United States. By contrast, the European Union is shifting towards a more flexible approach for ESG collaborations.
Alerts
11.14.22
FTC Reinterprets FTC Act to Include Broad Powers Related to “Interlocking Directorates”
In what might be a further expansion of antitrust enforcement of interlocking directorates, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) issued a policy statement announcing that it now interprets Section 5 of the FTC Act to grant it authority to take enforcement action against interlocking directorates or officers of competing firms that do not fall within the “literal language of the Clayton Act.”1
Alerts
11.07.22
DOJ Obtains First Criminal Guilty Plea for Monopolization Conduct in Decades
The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) suggested at the beginning of the year that it would consider criminally prosecuting monopolization conduct—a departure from antitrust enforcement of the past several decades.1 The DOJ has now done so. On October 31, 2022, Nathan Zito, president of Z&Z Asphalt (Z&Z), a paving and asphalt contractor, pleaded guilty to violating Section 2 of the Sherman Act by attempting to monopolize the markets for highway crack-sealing services in Montana and Wyoming.2
Alerts
10.31.22
DOJ Secures First Criminal Guilty Plea in a No-Poach Case
Nearly six years after the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) put human resource executives and their companies on notice that no-poach and wage-fixing agreements would be subject to criminal prosecution, the DOJ has secured its first guilty plea in a no-poach case.1 On October 27, 2022, a healthcare staffing agency, VDA OC LLC (VDA), formerly Advantage On Call LLC, pled guilty to engaging in a conspiracy to allocate school nurses and to not raise nurse’s wages.2 At the same time, a U.S. District Court judge in Nevada sentenced VDA to pay a $62,000 criminal fine and $72,000 in restitution.3
Alerts
10.24.22
Seven Directors Resign from Five Public Company Boards
Last month, we reported that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) had threatened multiple public companies, private equity investors, and individuals with lawsuits for violating the ban on interlocking directorates under Section 8 of the Clayton Act. Section 8 prohibits the same firm or individual from sitting on the boards of competing companies. The DOJ based its claim of alleged violations on information that it gleaned from SEC filings, earnings calls, and other public sources.
Alerts
9.22.22
DOJ Launches Enforcement Initiative Against “Interlocking Directorates”
In what appears to be a significant expansion of its antitrust enforcement efforts, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued letters to multiple public companies, investors, and individuals this week, stating it may bring lawsuits against them for maintaining “interlocking directorates” in violation of Section 8 of the Clayton Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. § 19).