Information Sharing by Competitors: Minimizing Antitrust Liability
Avoiding Gun-Jumping in Mergers and Competitor Collaborations
Recording of a 90-minute CLE webinar/teleconference with Q&A
Conducted on Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Recorded event now available
This CLE seminar will review antitrust violations that can arise when competitors share information either related to a joint venture or collaboration or when considering a merger. The panel will offer insights and guidance from a recent federal court ruling and government enforcement activity.
Description
The substance and extent of information that can be shared between companies in competitor transactions is an area of serious concern and uncertainty for businesses. Until recently, courts have offered little guidance for businesses engaged in or considering competitor ventures.
However, in Jan. 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois set forth a detailed examination of pre-merger information sharing in Omnicare v. UnitedHealth Group.
This decision provides an analytical framework for evaluating the reliability and relevance of information exchanges offered as evidence of illegal collusion. It also provides counsel advising companies in competitor collaborations an early warning system for potential gun-jumping violations.
Listen as our authoritative panel of antitrust attorneys examines information-sharing traps, guidance offered by federal agency actions, and recent court decisions such as Omnicare. The panel will outline best practices for competitor businesses to avoid violating antitrust laws and regulations.
Outline
- History and court treatment of gun-jumping
- Historical look at gun-jumping and court treatment
- Omnicare v. UnitedHealth Group (N.D. Ill. Jan. 16, 2009)
- Lessons learned from recent enforcement actions
- Premature control
- Information sharing traps for the unwary
- During due diligence and transition planning
- Joint marketing
- Transaction documentation
- Meetings of executives
- Best practices
Benefits
The panel will review these and other key questions:
- What are the key activities that merging parties and competitive collaborators should avoid?
- What guidance does the Northern District of Illinois' decision provide for competitor ventures?
- What safeguards should companies implement to prevent sharing information that will violate antitrust law?
Faculty
Robert Schlossberg,
Partner
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer, Washington, D.C.
He represents clients on antitrust matters with a particular emphasis on practice before the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department. He has considerable experience with antitrust issues in mergers and acquisitions and has guided scores of national and international transactions through antitrust review to a successful conclusion.
Corey W. Roush,
Partner
Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C.
He focuses on antitrust and consumer protection litigation, white collar criminal defense, corporate governance and internal investigations, and other complex commercial litigation. He works with clients on issues pertaining to mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, health care, the defense industry, and intellectual property.
Timothy J. Cornell,
Counsel
Clifford Chance, Washington, D.C.
He advises clients on antitrust issues in government civil and criminal investigations, regulatory review of mergers and acquisitions, joint venture formation, intellectual property and technology licensing, supply and distribution agreements, retail pricing issues, horizontal and vertical restraints and private party civil litigation.
Ordering
Recorded Event
Includes full event recording plus handouts (available after live seminar).
CLE: Pre-approved for self-study credit in AK, AZ, CA, CT*, MO, MT, NY*, TX, VT, WA. Upon request, self-study credit is also available in: CO, FL, GA, ID, KY, LA, ME, ND, NE, NH, NM, NV, OR, UT, WI, WV, WY. If you are applying for self-study credit in one of these states, contact Strafford CLE at 1-800-926-7926 ext. 35 or CLE@straffordpub.com. (*For CT and NY, Strafford needs to process the CLE — see below to purchase this option.)
MP3 Download (Audio Only) $297.00
Available 24 hours after the live event
Webinar Download (Slide Presentation with Audio) $297.00
Available three business days after the live event
CD (Audio Only) $297.00
plus $9.45 S&H
Available ten business days after the live event
DVD (Slide Presentation with Audio) $297.00
plus $9.45 S&H
Available ten business days after the live event
CLE Processing on Recorded Event $65.00
CLE on Live Event
Continuing Legal Education credit processing is available for an additional $65 per person per state in states where webinars and teleconferences are accredited.
This webinar is eligible for at least 1.5 general CLE credits, depending on state rules.
You may register for CLE credit processing before or after a program (application deadlines vary by state). Exceptions: Pennsylvania attorneys must pre-register for CLE. Maine and Alabama attorneys please call 1-800-926-7926 ext. 10 for special instructions.
CLE credits are not available for DE, IN, KS, OH, and PR or for NY attorneys admitted within the last 2 years.
CLE Processing $65.00
Webinar/Teleconference
Strafford webinars/teleconferences offer several options for participation: online viewing of speaker-controlled PowerPoint presentations with audio via computer speakers or via phone; or audio only via telephone (download speaker handouts prior to the program). Please note that our webinars do not feature videos of the presenters.
Program Materials
Requires Adobe Reader 8 or later. Download Acrobat FREE.
Program Materials
Requires Adobe Reader 8 or later. Download Acrobat FREE.
CLE Credit
Strafford's live seminars qualify for CLE in every state that accredits webinars. They offer you a high quality, cost effective, and convenient CLE option, with no lost travel time or expenses.
Customer Reviews
This was my first experience with an interactive CLE. It was good not to have to leave my office for the program.
Patricia Hays
Vestcom International
The speakers were well versed and kept my attention throughout the program.
Natalie Kossak
Independent Fiduciary Services
Convenient and well-organized. Well-run program.
Michael V. Kruljac
IMERYS
The information was relevant and well presented. The questions were good, and the speakers responded with clear knowledge.
Sheila Fox Morrison
Davis Wright Tremaine
Content was superb.
Patrick Webb
Webb & Carey
Antitrust Law Advisory Board
Partner
Fenwick & West
Shareholder
Greenberg Traurig
Partner
Hogan & Hartson
Partner
Foley & Lardner
Partner
Mayer Brown
Shareholder
Briggs and Morgan
Partner
Jones Day
Partner
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
Partner
Kaye Scholer
Partner
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher