Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group
Antitrust policy during much of the Obama Administration was a continuation of the Bush Administration’s minimal involvement in the market. However, at the end of President Obama’s term, there was a significant pivot to investigations and blocks of high profile mergers such as Halliburton-Baker Hughes, Comcast-Time Warner Cable, Staples-Office Depot, Sysco-US Foods, and Aetna-Humana and Anthem-Cigna. How will or should the new Administration analyze proposed mergers, including certain high profile deals like Walgreens-Rite Aid, AT&T-Time Warner, Inc., and DraftKings-FanDuel?
This lively luncheon panel discussion covered these topics and the anticipated future of antitrust enforcement. This event was held on June 9, 2017, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
- Albert A. Foer, Founder and Senior Fellow, American Antitrust Institute
- Prof. Geoffrey A. Manne, Executive Director, International Center for Law & Economics
- Hon. Joshua D. Wright, Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
- Moderator: Hon. Ronald A. Cass, Dean Emeritus, Boston University School of Law and President, Cass & Associates, PC
National Press Club Litigation Practice Group Podcast
Theodore H. Frank February 24, 2017
According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, over 97% of mergers and acquisitions result in "strike suits," litigation seeking to enjoin a merger that often quickly settles for attorneys' fees and supplemental disclosures to shareholders. In In Re: Walgreen Co. Stockholder Litigation, 832 F.3d 718, a recent case over such a settlement, Judge Richard Posner called the practice a "racket," and the Seventh Circuit rejected the lawsuit’s claims. Meanwhile, Delaware and New York courts have come out on opposite sides of the issue.
Ted Frank of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, who successfully argued Walgreen and has multiple appeals on the subject pending in other jurisdictions, discussed developments in the area over the last year and answer questions.
Practice Group Podcast
- Theodore H. Frank, Senior Attorney & Director, Center for Class Action Fairness (CCAF), CEI
“Suggestions that President-elect Donald Trump put his business holdings in a 'blind trust,' which would mean selling them to avoid potential conflicts of interest are unrealistic and unfair,” says David Rivkin, of Baker and Hostetler, in a recent Washington Post piece. University of Minnesota Law School Professor Richard Painter said, in a New York Times piece, that President-elect Trump’s announced plans to cure conflict-of-interest concerns are “not enough.” Join us as these two legal scholars discuss their positions in greater detail.
Sponsored by the Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group
- Professor Richard Painter, S. Walter Richey Professor of Corporate Law, University of Minnesota Law School
- Mr. David B. Rivkin Jr., Partner, BakerHostetler
Three former SEC Commissioners reflect on their tenures at the SEC and also provide their perspectives on several of today’s most important financial regulatory issues and questions.
This panel was sponsored by the Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group on June 1, 2016, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC.
- Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Chief Executive, Patomak Global Partners, LLC (SEC Commissioner 2002-2008)
- Hon. Annette L. Nazareth, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (SEC Commissioner 2005-2008)
- Hon. Troy A. Paredes, Founder, Paredes Strategies LLC (SEC Commissioner 2008-2013)
- Moderator: Jeffrey T. Dinwoodie, Associate, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
- Introduction: Mr. Dean A. Reuter, Vice President & Director of Practice Groups, The Federalist Society
National Press Club SCOTUScast 2-24-16 featuring George Conway
On January 25, 2016, the Supreme Court decided Amgen Inc v. Harris without oral argument. Former employees of an Amgen subsidiary had participated in a benefit plan that offered ownership of Amgen stock. When the value of Amgen stock fell in 2007, stockholders filed a class action against plan fiduciaries alleging a breach of fiduciary duties, including the duty of prudence, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. Although the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit initially reversed a district court decision dismissing the class action complaint, the U.S. Supreme Court then vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case in light of the Supreme Court’s then-recent decision Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, which set forth the standards for stating a claim for breach of the duty of prudence against fiduciaries who manage employee stock ownership plans.
On remand, the Ninth Circuit reiterated its conclusion that the plaintiffs’ complaint stated a claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and the Supreme Court again granted certiorari. In a per curiam opinion the Court reversed the judgment of the Ninth Circuit by a vote of 9-0, holding that the Circuit had failed to properly evaluate the complaint. In its current form, the Supreme Court concluded, the complaint failed to state a claim for breach of the duty of prudence. In remanding the case, however, the Court indicated that the district court could decide in the first instance whether the stockholders might amend their complaint in order to adequately plead a claim for breach of the duty of prudence.
To discuss the case, we have George T. Conway III, who is Partner, Litigation at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.