Category Archives: Antitrust and Anti-Competitive Behavior

The Need to Integrate Externalities, Market Failures, and Collective Action Problems in Antitrust Analysis—Thoughts on the US House Judiciary Committee Report on ESG Investigation and the Rebuttal Report

by Maurits Dolmans

Photo of the author.

Photo courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.

On June 11, 2024, the US House Judiciary Committee released an interim staff report titled “Climate Control: Exposing the Decarbonization Collusion in Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Investing” (the “Majority Report). This was followed by a hearing by the House Judiciary Committee on June 12.

The Majority Report contains strongly worded conclusions.  It argues that a “climate cartel’ of left-wing environmental activists and major financial institutions has colluded to force American companies to ‘decarbonize’ and reach ‘net zero.’”  Organizations like Climate Action 100+, Ceres, CalPERS, and Arjuna, for instance, allegedly “declared war on the American way of life,” to limit how Americans “drive, fly, and eat.”  They did this “by forcing corporations to disclose their carbon emissions, to reduce their carbon emissions, and … handcuffing company leadership and muzzling corporate free speech and petitioning.”  Employing nice alliteration, it is said they “collude to kill carbon.”  It is suggested that corporate compliance with the goals of the Paris Agreement raises prices to American consumers—ignoring the OPEC+ output reductions, the wars in Ukraine and the Middle East, and the Houthi attacks on shipping, but also the long-term costs of climate change, the findings of the International Energy Agency that no new fossil fuel development is needed to meet current and expected demand, and that renewables and nuclear energy are increasingly cheaper than fossil fuels.  The Majority Report boasts of the effect of antitrust threats in causing firms to shy away from cooperation to mitigate the climate risk.

Continue reading

US Antitrust Regulators Threaten Ephemeral Messaging Users and Their Counsel with Obstruction Charges

by Jeremy Calsyn, Nowell Bamberger, Charles P. Balaan, and Joseph M. Kay

Photos of authors

Left to right: Jeremy Calsyn, Nowell Bamberger, Charles P. Balaan, and Joseph M. Kay (photos courtesy of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP)

In recent months, federal regulators have made statements that companies and their counsel may be subject to criminal prosecution if they fail to preserve ephemeral messaging data when they receive a subpoena or other legal process.  In January 2024, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement at the DOJ Antitrust Division warned “failure to produce” ephemeral messaging may result in obstruction charges.[1]  Speaking at the ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting in April 2024, a lawyer for the Antitrust Division echoed that the DOJ “will not hesitate to bring obstruction charges” against company counsel and their clients if clients fail to properly retain so-called “ephemeral messages.[2]  This is consistent with other recent warnings from the DOJ.[3]

The agencies’ focus on features of ephemeral messaging, which they argue can be used to hamper investigations, ignores the fact that ephemeral messaging applications have a legitimate role in the workplace where data security and management is paramount.  Despite the advantages of ephemeral messaging, clients should be aware of the legal and other risks presented by these applications and implement clear information retention policies that account for the organization’s duty to preserve information for litigation and government investigations. 

Continue reading

Understanding the FTC’s Non-Compete Clause Rule and Its Impact on NDAs

by Joshua H. Lerner, Laura E. Schneider, and Andrew Stauber

photos of the authors

From left to right: Joshua H. Lerner, Laura E. Schneider, and Andrew Stauber (Photos courtesy of WilmerHale)

As we previously reported, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced on April 23, 2024, its Non-Compete Clause Rule (Final Rule), which aims to ban all new post-employment non-competition restrictions and invalidate most existing ones. The Final Rule already has sparked multiple lawsuits seeking to prevent it from taking effect as scheduled on September 4, 2024. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas is expected to make a decision in one such lawsuit by July 3, 2024.

As September 4 approaches, many questions remain regarding the potential impact and scope of the Final Rule. This alert focuses on how the Final Rule might affect confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) that employers use to protect their trade secrets and other confidential information.

Continue reading

Wachtell Publishes Financial Institutions M&A Guide for 2024

Editor’s Note: This post contains excerpts from Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz’s Guide: “Financial Institutions M&A 2024: Seizing Opportunities, Navigating Pitfalls,” the full version of which is available here

by Ed Herlihy, Richard Kim, Nick Demmo, David Shapiro, Matt Guest, Mark Veblen, Brandon Price, and Jake Kling

Photos of the authors

Top left to right: Ed Herlihy, Richard Kim, Nick Demmo, and David Shapiro
Bottom left to right: Matt Guest, Mark Veblen, Brandon Price, and Jake Kling
(Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

KEY TRENDS IN FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS M&A DURING 2023

I. M&A FALLS FOR A SECOND CONSECUTIVE YEAR OWING TO GEOPOLITICAL, MACROECONOMIC AND REGULATORY FACTORS

Financial institutions M&A fell for the second year in a row in 2023. Like most other sectors of the economy, financial institutions faced significant M&A headwinds during the year, including geopolitical instability, elevated inflation, high interest rates, challenging and often volatile equity markets, enhanced antitrust risks and uncertainty, and recessionary fears that softened only towards the end of the year.

Continue reading

Divided FTC Decrees Sweeping Ban of Employment Non-Competes

by Nelson O. Fitts, Michael J. Schobel, and Emily E. Samra

Photos of the authors

Left to right: Nelson O. Fitts, Michael J. Schobel, and Emily E. Samra (photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

In a recent public meeting, a divided Federal Trade Commission voted along party lines to issue a final rule prohibiting non-compete clauses for nearly all U.S. workers. The FTC previously published the proposed ban in January 2023, drawing thousands of public comments. The final rule hews closely to the initial proposal, but with slightly broader exceptions.

Continue reading

Semiconductor Chips and Cloud Computing: A Quote Book

by Staff at the Federal Trade Commission’s Office of Technology

The FTC’s Tech Summit on AI[1] highlighted three panels that reflect different layers of the AI tech stack – hardware and infrastructure, data and models, and front-end user applications. Here, we publish the first in a three-part series of “Quote Books” summarizing each of the three panels. This first quote book is focused on hardware and infrastructure, including semiconductor chips and cloud computing.

 

Continue reading

With The Fintech Sector’s Return to Explosive Growth, Here Are Top U.S. Legal Issues to Watch

by Jamillia Ferris, Vinita Kailasanath, Christine Lyon, Jan Rybnicek, and David Sewell

Left to right: Jamillia Ferris, Vinita Kailasanath, Christine Lyon, Jan Rybnicek, and David Sewell (photos courtesy of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP)

Freshfields recently hosted a U.S. Fintech Hot Topics Webinar to highlight on-the-ground insights from our Antitrust and Competition, Data Privacy and Security, Financial Services Regulatory, and Transactional teams. The fintech sector has recently seen a return to explosive growth and is expected to continue growing rapidly notwithstanding regulatory and economic headwinds. Our top takeaways from the panel discussion are below, and the full recording is available here.

Continue reading

DOJ Continues to Modernize its Criminal Antitrust Enforcement Strategy

by Richard A. Powers

(Photo courtesy of the author)

Over the past few years, the Justice Department has been hard at work on a comprehensive update to the way it detects, investigates, and prosecutes price-fixing cartels. Several recent announcements, including at last week’s ABA White Collar Conference, preview the DOJ Antitrust Division’s next steps in this generational shift—the goals of which are to refine disclosure incentives, promote individual accountability, and obtain trial convictions.

First, on March 7, 2024, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco announced the DOJ is kicking off a 90-day whistleblower “policy sprint”; the finish line is a new program to complement existing regulators’ programs, rewarding qualifying whistleblowers for bringing non-public, previously unknown misconduct to the DOJ’s attention. The Antitrust Division has long sought to encourage individual self-reporting as a complement to its corporate VSD policy, so expect that this initiative will aim to improve that incentive structure. Next, the DOJ updated the Justice Manual to incorporate the M&A safe harbor policy that it announced last fall. Notably for antitrust practitioners, the JM updates included changes to the Antitrust Division’s leniency policy that provide much-needed clarification on how companies that detect potential collusion at an M&A target can avoid inheriting those liabilities by promptly reporting to DOJ. Third, senior Antitrust Division officials continue to emphasize that they are focused on developing investigations through affirmative investigative techniques, such as wiretaps and whistleblowers.

Continue reading

January Surprise: Court Ruling on Post-Employment Restrictive Covenants in Delaware

by  Jeremy Ben Merkelson, James K. Goldfarb, Travis J. Distaso, and Gerald Stein

Photos of authord

From left to right: Jeremy Ben Merkelson, James K. Goldfarb, Gerald Stein, and Travis J. Distaso (photos courtesy of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP)

Equity and capital forfeiture for competition provisions given less scrutiny than other post-employment restrictive covenants

Companies subject to Delaware law were handed a welcome surprise in a recent Delaware Supreme Court decision bolstering the enforceability of certain post-employment restrictive covenants. The provisions at issue are so called “forfeiture for competition” provisions. They condition post-employment equity interests, distributions, return of capital, or other benefits upon a departing employee’s continuing compliance with certain post-employment restrictive covenants. Forfeiture for competition provisions frequently are at play in equity award agreements with executives and business partners. The recent decision provides for an alternative avenue for securing post-employment restrictive covenants when traditional non-competes may otherwise be unenforceable.

Continue reading

White-Collar and Regulatory Enforcement: What Mattered in 2023 and What to Expect in 2024

by John F. Savarese, Ralph M. Levene, Wayne M. Carlin, David B. Anders, Sarah K. Eddy, Randall W. Jackson, and Kevin S. Schwartz

Photos of Authors

Top left to right: John F. Savarese, Ralph M. Levene, Wayne M. Carlin, and David B. Anders.
Bottom left to right: Sarah K. Eddy, Randall W. Jackson, and Kevin S. Schwartz. (Photos courtesy of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz)

This past year was yet another notable and intensely active one across the entire range of white-collar criminal and regulatory enforcement areas. We heard continued tough talk from law enforcement authorities, especially concerning the government’s desire to bring more enforcement actions against individuals and on the need to keep ramping up corporate fines and penalties. The government largely lived up to its talking points about increasing the numbers of individual prosecutions and proceedings, particularly with respect to senior executives in the cryptoasset industry. But there were some notable stumbles. The most striking example of this was DOJ’s failure to secure convictions in cases where it attempted to extend criminal antitrust enforcement in unprecedented areas, such as no-poach employment agreements and against certain vertical arrangements—neither of which has historically been viewed as involving per se violations of the federal antitrust laws. And, as in years past, many state attorneys general remained active throughout 2023, using broad state consumer-protection statutes to bring blockbuster cases across a wide array of industries, from ridesharing and vaping to opioids and consumer technology offerings.

Continue reading