|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Berlyn
v. The Gazette Newspapers, Washington Post, and Suburban Press Network |
|
|
Ken Baseman filed
written and deposition testimony on market definition, market power,
and liability issues for the defendants in a lawsuit alleging predatory
pricing and monopolization by merger in the community newspaper business.
The appellate court approvingly cited Baseman's testimony in affirming
the trial court's grant of summary judgment for defendants. |
|
|
|
|
|
Community
Publishers v. DR Partners and United States v. Nat, L.C. and DR
Partners |
|
|
Ken Baseman testified
for the Antitrust Division that the merger between two daily newspapers
in Northwest Arkansas was anticompetitive. Guided by Baseman's analysis,
DOJ was able to persuade both the trial court and the 8th Circuit that
the merger would reduce competition for both readers and advertisers. |
|
|
|
|
|
Concord
Boat v. Brunswick Corp. and FTC Investigation of Brunswick's OEM
Pricing Policies |
|
|
Rick Warren-Boulton testified
in the private case that Brunswick's market share discounts were rational,
procompetitive or competitively neutral, and efficient business strategies,
not anticompetitive strategies. Ken Baseman represented
Brunswick in front of the FTC and was influential in persuading the
Commission to end its investigation of Brunswick's market share discounts
and to refrain from filing an amicus brief for plaintiffs in Concord
Boat. |
|
|
|
|
|
Conley
Publishing Group v. Journal Communications |
|
|
Ken Baseman filed
testimony for the defendant Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel in a
lawsuit alleging predatory pricing in the market for newspaper readers
and exclusionary pricing in the market for newspaper advertisers. The
trial and appellate courts relied heavily on the arguments presented
in Baseman's written testimony in granting summary judgment to defendants. |
|
|
|
|
|
FTC
Investigation of Brunswick's Investment in Tracker Marine |
|
|
The FTC investigated Brunswick's
partial equity interest in and long term supply contract with Tracker
Marine as a possible example of the Merger Guideline's "disruptive
buyer" theory. Ken Baseman's analysis was influential
in persuading the FTC to drop its investigation without taking any action. |
|
|
|
|
|
FTC
Investigation of Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft 1") |
|
|
Rick Warren-Boulton and Ken
Baseman worked for Novell Corporation in the original FTC
Investigation of Microsoft's OEM licensing practices, especially the "per-processor" license.
When the FTC declined to act, DOJ started its own investigation and
sued Microsoft. MiCRA's work
for Novell resulted in a frequently cited journal article: Warren-Boulton, Baseman,
and Woroch, "Microsoft Plays Hardball: Use of Nonlinear Pricing
and Technical Incompatibility to Exclude Rivals in the Market for
Operating Software," Antitrust Bulletin 40-2 (Summer
1995), pp.265-315. |
|
|
|
|
|
German
Cement Cartel |
|
|
Bruce Snapp, Ken
Baseman, and Rick Warren-Boulton prepared
analyses of the overcharges resulting from a cartel among German manufacturers
of Portland cement. |
|
|
|
|
|
Greenskeeper
v. Soft Spikes |
|
|
Plaintiff Greenskeeper sued
Soft Spikes for monopolizing non-metal golf spikes, primarily by sham
patent litigation. Ken Baseman submitted written and
deposition testimony for plaintiff covering market definition, monopoly
power liability, and damages. The case was settled on terms favorable
to plaintiff before trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
LaFarge
Acquisition of Blue Circle |
|
|
Ken Baseman's analysis
of geographic and product markets was influential in persuading the
FTC to allow LaFarge to acquire Blue Circle's U.S. cement operations
with only minor divestitures (a rail terminal was divested, but LaFarge
was allowed to acquire all of Blue Circle's U.S. cement plants). |
|
|
|
|
|
LePage's
v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing |
|
|
Ken Baseman testified
on behalf of plaintiff LePage's that 3M's various discount and rebate
programs covering the transparent tape business were anticompetitive
because they were exclusionary. LePages' prevailed at trial, and the
Supreme Court declined to review the 3rd Circuit's decision affirming
the verdict. |
|
|
|
|
|
Michelin
Merger with Uniroyal-Goodrich |
|
|
Ken Baseman's analysis
of market definition, bidding markets for OEM sales, and efficiencies
were critical in persuading the Department of Justice to approve Michelin's
acquisition of Uniroyal Goodrich. |
|
|
|
|
|
PMBR
v. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, et al. |
|
|
PMBR sued Bar-Bri for monopolization
in the bar review preparation industry, primarily via exclusionary bundled
pricing. Ken Baseman provided written and deposition
testimony for plaintiff on market definition, monopoly power, liability
and damages. The case was settled on terms favorable to plaintiff before
trial. |
|
|
|
|
|
St.
Gobain Acquisition of Carborundum |
|
|
Ken Baseman's analysis
of market definition and competitive effects was influential in persuading
the FTC to allow St. Gobain to acquire Carborundum's specialty refractory
business with only licensing remedies and without divestitures. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abraham v. Intermountain Health Care et al. |
|
|
David Eisenstadt presented
testimony using game theory to show that Intermountain had unilateral incentives not to
enter into a contract with the plaintiff class of optometrists. Dr. Eisenstadt also
presented statistical evidence that was inconsistent with plaintiffs’ attempted
monopolization claim and their contention that fees paid to the defendant ophthalmologists
had increased. The case was recently dismissed on summary judgment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bellavia
v. Hackensack, et al. |
|
|
David Eisenstadt testified
that plaintiff's alleged exclusion through staff privilege restrictions
would not harm competition. The Court found for Hackensack. |
|
|
|
|
|
FTC
Retrospective Investigation of Vista Health Merger |
|
|
David Eisenstadt represented
Vista Health in a retrospective hospital merger investigation conducted
by the FTC. His analysis was instrumental in the Commission's decision
to close the investigation. |
|
|
|
|
|
Highmark
et al. v. UPMC Health System |
|
|
David Eisenstadt testified
that UPMC's proposed acquisition of Children's Hospital would be anticompetitive.
UPMC entered into a consent decree with the State of Pennsylvania as
a pre-condition for the acquisition. |
|
|
|
|
|
Holmes
Regional Medical Center v. Agency for Health Care Administration
and Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital |
|
|
David Eisenstadt testified
that Wuesthoff's proposed new hospital was procompetitive. The Agency
for Health Care Administration approved Wuesthoff's Certificate of Need
Application. |
|
|
|
|
|
Holmes Regional Medical Center v. State of Florida and Wuesthoff Memorial Hospital |
|
|
David Eisenstadt successfully
testified that the applicant’s CON, if approved, would reduce competition by impeding
Wuesthoff’s ability to expand its satellite hospital in Melbourne, Florida. |
|
|
|
|
|
Howerton
v. Grace Hospital |
|
|
David Eisenstadt testified
that Grace's alleged exclusion of Howerton through denial of staff privileges
would not harm competition. The Court found for Grace Hospital. |
|
|
|
|
|
Kochert v.
Greater Lafayette Health Services |
|
|
A case recently dismissed on summary judgment,
David Eisenstadt testified that competition was not adversely affected by the defendant’s
decision to not renew plaintiff’s anesthesiology contract. |
|
|
|
|
|
Rome Ambulatory Surgery Center v. Rome Memorial Hospital |
|
|
David Eisenstadt testified that Rome Memorial Hospital’s exclusive contracts with several major third-party payers constituted predatory and exclusionary conduct and were the cause of plaintiff’s exit from the ambulatory surgery market. |
|
|
|
|
|
United
States v. Carilion Health System |
|
|
David Eisenstadt testified
at trial that the proposed merger would not raise hospital prices. His
testimony helped persuade the Court and jury to rule in favor of Carilion. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A.
Mitchell Gross v. Chrysler Corporation |
|
|
Jon Joyce provided
an expert affidavit demonstrating that the class was not damaged by
violation of the Consumer Protection Act and that incidents of damage
were not caused by the Defendant. |
|
|
|
|
|
Bethlehem
Steel Corporation v. Elkem Metals Company L.P. and Elkem ASA and
Bethlehem Steel Corporation v. SKW Metals and Alloys, Inc. and SKW
Trostberg AG and Charles Zak |
|
|
Jon Joyce filed
written and deposition testimony on market definition and damages in
these two related but separate litigations. Both matters were settled. |
|
|
|
|
|
DRJ
Refuse, Inc Bankruptcy Case No. 95-52055-SD Chapter 11, District
of Maryland, Baltimore Division |
|
|
Jon Joyce prepared
expert testimony for the State of Maryland that a proposed acquisition
of the firm was anticompetitive. |
|
|
|
|
|
Orlando
Regional Healthcare System, Inc. and Orlando Regional South Seminole,
Inc. v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation |
|
|
Jon Joyce provided
an expert witness affidavit and expert testimony at a preliminary injunction
hearing and at trial on market definition and competitive effects from
a proposed acquisition. |
|
|
|
|
|
Siegal
Transfer v. Carrier Express |
|
|
Jon Joyce prepared
expert witness testimony on market definition and market power. The
client, Bethlehem Steel Corp., prevailed. |
|
|
|
|
|
Wichita
Clinic, P.A. v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corporation |
|
|
Jon Joyce provided
expert witness reports and deposition testimony for the Plaintiff. |
|
|
|
|
|
Cases
by Economist 1 | 2 | 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|