U.S. antitrust agencies kick off 2025 with landmark merger control enforcement actions
The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division (DOJ) and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have started the year with a bang by announcing two groundbreaking suits over alleged violations of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act (HSR Act). In the first, three oil companies have agreed to settle the charges by paying a USD5.68 million civil penalty for illegal pre-merger coordination—the highest-ever dollar penalty imposed by the U.S. agencies for gun-jumping.
The charges relate to the acquisition of EP Energy by Verdun Oil and its sister company, XCL Resources. The deal was approved by the FTC in 2022, subject to the divestiture of EP’s entire business and assets in Utah to address concerns that the deal would eliminate competition between two of only four significant energy producers in the Uinta Basin.
However, the FTC has now alleged that Verdun, XCL, and EP engaged in illegal gun-jumping.
The complaint asserts that the purchase agreement enabled XCL and Verdun to assume operational and decision-making control over significant aspects of EP’s day-to-day business operations prior to the transaction closing, in violation of the HSR Act waiting period requirements. It also alleges improper information sharing and coordination of competitive activities.
Specific examples are cited, including that XCL and Verdun ordered EP to stop its planned well-drilling and development activities, XCL and EP coordinated management of EP’s customer contracts, relationships, and deliveries in a region of Utah, and Verdun and EP coordinated prices for EP’s customers in a region of Texas.
The FTC alleges that the violation of the HSR Act lasted for 94 days, justifying the significant penalty.
Our alert tells you more about the suspected conduct and how merging parties can ensure that they comply with HSR Act obligations.
In the second enforcement action, the DOJ alleges that KKR and over a dozen of its investment advisers and funds repeatedly failed to comply with the HSR Act over a two-year period.
The complaint claims that the PE firm altered documents in HSR filings (e.g., by revising or deleting portions of internal materials before submission), systematically omitted required documents, and, in at least two cases, even failed to make any HSR filing at all.
According to the DOJ, internal documents “reveal a pervasive culture of noncompliance” within KKR. It describes the alleged failures as “rinse-and-repeat” and “systemic.”
The agency says that the violations—the full extent of which likely exceeds those identified in the complaint—enabled KKR to evade mandatory scrutiny of its investment business and prevented the antitrust agencies from effectively investigating the potential anticompetitive effects of its transactions. As a result, KKR is alleged to have “imperiled competition and potentially harmed consumers” across the U.S.
The firm faces a potentially enormous fine—the DOJ notes that the maximum penalty for the 16 violations described in the complaint exceeds USD650m.
KKR hit back at the lawsuit by filing its own complaint, claiming an abuse of power and unconstitutional application of the HSR Act by the DOJ.
These two cases are the latest in a string of agency enforcement action against suspected HSR breaches in the past six months.
In August 2024, the DOJ announced that Legends Hospitality had agreed to pay a USD3.5m penalty for gun-jumping conduct in relation to its acquisition of ASM Global (see our alert on the gun-jumping penalty for more details). This was followed in September by an FTC announcement that an individual would pay a penalty of around USD1m for his alleged failure to file an open market acquisition of shares (our alert tells you more about the FTC’s case).
Together, these cases show that the U.S. antitrust agencies are on high alert for violations of the HSR Act. This is the case even where a deal does not raise antitrust concerns.
Outside the U.S., the same rings true. Enforcement of procedural merger control rules remains a priority for antitrust authorities worldwide. Our next report on global trends in merger control enforcement will give you the lowdown.
U.S. FTC resolves PE roll-ups case with far-reaching settlement
Just days before President Trump took office for his second term, the FTC announced a settlement with private equity firm Welsh Carson over a challenge to a roll-up acquisition strategy.
The case has seen many twists and turns.
In a complaint lodged in 2023, the FTC alleged that Welsh Carson and its portfolio company U.S. Anesthesia Partners (USAP) engaged in multiple antitrust violations over a ten-year period relating to anesthesiology services in Texas. Specifically, the FTC alleged that the firms engaged in a three-part anticompetitive strategy involving acquisitions of 17 anesthesiology practices, price-setting agreements and market allocation.
In May 2024, the FTC suffered a blow in federal court. A District Judge dismissed the claims against Welsh Carson, ruling that the FTC had failed to establish under Section 13(b) of the FTC Act that the PE firm was violating, or about to violate, the antitrust laws.
In particular, the judge looked closely at Welsh Carson’s stake in USAP, which was only 23% at the time the FTC opened its investigation. The judge was not willing to accept the FTC’s “novel interpretation” which would find a minority, noncontrolling investor liable under Section 13(b) “because the company it partially owned made anticompetitive acquisitions.”
Despite this loss, the FTC continued its suit in federal court against USAP. And it indicated it could pursue a second case against Welsh Carson under its in-house administrative process.
Now, the FTC has reached a landmark agreement with the PE firm to settle this potential administrative action.
The obligations on Welsh Carson are onerous and far-reaching. It must freeze its investment in USAP and reduce its board representation. It will have to obtain prior approval for certain future investments in anesthesia anywhere in the U.S. and give advance notice of certain deals involving hospital-based physician practices, again, nationwide. Welsh Carson must also cooperate with any future litigation—useful to the FTC given the ongoing case against USAP.
Outgoing FTC chair Lina Khan (together with the other Democratic commissioners) heralded the settlement as notable for its novel treatment of PE defendants and its application of the revised 2023 merger guidelines. They said it forms a blueprint for future FTC orders “involving financially sophisticated investors.”
On the other hand, Republican Commissioner Andrew Ferguson cautioned against reading too much into the case. While he supported the action, in his view it is an “ordinary application of the most elementary antitrust principles.” He said it is irrelevant that Welsh Carson was a PE company—the analysis would be the same for any individual or institutional investor.
Ferguson has since been appointed FTC chair. His comments suggest that, while serial acquisitions may still feature in future FTC enforcement action, PE may not be singled out for special treatment.
See our commentary for more on the likely impact of Trump 2.0 on merger control enforcement (and M&A more generally).
Annual increases to U.S. merger control thresholds announced
The FTC has announced annual increases to the notification thresholds and premerger filing fees under the HSR Act. The changes will come into effect on February 21, 2025.
Increases to the interlocking directorate thresholds were also announced, applying from January 22, 2025. Revised maximum HSR penalty levels kicked in from January 17.
Find out the new thresholds, fees and penalty levels in our alert, which also tells you exactly which transactions will be affected by the revisions.
Coming in twos: U.S. FTC resurrects price discrimination law in a pair of suits
For the first time in nearly 25 years, the FTC has asserted a claim under the Robinson-Patman Act (RPA) in not one, but two separate cases.
In the first, it is suing Southern Glazer’s—the largest U.S. distributor of wine and spirits—for allegedly discriminating in the prices it charges its retail customers.
The FTC claims that Southern Glazer’s charges small, independent retailers “drastically higher” prices than it charges large national and regional chains for the same bottles of wine and spirits. It alleges that Southern Glazer’s is “intentionally and illegally” providing “steep” quantity discounts and rebates to only these larger retailers, and thus providing them with “insurmountable advantages” far exceeding any real cost efficiencies.
In the second suit, the FTC alleges that PepsiCo engaged in illegal price discrimination by providing one customer—a large, big box retailer—with key advantages, including promotional payments and advertising tools. According to the agency, this disadvantaged other retailers, which were denied the same benefits and were unable to fairly compete. The FTC says the conduct led to inflated prices for American families.
Our alert on the FTC’s Southern Glazer’s suit sets out the parameters of the RPA prohibition and considers the reasons and outlook for the FTC’s revival of RPA enforcement as the U.S. administration changes. No matter the outcome, the filing of the case serves as a reminder of the U.S. antitrust enforcement risks associated with offers to sell on different terms, particularly in the retail sector.
As the sun set on the Biden administration, the resurrection of the RPA prohibition was just one of a number of surprising antitrust policy moves. Another notable example was the U.S. agencies’ withdrawal of their 2000 guidelines on competitor collaboration. They state that the guidelines no longer provide reliable guidance on how the agencies assess the legality of such arrangements—the guidelines do not reflect recent case law, rely on outdated analytical methods, and fail to address the competitive implications of modern business combinations and rapidly changing technologies.
It is not yet clear whether replacement guidelines will be issued, although given the strong opposition to the withdrawal by Republican FTC commissioners, this could be an early priority for the new agency heads under the Trump administration. In the meantime, businesses face uncertainty when assessing whether their plans for collaborating with rivals are permissible under U.S. antitrust laws. The agencies encourage them to review the relevant statutes and case law when carrying out this assessment. But this will inevitably create an additional level of burden and may even put some firms off entering any such arrangements.
EC Competition Commissioner sets out future direction of EU competition policy
In her first speech as Competition Commissioner, Teresa Ribera has outlined what lies ahead for EU competition policy.
Ribera discusses the need to modernize the rules in order to meet today’s market realities, while keeping the core principles of fairness, openness, and efficiency. She wants to incentivize investment into the bloc, by ensuring confidence in a competitive market over the long term. This means:
- Strong enforcement of merger control and antitrust rules. Innovation and resilience are key — she says the European Commission (EC)’s decisions should take account of innovation and future competition while considering the need for resilience in sectors such as energy, defense and space.
- EU companies being able to gain scale and compete globally. Ribera notes that this is still not happening in energy, defense, finance, electronic communications, and digital sectors. Significantly, however, she says it would be “a trap” to shield EU companies from competition, suggesting that businesses in these sectors, as well as other industries, should not expect a free pass when it comes to merger control and antitrust enforcement.
- Controlling digital gatekeepers through the Digital Markets Act regime.
- Introducing a new “balanced” State aid framework under the Clean Industrial Deal, to give member states the tools to support investment in clean energy, decarbonization, and resilience. More cooperation and shared investment will be encouraged by improvements to the design of Important Projects of Common European Interest.
- Quicker investigations and decisions through more focused, targeted, and efficient enforcement and streamlined decision-making processes.
- Stopping foreign firms from using unfair subsidies by enforcing the Foreign Subsidies Regulation.
None of these elements are unexpected. They are contained in Ribera’s mission letter from EC President von der Leyen, which also sets out some particular tasks, such as a review of the EC’s horizontal merger control guidelines and considering how to address the risks of ‘killer acquisitions’. Some also feature in the EC’s recently published “Competitive Compass,” which will guide its actions over the next five years. We expect Ribera to kick off work in these areas early in her term.
Many of these points also reflect recommendations made by Mario Draghi in his influential report on the future competitiveness of the EU. However, at this stage we do not know how far Ribera’s modernized EU competition policy will tally with Draghi’s report on certain issues.
For example, Draghi suggested that a new “innovation defense” should enable merging parties to prove that the innovation-enhancing effects of their deal outweigh any harm to competition. He also recommended a new approach to market definition in telecoms deals that would facilitate consolidation. And he called for the introduction of a “New Competition Tool” designed to address structural competition problems found in whole markets.
Neither Ribera’s speech nor her mission letter suggests that the EC will go as far Draghi’s recommendations on these points. But we may see aspects of them in future EU antitrust enforcement policy, such as a greater willingness of the EC to accept efficiency arguments based on pro-innovation effects or on sustainability grounds.
All eyes are now on what initial steps Ribera will take to realize the modernization of EU competition policy in her first months in office.
U.K. antitrust enforcement at a crossroads as CMA gets a new chair and revised U.K. merger control thresholds, a digital markets regime, and antitrust reforms take effect
It has been an eventful start to the year for the U.K. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). Landmark changes to the U.K. competition rules came into force on January 1, 2025. We have also seen a dramatic change of leadership, with the U.K. Government replacing the authority’s chair with former Amazon boss Doug Gurr, on an interim basis.
The Government is pursuing an ambitious growth agenda. As part of this, it plans to reform U.K. regulatory authorities to address what the finance minister has called “stifling and unpredictable” regulatory systems.
The Government says that Gurr will “lead the CMA on its mission to support growth for the U.K.” Gurr has promised to drive forward three changes. First, to make the CMA’s investigations and processes “as simple and rapid as possible”. Second, to build mechanisms to ensure the authority invests in, and can access, “world class expertise” to deepen its understanding of sector dynamics and issues. Finally, to engage with the business community.
It remains to be seen what this means for antitrust enforcement in practice. It could mean at least a degree of relaxation in approach, particularly in relation to merger control. The Government’s “Strategic Steer”, which outlines the areas of focus for the CMA in the coming financial year, is due to be published soon. It may provide some clarity.
In the meantime, businesses are getting to grips with the new rules brought in by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024:
- Updated merger control thresholds, including an increased turnover test and a new threshold enabling the CMA to more easily review non-horizontal transactions, such as purchases by large players of start-ups or small innovative firms. Procedural improvements to in-depth reviews have also been made.
- A new digital markets regime, under which the CMA will be able to impose conduct requirements on digital firms designated as having “strategic market status” (SMS). The authority will also be able to intervene in digital markets to address the root causes of barriers to competition and will have tough powers of enforcement. The CMA has said it will launch SMS investigations in three areas of digital activity over the first six months. The first two were launched in January (into search services and into mobile ecosystems), and the third is expected toward the end of that period.
- Reforms to the antitrust rules, including an expansion to the prohibition on anticompetitive agreements to cover agreements implemented outside the U.K. that have effects within the U.K. The CMA has also gained more robust powers to investigate and enforce the rules.
Our key takeaways set out what you need to know in each of these areas. The CMA has published updated mergers and antitrust guidance taking account of the changes and a whole new set of guidelines explaining the digital markets regime.
We will have to wait a little longer for the Act’s historic reforms to the U.K.’s consumer protection regime to take effect. These will dramatically strengthen the CMA’s powers, enabling it to directly enforce U.K. consumer protection rules and impose fines of up to 10% of annual global turnover for infringements. There will be new rules on fake reviews, hidden fees and drip pricing, and subscription traps.
The U.K. Government expects to implement the CMA’s new enforcement powers, as well as the provisions which replace the current unfair trading regulations, in April 2025. Other changes, such as new rules on subscription contracts will not take effect before Spring 2026. This is a regime that remains under review—in January the U.K. Government opened consultations into the resale of live events tickets, mooting a new cap on the price of resold tickets, as well as pricing practices including the use of new technologies and “dynamic pricing” in the sector. In the meantime, read more about what to expect in our consumer enforcement takeaways.
We will keep you updated as the U.K. antitrust landscape continues to evolve.
Belgian antitrust authority uses anticompetitive agreements rules to investigate flour merger
The Belgian Competition Authority (BCA) has opened an investigation into the possible anticompetitive effects of Dossche Mills’ planned acquisition of rival Ceres’ artisan flour business, the two largest producers and suppliers of flour to artisan bakeries in the country.
The companies do not meet Belgium’s notification thresholds and therefore are not required to obtain the BCA’s approval pursuant to Belgian merger control rules. The BCA has become aware of the transaction and has opened an investigation over concerns that it could infringe the prohibition on anticompetitive agreements under EU and Belgian antitrust rules. The companies are not unknown to the BCA as this is Dossche Mills’ second attempt to acquire Ceres. The first attempt a couple of years ago—which was notifiable to the BCA at the time—failed after the agency raised concerns.
The BCA’s action is based on the Towercast judgment of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). In this landmark ruling, the ECJ held that member state antitrust authorities can use abuse of dominance rules to assess deals falling below national merger control thresholds.
It is not the first time that the BCA has opened a probe based on Towercast. In 2023, it investigated Proximus’ acquisition of edpnet under abuse of dominance rules. The case was ultimately closed after Proximus sold off edpnet to a rival.
However, the flour merger investigation is different. It centers on a possible anticompetitive agreement, rather than an abuse of dominance, something on which the ECJ did not explicitly rule in Towercast. Interestingly, the BCA’s press release indicates it will assess the transaction on the basis of the substantive test under the merger control rules, rather than the standard test for anticompetitive agreements—we will wait to see how this unfolds.
The BCA is not the first authority to interpret Towercast in this way. In May 2024, the French antitrust authority looked at whether a series of asset swaps in the meat-cutting sector would be tantamount to illegal market sharing. Ultimately, it concluded that there was no evidence of this and dismissed the case, but the investigation made clear that authorities will not be afraid to resort to abuse of dominance rules (which require an authority to establish that one of the merging parties has a dominant position) or the prohibition on anticompetitive agreements, which is less obvious from the Towercast ruling.
The investigation comes at a time when antitrust authorities—particularly in the EU—are trying to work out the best way of reviewing transactions that fall below merger control filing thresholds. This is in the aftermath of the Illumina/GRAIL judgment, where the ECJ struck down the EC’s referral policy in relation to below-threshold deals.
Some agencies are using “call-in” powers, enabling them to require notification of potentially anticompetitive deals. Eight EU member states currently have these. Others are taking steps to introduce them. Just this month, for example, the French antitrust authority launched a consultation on several options to tackle this perceived gap, notably including the creation of a targeted call-in power based on quantitative and qualitative criteria and the introduction of a new mandatory notification criterion for certain companies holding a degree of market power.
The BCA does not (yet) have this ability. The fallback remains therefore to use antitrust rules as a framework to assess below-threshold transactions. We may see other authorities taking a similar path, especially if their attempts to obtain call-in powers are unsuccessful.
For merging parties, all of this adds uncertainty and complexity. The time when parties only had to assess whether merger control thresholds were met is long gone. They must now consider the possibility of any call-in risk or, for transactions with an EU-nexus, the likelihood of examination under the antitrust rules. This may require significant substantive analysis, with limited certainty that the deal will not be reviewed pre- or even post-closing.
Watch out for our upcoming global merger control trends report where we will examine the review of below-threshold deals in more detail.
U.S. outbound investment rule kicks in and EC encourages non-EU investment monitoring
The much-anticipated U.S. outbound investment rule took effect on January 2, 2025. It prevents or requires notification of certain U.S. outbound investment in Mainland China, Hong Kong, and Macau and bites on specific transactions relating to semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies and AI.
Despite its narrow remit, the impact could be global. It focuses on U.S. companies, but foreign investors can be caught in some circumstances.
And its reach may extend. There are proposals to expand the regime to include hypersonics, satellite communication systems, and networked laser scanning technologies with dual-use applications. Additional countries—Iran, North Korea, and Russia—could be brought into scope.
Across the Atlantic, the EC has issued a Recommendation urging EU member states to scrutinize their companies’ investments in non-EU countries.
At this stage, the EC has asked member states to focus on semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and quantum technologies, according to a prescribed list of relevant products. These sectors are considered of strategic importance and have also been identified as those likely to pose the most significant risks of “technology leakage” through outbound investment. They mirror the sectors covered by the U.S.’s outbound investment rule.
Within these sectors, the scope of transactions falling to be reviewed is broad. It includes, for example, greenfield investments, venture capital, and indirect investments made by EU investors. It covers new and ongoing transactions, those completed since January 1, 2021, and any earlier transactions “of particular concern.”
While the review is ‘country-neutral’, member states may prioritize their activities based on the risk profiles of individual countries.
Our alert provides more detail on the background to, as well as the scope and purpose of, the Recommendation. Companies may need to comply with additional reporting requirements as member states establish systems to collect relevant information and carry out risk assessments.
Member states must provide a progress report in mid-July 2025 and comprehensive reports are due by June 30, 2026. We will update you should any EU-wide measures to mitigate potential risks start to crystallize.
French antitrust authority imposes EUR611m in fines for vertical price fixing of household appliances
The French Competition Authority (FCA) has imposed fines of EUR611m on ten manufacturers and two distributors of small and large household appliances. It concluded that the companies had implemented vertical retail price-fixing practices, through individual agreements, to reduce competition from online distributors, eliminate intra-brand competition, and keep sales prices high.
In particular, the authority alleged that the manufacturers communicated retail prices to distributors using coded language to conceal pricing instructions and put pressure on them to apply those prices by using subtext such as “if you want the product, you know what you have to do.”
The manufacturers then monitored prices, sometimes daily, by subscribing to online price data collection tools. They “swiftly” resorted to retaliatory measures against any distributors that refused to apply the pricing instructions. These included delaying and suspending (or threatening to suspend) deliveries, blocking the sale of certain products unless the instructed resale price was applied and introducing exclusive sales systems.
The FCA specifically called out the role of the two largest “traditional” distributors (selling primarily in brick-and-mortar stores), Darty and Boulanger. To safeguard the value of their sales amid the rise of online sales in the late 2000s, the authority said they monitored their competitors, asked manufacturers to act in the event of discrepancies, and demanded compensation from the manufacturers—in the form of a reduction in their net purchase price—for significant price differences.
Overall, the FCA described the practices as “widespread,” “institutionalised,” and “particularly serious.” In addition to the fines, it has ordered the parties to publish a summary of its decision in print and online editions of leading national newspapers.
The FCA’s decision follows on from an earlier investigation into horizontal price fixing in the household appliance sector. The authority fined six manufacturers a total of EUR189m in 2018 after finding that they had agreed to establish “price rules” for the application of increases to recommended retail prices and agreed on the conditions applied to kitchen installers for exhibition models.
The decision is also close on the heels of another vertical price fixing case. In October 2024, the FCA imposed fines of EUR470m on two electric equipment manufacturers and two distributors. Again, it considered the practices “particularly serious,” in this case due to the concentrated nature of the low-voltage electrical equipment sector.
Together, the cases show that anticompetitive vertical practices, including those relating to online sales, are an enforcement priority for the FCA. It is certainly not alone—taking action against this type of conduct has been high on the agenda of many antitrust authorities in recent years. Just this month, for example, the Polish antitrust authority fined Empire Brands and two of its managers almost PLN500,000 (approx. USD120,000) for forcing retailers to stick to minimum resale prices when selling its pet food online. Find out more about this enforcement trend in our upcoming report on global antitrust activity.
New Zealand’s first criminal cartel charges result in community sentence for director and corporate fine
The construction sector is no stranger to antitrust enforcement, with authorities across the globe clamping down on price fixing and bid-rigging conduct, particularly in relation to public tenders.
In New Zealand, the industry has been the focus of the country’s first criminal cartel prosecution. This has culminated in the Auckland High Court sentencing a company director to six months’ community detention and 200 hours of community service and imposing a NZD500,000 (approx. USD281,000) fine on the director’s construction company. Both director and company had pleaded guilty to charges of price fixing in relation to publicly funded construction contracts commissioned by the New Zealand Transport Agency and Auckland Transport.
The judge characterized the offending as a “deliberate and concerted strategy to rig bids for financial gain.” But for a number of mitigating factors, she would have imposed a two-year prison sentence and fine of around NZD1m (approx. USD0.56m). The director reportedly showed significant remorse for his actions, took full responsibility, explained that he was trying to deal with serious financial pressure following the Covid-19 pandemic, and offered to assist the New Zealand Commerce Commission in educating the construction industry on the cartel regime.
A second, unnamed company and its director are due to face trial in October 2025 in relation to the same cartel conduct.
The sentence marks New Zealand’s first ever criminal cartel penalty since cartel conduct was criminalized in the country in 2021. Individuals found guilty face prison sentences of up to seven years.
The Chair of the Commerce Commission has laid down a marker for future prosecutions. He warned that the sentencing “sends a strong message to businesses” that the agency will not tolerate cartel conduct and is prepared to “lay criminal charges to enforce the law.”
Elsewhere, the construction sector has also been in the antitrust spotlight.
In Europe, the Romanian Competition Council has fined three cement companies a total of RON217.9m (approx. USD45.1m) for coordinating pricing policies by exchanging commercially sensitive information via certain clients. The authority noted that it is monitoring the construction materials market given the strategic importance of the construction sector for economic and social development. Fines have also been imposed in Austria in relation to civil engineering works. In the U.S., additional individuals have pleaded guilty in ongoing investigations into bid-rigging on commercial roofing projects in central Florida and bid-rigging for asphalt paving services in Michigan.
Our next global trends in antitrust enforcement report will highlight which sectors fell under the most antitrust scrutiny during 2024.
U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal fines Pfizer and Flynn Pharma nearly GBP70m for excessive and unfair pricing
The U.K. Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) has found that Pfizer and Flynn Pharma abused their dominant positions by charging excessive and unfair prices for an off-patent anti-epilepsy drug distributed in the U.K.
In doing so, the CAT set aside the findings of the CMA but, unusually, asserted its own jurisdiction to remake the decision. It made its own infringement findings against the parties on seven of the eight separate infringements originally found by the CMA and ultimately imposed similar fines—Pfizer’s fine was reduced by just 1% to GBP62.37m and Flynn Pharma’s stayed at GBP6.7m.
The CAT’s ruling serves as a reminder that, although the pharma sector remains an antitrust enforcement priority in the U.K., it is also one in which the CMA is regularly having its decisions overturned, or fines substantially reduced, on appeal.
Our A&O Shearman on life sciences blog post outlines the 11-year long Pfizer/Flynn Pharma case, sets out some takeaways and considers what might be next for CMA antitrust enforcement in the sector.
Need-to-Know: updates on U.S. antitrust litigation
Our Need-to-Know Litigation Weekly publication analyzes notable U.S. litigation decisions, orders, and developments. From an antitrust perspective, we have featured the following cases over the past month:
You can access Need-to-Know Weekly in full here. If you would like to be added to the distribution list, contact us at litigation_weekly@aoshearman.com.
