 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
 |
   |
 |
||||||||||
|
> Antitrust and
Competition > Complex Valuation |
AEP has been involved in all aspects of antitrust litigation, from claims of monopolization and tying arrangements to collusive behavior and predatory pricing. AEP has also been retained to study and offer testimony regarding proposed or actual mergers and acquisitions. AEP has performed analyses for federal and state governments and agencies as well as for private law firms. Antitrust and unfair competition litigation involves complicated economic issues concerning both liability and damages. A successful antitrust case should develop the economic aspects of antitrust liability and construct a realistic but-for world for damages that considers the causation between liability and damages. The expert economist can provide assistance early in a case by helping to frame legal issues that are consistent with economic theory. AEP professionals are particularly skilled in helping to develop the evidence needed to support or attack liability from the perspective of the expert economist. AEP employs a lawyer experienced in complicated antitrust litigation who works closely with the expert and counsel to ensure that the expert is prepared to defend his economic theory of liability. With respect to damages, AEP has unrivaled experience in creating realistic economic models that take into account market changes often overlooked in other analyses. These models are also carefully designed to mirror the factual nuances of the liability case so that causation is fully considered. In analyzing and working on antitrust and unfair competition litigation, AEP provides detailed economic analyses of:
|
|||||||||||
| Representative Assignments: | ||||||||||||
|
Consulting Assignments for the United States Department of Justice |
The United States Department of Justice engaged AEP to study Microsoft's role in the market for operating system software. The government also asked AEP to perform an analysis of the proposed merger between Intuit and Microsoft. |
|||||||||||
| |
||||||||||||
|
Image
Technical Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
|
In an antitrust action against Kodak, Kodak was found to have monopolized the market for parts for servicing its copiers and micrographics equipment but not the market for used equipment. The original damages analysis had determined that the plaintiff independent service organizations had suffered losses from their inability to sell used equipment. However, the study had not differentiated between sales lost because Kodak had monopolized the market for used equipment and sales lost because Kodak had monopolized the market for parts. The plaintiffs asked AEP to allocate damages between these two causes. AEP's damages study was instrumental in the settlement of the case. | |||||||||||
| Northwest Airlines v. American Airlines | Northwest alleged that American had violated the antitrust laws when it engaged in dramatic price cuts. AEP analyzed the effects of predatory pricing and the resulting damages on its client, Northwest. | |||||||||||
| Disposable Contact Lens Litigation |
AEP performed a liability and damages analysis of claimed exclusionary conduct by contact lens manufacturers and eye care professionals on behalf of a state and its attorney general. The damages analysis relied upon a survey of contact lens wearers.
|
|||||||||||
| Cleveland v. Viacom, Inc., Merchant v. Redstone | Independent video store owners alleged that Blockbuster and seven large motion picture studios conspired to prevent the independents from participating in revenue-sharing agreements with the studios, and to fix the prices of new-release videocassettes. AEP undertook a liability analysis of the alleged price-fixing agreement as well as the resultant disparity in cost per tape and cost of goods sold between the Blockbuster agreements and the purchase options available to the independents. | |||||||||||
 |
||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||||||