Welcome! Your membership in the chair of the Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section offers the networking, education, practice, and skills development to grow your practice and accomplish your goals.
Earn up to 12 Hours MCLE Credit, including legal specialization, with your attendance at the full, two-day event.
REGISTER ONLINE HERE
September 14-15, 2018 | Sheraton San Diego Hotel & Marina
Registration & Hotel | Education | Events | Awards & Receptions | Sponsors
Full Brochure | Registration Form
Click here for all the Details!
5 — Advising Clients on Antitrust Issues
Friday, September 14—9:50 a.m. – 10:50 a.m.
Might your client’s business practices, acquisitions, pricing, trade association participation or other activities run afoul of federal or state antitrust laws? Learn how any practitioner can help clients protect against antitrust problems and identify existing practices that could threaten liability. No antitrust experience required!
CLE: 1.0 Hour
17 — What U.S. Practitioners Need to Know About the EU’s GDPR
Friday, September 14—3:10 p.m. – 4:10 p.m.
On May 25, 2018 the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) became effective in the European Union (EU). The GDPR applies to any company that processes personal data of EU residents and imposes significant restrictions on the gathering, retention, and use of personal data and potential transfer of that data to the United States. There is conflict between the broad discovery allowed in the U.S. litigation (and the manner in which that discovery is located, produced, stored and used) and the strong data privacy protections afforded to personal data located in the European Union. Panelists will discuss how companies subject to the GDPR that are being sued in the U.S. can balance their GDPR privacy obligations with their discovery obligations under U.S. law.
41 — Best Practices for Lawyers and Their Clients for Social Media Marketing
Saturday, September 15 — 3:10 p.m. – 4:10 p.m.
This panel will provide an overview of the ethical and legal issues raised from social media marketing for lawyers and their clients, including everything from influencers and endorsements to LinkedIn and tweeting. Learn about the burgeoning issues in social media marketing from government regulators and top defense lawyers.
CLE: 1.0 Hour of Which 0.5 Hour Applies to Legal Ethics
View an interview with Bruce L. Simon, in conversation with David Faigman, at U.C. Hastings College of the Law on May 23, 2018.
UC Hastings College of the Law The Executive Committee of the Antitrust, UCL & Privacy Section of the California Lawyers Association is thrilled to announce its selection of Bruce L. Simon of Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP as the 2018 “Antitrust Lawyer of the Year.” For those who practice in the field of antitrust law, Bruce needs no introduction. He is one of the leading antitrust lawyers not just in California, but nationwide. He has been appointed lead counsel for plaintiffs in many antitrust cases with national and global impact, and has secured billions of dollars in settlements for businesses and consumers.
One of his particularly notable cases is In Re: Credit Default Swaps Antitrust Litigation, a case alleging a conspiracy among the world’s largest banks to maintain opacity of the credit default swaps market as a means of maintaining supra-competitive prices of bid/ask spreads. As Co-Lead Counsel, Bruce was instrumental in achieving a landmark settlement amounting to $1.86 billion. It is one of the largest civil antitrust settlements in history.
He was also one of the lead trial attorneys in the In Re: TFT-LCD Flat Panel Antitrust Litigation . In recent times, this is one of a handful of antitrust class actions that has gone to a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiffs. The case was tried right here in the N.D. Cal, and resulted in a verdict of $87 million before trebling. Total settlements in the case amounted to $473 million.
Bruce has just been appointed co-lead counsel in In Re: German Automotive Manufacturers Antitrust Litigation . He represents indirect purchasers who allege collusion among the largest German car companies to stifle innovation, restrict supply and fix prices for their vehicles.
Bruce’s achievements are not limited to the courtroom. He is the former Chair of this Section and remains an advisor and active contributor. After Co-Chairing an ABA task force to increase participation of the plaintiffs’ bar in the Antitrust Section, and leading the Global Private Litigation Committee, Bruce is now on the Council. Bruce is also a past Chair of the Board of Directors of his alma mater, U.C. Hastings College of the Law, and served on the Board for 12 years.
Upon learning of his selection, Bruce stated, “I am so honored and humbled to be chosen. It is particularly poignant given the many friendships I have made during my service with the Section. “Antitrust Lawyer of the Year” is built on the high quality and talent of all who participate in the Section, and in particular, those who have received the award in the past. Being associated with all of you has taught me so much and has always kept me on my toes.”
You will hear much more about Bruce at the “Antitrust Lawyer of the Year” Dinner and Ceremony on November 8, 2018, at the Julia Morgan Ballroom in the Merchant Exchange Building in San Francisco. The Dinner and Ceremony will cap off what is shaping up to be a fantastic 28th Annual Golden State Institute, the preeminent competition law conference in the Western United States. Mark your calendars now!
Finally, I would like to thank everyone who took the time to submit nominations for the Antitrust Lawyer of the Year. The Executive Committee received many excellent nominations which made the decision all the more difficult. The process was a wonderful reminder of the bounty of accomplished antitrust lawyers who practice in California. On a personal note, I am particularly delighted the Executive Committee chose to bestow this honor on a fellow member of the plaintiffs’ bar. I know Bruce not just an eminently qualified antitrust lawyer with a noteworthy career, but as one heck of a nice guy!
Please join us in congratulating Bruce L. Simon on his selection as the 2018 “Antitrust Lawyer of the Year!”
Jill M. Manning
Chair, Executive Committee
Antitrust, UCL & Privacy Section
Harrison (Buzz) Frahn, Steven D. McLellan, Justin J. Calderon
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP
On January 25, 2018, Judge Denise J. Casper moved the parties in In re Solodyn (Minocycline Hydrochloride) Antitrust Litigation closer to trial by denying motions for summary judgment from both sides. No. 14-md-02503, 2018 WL 563144, at *1 (D. Mass. Jan. 25, 2018). Defendants Medicis Pharmaceutical Corporation (“Medicis”) and Impax Laboratories, Inc. (“Impax”) (collectively “Defendants”) argued that Plaintiffs could not carry their burden under a Sherman Act Section 1 rule-of-reason analysis or a Section 2 monopolization theory because Defendants lacked market power. They also argued that the reverse payment settlement between Defendants could not have caused antitrust injury because Impax would never have launched a generic product with the risk of infringing Medicis’s patents. Consolidated Plaintiffs (or “Plaintiffs”), consisting of direct purchasers, end-payors, and major retailers, moved for summary judgment, arguing that Medicis had market power. Read More
On February 1, 2018, Judge Catherine C. Eagles of the District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina certified a class of medical school faculty from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (“UNC”) and Duke University who alleged that the universities violated section 1 of the Sherman Act by agreeing to and enforcing a “no lateral hire” policy that prevented medical faculty from obtaining employment from the rival campuses and suppressed faculty wages. Seaman v. Duke Univ., No. 1:15-CV-462, 2018 WL 671239, at *1 (M.D.N.C. Feb. 1, 2018) . Read More
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP
On January 10, 2018, U.S. District Judge Gail Dein granted Sanofi’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The plaintiffs, who are purchasers of insulin glargine products Lantus and Lantus SoloSTAR, alleged that Sanofi improperly extended its monopoly for Lantus and Lantus SoloSTAR by improperly listing six patents in the FDA Orange Book and by pursuing, and then settling, sham litigation against Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly). In re Lantus Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litig. , No. 16-12652-JGD, 2018 WL 355372 at*1 (D. Mass. January 10, 2018). Judge Dein found that the plaintiffs failed to allege sufficient facts to support a finding of antitrust liability against Sanofi for listing its patents in the Orange Book unreasonably or for engaging in sham litigation with the Lilly. Id. Read More
Pritzker Levine LLP
On January 29, 2018, the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District ruled, in Apple Inc. v. Shamrell, et al, 2018 WL 579858, that a California state trial court may consider only reliable expert opinion evidence on class certification. This is the first time a California appellate court has held that Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California (2012) 55 Cal.4 th 747—the state law equivalent of the federal Daubert standard governing the reliability and admissibility of expert opinion—applies at any stage of the trial court proceedings, including class certification. Read More
Daniel Macioce, Intern
Federal Trade Commission
In an action for false advertising brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Northern District of California District Court Judge John Tigar partially denied defendant 21st Amendment Brewery Café’s (21st Amendment) motion to dismiss. Peacock v. 21st Amendment Brewery Café , No. 17-cv-01918-JST, 2018 WL 452153, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2018). The decision involves a putative class action alleging that 21 st Amendment’s website and on product labels, which feature a map and description of the company’s original brewery site in San Leandro, California, deceptively represent that its beer products are made entirely in the San Francisco Bay Area, when in fact some of its beers are made elsewhere, including in Minnesota. Read More
Cheryl Lee Johnson, Editor-in-Chief
Gain authoritative understanding of California antitrust and unfair competition statutes, policies and issues with one-volume convenience. This treatise brings you up to speed on everything from horizontal combinations and vertical restraints to public enforcement of California antitrust laws and trial considerations.
You get full coverage of The Cartwright Act along with related California consumer and unfair competition laws, and how they apply to the health industry, regulated industries, the labor market, electronic media, the internet and other fields. Additionally, there are chapters covering damages, defenses to liability including exemptions and immunities, injunctive relief, class actions, attorney’s fees and costs, insurance issues, and much more. This publication includes contributions from over 120 highly experienced antitrust practitioners in both the private and government sectors, as well as the executive members of the Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Section.
$260, 1 volume, loose-leaf, updated annually, Pub. #01577, ISBN 9780769856896
To order, call 800-223-1940 or visit the LexisNexis Store.
Antitrust, UCL and Privacy Competition Section
California Lawyers Association
180 Howard Street, Suite 410
San Francisco, CA 94105-1639