December 2005 Antitrust Update

Corporate Counseling CommitteeSection of Antitrust LawAmerican Bar Association

January 10, 2006

Terry CalvaniThomas JanssensMJ MoltenbreyBob SchlossbergPaul Yde

2

Agenda

Federal Agency Update

Antitrust Modernization Commission Update

Criminal Enforcement

Civil Non-Merger Enforcement

US Merger Update

Other DOJ and FTC Activity

Private and State Enforcement

International Developments

Federal Agency Update

4

William E. Kovacic: New FTC Commissioner

Confirmed by Senate on December 17; sworn in on January 4

Previously a Professor at George Washington University Law School

FTC’s General Counsel from 2001–2004

Prior Commission experience: from 1979–1983, first with the Bureau of Competition’s Planning Office and later as an attorney advisor to Commissioner George W. Douglas

Author of numerous articles on antitrust and the FTC, co-author of an antitrust casebook, and has advised numerous foreign governments about competition and consumer protection issues

Term will expire September 2011 (filling a seat vacated in September 2004)

5

J. Thomas Rosch: New FTC Commissioner

Confirmed by Senate on December 17; sworn in on January 5

Previously a partner in the San Francisco office of Latham & Watkins

More than 40 years experience in antitrust and trade regulation practice

Served as chair of ABA Antitrust Section in 1990, and chair of the California Bar Association’s Antitrust Section

Prior Commission experience: served as the Director of the Bureau of Consumer Protection from 1973–1975

Term will expire in September 2012

6

Jeff Schmidt Named Bureau Director

Chairman Majoras announced that Susan Creighton, Director of the Bureau of Competition for the past two-and-a-half years, resigned and that Jeffrey Schmidt, a Deputy Director in the Bureau, was appointed to succeed her as Director (December 20)

Schmidt was long associated with Pillsbury Winthrop, where he was an associate, partner and managing partner of the Washington Office, focusing on antitrust litigation and IP issues

In 2001, he assumed the positions of Chief Legal Officer and Chief Administrative Officer at Transora, an electronic data synchronization firm formed by leading consumer packaged goods manufacturers; he returned to Pillsbury in 2003

Prior Commission experience: Schmidt has served as a deputy director of the Bureau of Competition since February 2005; he was also an attorney-advisor to Commissioner Terry Calvani in the mid-1980s

7

New FTC (Antitrust) Organizational Chart

ChairmanDeborah Platt Majoras

(2008)

CommissionerPamela Jones Harbor

(2009)

CommissionerJon Liebowitz

(2010)

CommissionerWilliam E. Kovacic

(2011)

CommissionerJ. Thomas Rosch

(2012)

General Counsel

William Blumenthal

Director,Bureau of Competition

Jeffrey Schmidt

Director,Bureau of

Economics

Michael Salinger

Deputy Director

[Vacant]

Deputy Director

[Vacant]

8

DOJ AAG Confirmation Update

Nomination of Acting Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust, Thomas O. Barnett, was recommended by the Senate Judiciary Committee in November, and is awaiting a confirmation vote by the full Senate

Antitrust Modernization Commission Update

10

AMC Hearings on Regulated Industries – December 5

Panelists discussed the following topics:

Division of responsibility for the enforcement of antitrust laws in regulated industries between the antitrust agencies and other regulatory agencies

Appropriate standard for determining the extent to which the antitrust laws apply to regulated industries where the regulatory structure contains no specific antitrust exemption and/or contains a specific antitrust savings clause

Whether Congress and regulatory agencies should set industry-specific standards for particular antitrust violations that may conflict with general standards for the same violations

11

AMC Upcoming Hearings

Economists' Roundtable on Merger Enforcement (January 19). Panelists : Prof. Timothy Bresnahan, Stanford University Prof. Steven Neil Kaplan, University of Chicago Graduate School of

Business Prof. Peter C. Reiss, Graduate School of Business, Stanford

University Prof. Daniel L. Rubinfeld, New York University School of Law Prof. Lawrence White, New York University, Leonard N. Stern

School of Business

Immunities and Exemptions (Noerr-Pennington) issues (January 2006 (day tbd))

International issues (January 2006 (day tbd))— Comments regarding whether there multilateral procedures

that should be implemented, or other actions taken, to enhance international antitrust comity due January 13

Criminal Enforcement

13

DOJ Criminal Enforcement No significant developments in December

December 9: Four former concrete company executives sentenced to prison and five months probation, plus fines of $100k—$200k, for fixing the prices of ready-mix concrete

UK High Court to consider this month whether Ian Norris, former CEO of Morgan Crucible Co., should be extradited to the US to stand trial for allegedly fixing the prices of power train components

PAGE ONE

U.S. Gains More Antitrust Cooperation Abroad

Shift Comes as Many Nations Make Price Fixing Illegal; An Extradition Case in U.K.

By ANITA RAGHAVAN Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNALDecember 22, 2005; Page A1

After years of campaigning, U.S. prosecutors are increasingly winning cooperation from foreign governments in prosecuting antitrust offenders…

Civil Non-Merger Enforcement

15

DOT Tentatively Denies Antitrust Immunity to Expanded SkyTeam Alliance

On December 22, DOT issued a show cause order, tentatively rejecting request by Northwest, Delta, KLM, Air France and other SkyTeam Alliance members seeking antitrust immunity for extended collaboration on international flights

DOJ and American had opposed the request

While DOT allowed the airlines to expand their code sharing arrangements, it concluded that “[t]he carriers failed to demonstrate sufficient public benefits that would result from a grant of antitrust immunity.”

Significant because this is the first time DOT has rejected a request for antitrust immunity without finding that the underlying alliance would lessen competition

16

Dentsply: Supreme Court Denies Certiorari

Complaint filed January 5, 1999

District Court originally found Dentsply not liable under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act for entering into exclusive dealing agreements with dealers

The DOJ appealed, arguing that the district court incorrectly applied the controlling legal standards, and that several of its key findings of fact were clearly erroneous

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and remanded "with directions to grant injunctive relief requested by the Government."

Certiorari denied on January 9, 2006

17

US v. National Association of Realtors

DOJ challenge to NAR’s policy that allegedly obstructs real estate brokers who use innovative Internet-based tools to offer better services and lower costs to consumers Enables traditional brokers to block their competitors' customers from

having full on-line access to all of the MLS's listings Participation in the local MLS makes it possible for a broker to provide

customers with listings for virtually all properties for sale in the community, which is critical to compete in the local market

NAR's policy significantly alters the rules that govern MLSs by permitting traditional brokers to discriminate against other brokers based on their business model, denying them the full benefits of MLS participation

Motion for protective orders and protection of confidential information filed December 23 in U.S. District Court in Chicago

18

FTC Continues to Focus on Patent Settlements in Pharmaceutical Cases

On December 2, FTC filed an amicus brief in In re Tamoxifen Citrate Antitrust Litigation, a case pending before the Seventh Circuit, urging the full court to rehear the case

The panel previously upheld dismissal of an antitrust challenge to a patent litigation settlement between AstraZeneca, the manufacturer of tamoxifen citrate (breast cancer treatment drug), and Barr Labs, an FDA applicant for tamoxifen citrate generic counterpart

FTC argues: Court improperly condoned agreement because it made “economic sense”

to parties Court overvalued judicial policy favoring settlements, especially given

Congressional policy encouraging patent challenges reflected in Hatch-Waxman Act

Court mistakenly assumed that patent holders cannot “buy off” all potential challengers, therefore harm to competition from such agreements is limited

US Merger Update

20

Evanston Northwestern Appeals FTC Decision

Evanston Northwestern Healthcare filed an appeal with the FTC to overrule an unfavorable ALJ decision that would ultimately force the corporation to divest one of its three hospitals (December 16)

In October, the ALJ ruled that ENH’s 2000 Acquisition of Highland Park hospital “substantially lessened competition” and resulted in higher prices for insurers and healthcare consumers for general acute care inpatient services sold to managed care organizations in the relevant geographic market

21

New HSR Rules

Allowing parties to submit an Internet address linking directly to the documents required by Items 4(a) and 4(b) in lieu of paper copies

Amending the rules to specify that an acquiring person’s notification, and an acquired person’s notification in certain types of transactions, will expire after eighteen months if a second request remains outstanding

Base Year of 2002 in Item 5 (in lieu of 1997) became effective on December 30, 2005 Filing parties entitled to a 30-day grace period where use of either

year will be accepted, though all filing parties must be consistent

22

DOJ Merger Update

DOJ cleared Sprint Nextel Corp.'s proposal to buy wireless affiliate Alamosa Holdings Inc. for $3.4 billion, without action (December 20)

DOJ cleared UnitedHealth Group’s acquisition of PacifiCare Health Systems, but not without first requiring a divestiture of PacifiCare's commercial health insurance business in Tucson, AZ and Boulder, CO, and requiring United to modify and, after one year, terminate its network access agreement with Blue Shield of California (December 20)

DOJ cleared merger of AMC and Loews movie theatres but only following divestiture of certain movie theatres in five major cities: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, New York, and Seattle; DOJ argued the multi-billion dollar transaction would have eliminated head-to-head competition between AMC and Loews and likely would have resulted in higher prices for tickets to first-run, commercial movies in those cities (December 22)

23

FTC Merger Update

Pharma – FTC cleared Novartis’s buy-out of Chiron Corporation, without action (December 6)

Agchem – FTC cleared Agrium Inc.’s hostile takeover of Royster-Clark Ltd. without action (December 13)

Personal care – FTC approved the proposed divestiture of Gillette’s Rembrandt toothpaste and tooth whitening business to Johnson and Johnson (December 16)

Medical Devices – FTC approved issuance of final consent order in J&Js acquisition of Guidant, requiring that J&J: (1) grant to a third party a fully paid-up, non-exclusive, irrevocable license, enabling that third party to make and sell drug eluting stents with the Rapid Exchange delivery system; (2) divest to a third party J&J’s endoscopic vessel harvesting product line; and (3) end its agreement to distribute Novare Surgical System, Inc.’s proximal anastomotic assist device (December 27)

Other DOJ and FTC Activity

25

DOJ Will Not Challenge Creation of Free Weekly in Denver

DOJ announced in a business review letter that it will not challenge the creation of a free edition of the Denver Post and the handling of that edition’s non-reportorial and non-editorial business operations under an existing newspaper joint operating agreement

DOJ found that the creation of a new edition of the Denver Post likely will increase output and provide greater choice for both readers and advertisers in the Denver area Parties also stated the the new edition would allow the Denver Post to

expand its penetration among certain demographic groups, and create another choice for Denver-area advertisers

Two daily Denver newspapers, MediaNews Group’s Denver Post and the E.W. Scripps’ Rocky Mountain News, participate in a JOA organized as the Denver Newspaper Agency In January of 2001, DOJ approved the JOA under the Newspaper

Preservation Act

26

FTC Issues “Report on Ethanol Market Concentration”

FTC examined the current state of ethanol production in the United States and measured market concentration using capacity and production data, and considered the possible effect on market concentration of marketing agreements between ethanol producers and ethanol marketers (December 2)

FTC found that US “ethanol production is not unduly concentrated and that existing concentration levels do not justify a presumption that one firm, or a small group of firms, could wield the market power necessary to coordinate on prices or output”

FTC also found that the “likelihood of anticompetitive conduct is even lower than the production concentration levels might suggest because significant new entry in ethanol production and marketing will occur in the next year and is expected to continue for several more years”

Private and State Enforcement

28

Alaska Gasoline Port Authority Sues BP and ExxonMobil

On December 20, the Alaska Gasoline Port Authority filed suit accusing ExxonMobil and BP of withholding gas from the market and inflating the price paid for gas AGPA was formed by three local governments to bring gas to

market

AGPA claims that the two oil companies have conspired to refuse to sell natural gas from their joint reserves in Prudhoe Bay, Point Thomson, and other areas on the North Slope of Alaska

29

Xechem Settles with Bristol-Myers Squibb

On December 20, Xechem International settled an antitrust lawsuit against Bristol-Myers Squibb for $4.2 million Xechem claimed that Bristol-Myers Squibb engaged in

anticompetitive practices relating to Xechem's efforts to manufacture and market Paclitaxel, a generic equivalent of Bristol-Myers's cancer drug Taxol

30

New York State Probing Digital Music Pricing

New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is investigating Sony BMG, EMI, Universal, Warner, and the industry’s trade association, the Digital Media Association, among others, in connection with sales to on-line music sites

Sources state that Spitzer focusing on labels' pricing decisions and is seeking e-mails and other communications that deal with setting prices for online sales

Under the current system, labels charge a variety of wholesale prices; retailers, such as iTunes and Wal-Mart, then decide what price individual consumers will pay, almost uniformly 99 ¢ per track

International Developments

32

EC Releases Discussion Paper on Dominance

As a last step in EU “modernization,” the EC released a discussion paper that, if adopted, would make its approach to Article 82 more effects-based and less formalistic Introduces a more economic approach in determining whether a firm is

“dominant” and in deciding if a particular practice constitutes an “abuse”— To determine “dominance,” market shares may be a factor, but

barriers to entry/expansion, and buyer power are also important— Nonetheless, the paper continues to talk about efficient distribution in

the same vein— Improved; but still needs much work

Proposes an individual, 2-step approach, based on the conduct (predatory pricing, single branding and rebates, tying and bundling, and refusals to supply), to determine if an exclusionary abuse occurred

Objective justifications and efficiencies may now be considered (see, Merger Analysis)

Parties encouraged to submit comments by March 31, 2006

Second paper on exploitive and discriminatory abuses expected 2006

33

Review of Current State of Article 82 Dominance defined in terms of

market share Presumed at 50% Can be found at 20%

Efficiencies treated as "entry barriers" Superior technology Well developed distribution

Importance of braggadocio as evidence

Collective dominance & oligopolistic pricing

For example--Predatory pricing ala Utah Pie PAVC predatory—Akzo (ECJ) P≥ATC predatory—Commission Proof of recoupment not necessary

WoodstockEra

CompetitionPolicy—

The Sixties Lives!

"Sex, Drugs and

Rock & Roll"

34

Bit of a "Tug-of-War"

A careful read of the materials, particularly the last draft, reflects a fight within the Commission as to the proper direction of Article 82

The drafts have reflected this fight

The course of the direction is not set in stone

It is important to be heard now

35

Positive Developments

§4: "protection of competition…as a means of enhancing consumer welfare and of ensuring an efficient allocation of resources."

§32: "Market share is only a proxy for market power, which is the decisive factor“— necessary to go further

§34 et seq.: Better focus on barriers to entry and expansion in assessing dominance

36

Some Issues Remain Cloudy

Efficiency as a goal clouded by references to foreclosure of competitors

Discussion paper unclear as to using an Indiana Federation of Dentist approach

The limiting principles surrounding collective dominance remain cloudy—is it simply sustained oligopolistic interdependence with effective monitoring?

Continued fascination with price predation, the possibility of competitive injury at prices above AAC, evidence of anticompetitive intent without need for recoupment

37

Problem Areas

Paper suggests that the 50% presumption is retained (§30)

Talks about a highly developed sales network, experience and reputation in the same vein as barriers to entry (§40) -- shades of ALCOA!

Price predation where PATC still possible

Most importantly, the guides are not user friendly

F

38

COMMISSIONER KROES WANTS YOU!

The Commission has invited comment

You should seriously consider making your voice heard

The discussion paper is a real improvement over the draft guidelines that were distributed to the Member States

Further improvement is needed

39

EC’s goal is to ease the bringing of damage claims for competition law breaches in national courts to both make competition law enforcement more effective and deter further breaches

EC has invited comments addressing: The wisdom of forcing defendants to provide a broad disclosure of

evidence (trend toward the US, UK, and Irish systems, but very unfamiliar on the Continent)

Enactment of a strict liability standard Damages as purely compensatory or non-compensatory, i.e., requiring the

return of unlawful profits Value of doubling of damages in horizontal cartel cases Validity of permitting defendants to argue the “passing-on” defense

(compare, Illinois Brick in the US) Allowance of collective action/class action proceedings to protect

consumer interests Desirability of rules deeming the claimant to be immune from costs liability

Unclear whether EC has power to adopt all these proposals; lively debate is certain

EC Publishes Green Paper on Article 81 Damages

40

CFI Issues GE/Honeywell Judgment

On December 14, 2005, the EU Court of First Instance (CFI) dismissed the appeals by GE and Honeywell against the prohibition of GE’s proposed merger with Honeywell CFI agreed with EC and found GE held a dominant position in market for

commercial aircraft engines because of its high market share (>50%), ability to use its leasing and finance arms to win business, and lack of sufficient constraints by customers or competitors

CFI contradicted EC’s finding that GE would be able to bundle engines and avionics products to distort competition post merger because evidence did not show the merged entity would have an economic basis to do so – CFI stated EC was wrong to prohibit the merger on these grounds (conglomerate effects)

CFI also found that EC should have carried out an investigation into the likelihood GE would refuse to supply its engine competitors with Honeywell starters (vertical effects – link with Article 82)

CFI upheld EC’s argument merger would have created a monopoly in market for jet engines for large regional aircrafts, and EC was correct in blocking transaction on these grounds (horizontal effects)

CFI found that the US decision was not relevant in the EC’s analysis Honeywell’s application rejected on technical grounds

41

EC Threatens to Fine Microsoft €2m per day

In March, 2004, the EC issued a decision finding that Microsoft infringed the EC Treaty rules on abuse of a dominant position (Article 82) by leveraging its near monopoly in the market for PC operating systems onto the markets for work group server operating systems and for media players

One of the remedies imposed by the decision was for Microsoft to disclose complete and accurate interface documentation which would allow non-Microsoft work group servers to achieve full interoperability with Windows PCs and servers

On December 22, the EC announced its view, supported by two reports from the Monitoring trustee, is that Microsoft has not yet done so

— Microsoft has provided some technical information but the Monitoring Trustee called it “totally unfit at this stage for its intended purpose.”

Microsoft responded that the EC continues to “move the goal posts” and prematurely judged its compliance with the March 2004 decision; Microsoft also argued that the requested action actually goes beyond the parameters of its obligations

42

Korean FTC Finds Against Microsoft

KFTC found Microsoft breached the Korean antitrust laws on December 7

Microsoft ordered to:— Sell its Windows operating system without the Windows Media Player or

Windows Instant Messenger — Allow consumer downloads of third party media player and messenger

products — Pay a fine of approximately US$32m

US DOJ came out against the ruling, stating that: “The Antitrust Division believes that Korea's remedy goes beyond what is necessary or appropriate to protect consumers, as it requires the removal of products that consumers may prefer. The Division continues to believe that imposing 'code removal' remedies that strip out functionality can ultimately harm innovation and the consumers that benefit from it,” but also recognizing that a diverging result does not signify a successful working relationship between the DOJ and KFTC – J. Bruce McDonald, DAAG, December 7

43

EC Improves Access to File in Merger and Antitrust Proceedings

EC allowing for increased access to its files in both merger and antitrust proceedings to increase transparency and allow private parties better opportunities to develop their arguments/defense

The parties will be able to see all of the evidence, whether it is incriminating or exonerating

— This will enable the parties to draw the Commission’s attention to elements of the file which the party believes have not been given sufficient weight

Access granted only to those addressed on the SO, but there may be some rights of access for other involved parties in special cases

Encompasses all documents relevant to the SO in either electronic or hard copy format

“EC’s Internal documents” and “business secrets and other confidential information” remain inaccessible

44

Spain’s Antitrust Court Rejects Gas Natural SDG’s Bid for Endessa

Court rejected Gas Natural’s $26 billion hostile bid for Endessa, a transaction that would create one of the largest portfolio’s of gas and electricity-generation assets in the world

Decision is non-binding, but will be forwarded to the Spanish Finance Ministry, which will then review it before making final recommendations to the Spanish Cabinet of Ministers

Once the Cabinet reaches a view, the final decision lies with the Spanish government – if the government chooses to allow the acquisition, it must provide a detailed legal, political, and economic explanation

Transaction is highly politicized (Socialists support transaction, while Popular Party does not)

Pending appeal before CFI against EC’s decision declaring the decision has no community dimension and thereby placing jurisdiction before the Spanish national competition authorities

45

Italy Introduces Merger Filing Fees

The Italian Budget Law of 2006 approved by the Italian Parliament on December 22, calls for the introduction of filing fees in Italian merger control

The Italian Antitrust Authority (IAA) will be financed through filing fees, the amount of which will be updated annually by the same IAA

IAA shall soon establish the parameters that will be used for deciding the amount of the fees, which will depend on the overall economic value of the notified transaction but not to exceed 1.2% of that value

The filing fees will be borne by the the notifying party(ies)

46

Peter Freeman Named Head of UK Competition Commission

On December 12, Peter Freeman was named Chairman of the United Kingdom’s Competition Commission

Freeman has been a Member of the CC since May 2003 and a Deputy Chairman since September 2003

CC conducts in-depth inquiries into mergers, markets and the regulation of the major regulated industries

Each inquiry is undertaken in response to a reference made to it by another authority – the CC has no power to conduct inquiries on its own initiative

Typically, matters are referred to the CC by the Office of Fair Trading, but in certain circumstances the Secretary of State, or the regulators in certain regulated industries may also make referrals

47

Japanese Court Orders JFTC to Release Intel Information

On December 19, a Tokyo District Court opinion required that the Japanese Fair Trade Commission release to Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) information the JFTC gathered while investigating Intel for violations of the anti-monopoly laws; the JFTC found against Intel for monopolization in March

AMD is hoping to use this information to show a pattern of monopolistic behavior in its case against Intel in the US district court

— It is believed the JFTC seized copies of contracts with Japanese computer makers

Intel disputes that the JFTC must now turn specific documents over, instead arguing there are more procedural steps before AMD receives any of the information

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLPAntitrust Competition and Trade Practice

49

The Firm and Our Network

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer is a leading international law firm, with offices across Europe, the Middle East, Asia and the United States. Our objective is to provide high-quality legal advice – domestically and internationally – in the practice areas of key importance to our clients.

We have more than 2,400 lawyers in 28 offices around the world. Ninety of our 100 highest billing clients were multiple office users in our last financial year.

517 Partners and principal consultants

1977 Associates

2494 Lawyers

2807 Fee earners

Fee earner figures

WORLDWIDE OFFICE MAP

50

Terry Calvani

Terry Calvani, a former US Federal Trade Commissioner, joined our US antitrust group in Washington, D.C. in June 2005. Mr. Calvani joins the firm from the Irish Competition Authority, where he has served as Member and Director of the Cartels Division since 2002. He brings to Freshfields over 30 years of U.S. and international private practice, academic and antitrust enforcement experience.

Prior to his tenure with the Irish Competition Authority, he was a partner in the antitrust practice group of Pillsbury Winthrop LLP, resident in both its San Francisco and Washington, D.C., offices. Mr. Calvani was Commissioner of the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (1983-1990) and was acting Chairman of the Commission during 1985 and 1986.

While in private practice, Mr. Calvani has worked on acquisitions/joint ventures in a very large number of industries and their review by numerous competition agencies. He has participated in civil and criminal non-merger investigations in many industries by both federal and state authorities. He has also provided antitrust counseling to a large number of companies and several trade associations.

51

Thomas Janssens

Based in our Brussels office, Thomas Janssens specializes in EU competition and regulatory matters, with particular expertise in the telecommunications, media and technology, energy, and transport sectors. He has represented a range of clients before the European Commission and national competition authorities, as well as before EU and national courts.

Global Competition Review nominated Thomas in the ‘Ten more to watch’ category of its ‘40 under 40’ survey. He is co-consulting editor of the Getting the Deal Through: Dominance guide and is a regular contributor to the ABA antitrust section’s M&A subcommittee newsletter.

Thomas was educated at the University of Leuven in Belgium and Columbia University Law School. He spent nine months with Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York before joining Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in 2001. He speaks English, French and Dutch.

52

M.J. Moltenbrey

M.J. Moltenbrey joined our newly established US antitrust group in Washington, D.C. in May 2002. She represents clients on a wide array of antitrust issues before the DOJ and FTC and in federal courts.

Immediately before joining the firm, M.J. was Director of Civil Non-Merger Enforcement in the DOJ’s Antitrust Division. In that position, she was the Antitrust Division’s senior career official responsible for civil conduct investigations and litigation. During her 17-year DOJ career, M.J. also served as Chief of the Civil Task Force and as trial attorney. In these positions, she supervised or handled literally hundreds of Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) merger reviews and conduct investigations. Although she has experience in a wide range of industries, she had a particular focus on the media, financial services, and transportation industries, as well as the application of antitrust law to intellectual property and internet/ecommerce issues.

In private practice, M.J. has defended clients in numerous merger matters, civil and criminal conduct investigations, and in FTC litigation. Representative clients include: ArcLight Capital, Continental Airlines, Degussa, Holcim, Infineon, Invensys, Metromedia and Monsanto.

53

Robert Schlossberg

For more than 20 years, Bob Schlossberg has represented clients on the full range of antitrust matters with a particular emphasis on practice before the FTC and the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department. He has considerable experience with antitrust issues in mergers and acquisitions and has guided scores of national and international transactions through antitrust review to a successful conclusion. He has worked with a wide variety of industries, including chemicals, consumer goods, energy, industrial machinery, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, publishing, software and transportation.

Bob is Chair of the M&A Committee of the ABA Antitrust Section and editor of the second edition of the ABA Antitrust Section treatise on U.S. antitrust law as applied to mergers and acquisitions. Global Counsel, Euromoney Expert Guides and The International Who’s Who of Competition Lawyers have listed him as a leading lawyer.

Bob joined our firm from Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, where he was a partner since 1990 and a leader of its antitrust group. He graduated from The George Washington University National Law Center; he was Articles Editor of the Law Review there and a Member of the Order of the Coif. He then clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

54

Paul Yde

Paul Yde joined our newly established US antitrust group in Washington, D.C. in May 2002. His practice primarily involves representation before the DOJ and the FTC in connection with the antitrust aspects of M&A, joint ventures and other collaborations, and distribution and intellectual property arrangements. Paul has acted as lead counsel on dozens of complex matters relating to a variety of industries. He has litigated antitrust cases before federal and state courts and in federal administrative proceedings.

Just before joining the firm, Paul was a partner at Vinson & Elkins where he was co-chair of the Antitrust Practice Group. Among his prior positions in government antitrust enforcement, he has served as Counsel to two Federal Trade Commissioners and as a Litigation Attorney in the FTC’s Bureau of Competition.

Paul has been recognized as a leading U.S. antitrust lawyer by Global Counsel, Chambers USA and The International Who’s Who of Competition Lawyers. He has been active in the leadership of the Antitrust Section of the ABA, and is a frequent speaker and author on antitrust issues. Among his bar appointments, he has served as a senior editor of the Antitrust Law Journal and of Antitrust Magazine, and as the chairman of the ABA Antitrust Section’s Economics Committee.

55

Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP

701 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20004

T: +1 202 777 4500F: +1 202 777 4555www.freshfields.com