Antitrust investigations influencing corporate boards and operations
A recent study from law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has revealed that the trends of antitrust and regulatory probes have actually influenced the way governments have pushed political and economic agendas.
February 13, 2014 at 04:42 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Regulatory probes are an expected part of life for companies that are globally successful, have their hand in various markets, and employ thousands of people. Tech companies in particular have been in the spotlight for probes involving antitrust issues — Google and Apple to name but two. The European Commission has aggressively taken U.S. technology companies to task for their violation of antitrust, and anticompetitive regulations set in place in Europe. A recent study from law firm Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer has revealed that the trends of antitrust and regulatory probes have actually influenced the way governments have pushed political and economic agendas, as reported by the Wall Street Journal.
Governments — particularly the U.S. and the E.U.'s regulatory bodies — have been putting pressure on companies that have experienced mounting success to abide by regulatory rules regarding competition and price-setting. And the number of antitrust cases is only set to increase as the encouraging of privately pursuing companies to compensate for antitrust violations is on the rise.
Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer's report states: “As we see antitrust intertwining more closely with sector regulation, it is also no surprise that the growing number of parallel investigations looks set to continue on an upward trajectory. This, coupled with governments and regulators actively encouraging consumers to bring private actions for damages, will present a significant strategic challenge for many businesses in the year ahead.”
The changes in the regulatory probing and antitrust rules are now causing boards of corporations to change tack. Of course, compliance is at the helm of this concern, for it follows that with an adequate compliance team — of which the CCO is the head — companies are well rid of expensive antitrust violation fees. The WSJ's report describes how the U.S. government alone accrued nearly $1 billion in 2013 and $1 billion in 2012 as a result of antitrust violation fines.
Compliance officers will likely enjoy a heightened role of performance, and more esteem in the boards of companies as a result of these more aggressive antitrust investigations on both sides of the Atlantic, but they should also be wary of the Securities and Exchange Commission's promised vigilance in pursuing and holding compliance officers accountable in the future.
Further reading:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Groups Sue IRS Over Decentralized Finance Reporting Rule
SEC Penalizes Wells Fargo, LPL Financial $900,000 Each for Inaccurate Trading Data
US Reviewer of Foreign Transactions Sees More Political, Policy Influence, Say Observers
Pre-Internet High Court Ruling Hobbling Efforts to Keep Tech Giants from Using Below-Cost Pricing to Bury Rivals
6 minute readTrending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250