Dialing a Victory for AT&T, Sidley's Peter Keisler Beats DOJ Antitrust Newcomer
A three-judge D.C. Circuit panel, led by Judge Judith Rogers, upheld Washington federal trial judge Richard Leon's ruling against the Justice Department's antitrust lawsuit.
February 26, 2019 at 12:07 PM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A Washington federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld AT&T's planned takeover of Time Warner, another setback for U.S. Justice Department antitrust enforcers who lost their bid to block the multibillion-dollar deal after claiming it would give the newly combined company almost unbridled bargaining power.
The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit came in what observers considered one of the most consequential merger cases in Washington in decades. Indeed, the Justice Department's push to block AT&T's proposed acquisition of Time Warner was closely watched because it involved a rare challenge to a so-called vertical merger, a deal involving companies that are not direct competitors.
Writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Judith Rogers noted just how “dynamic” the entertainment industry has become amid the emergence of new video-streaming services such as Netflix and Hulu.
The Justice Department argued that the deal would give the enlarged AT&T leverage to withhold content and poach customers in the event of fee disputes with rival distributors. AT&T has said fee disputes with networks will be resolved through arbitration for at least the next seven years.
AT&T, represented in the D.C. Circuit by Sidley Austin appellate veteran Peter Keisler, said the arbitration process should head off any concerns about so-called content blackouts.
Keisler argued against Michael Murray, a top lawyer in the front office of DOJ's antitrust division, led by Makan Delrahim, formerly a Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck partner. At the time of the December argument, Murray had been a part of the antitrust division for only a few months. The former Jones Day associate made his D.C. Circuit argument debut in September.
AT&T's arbitration commitment appeared to carry some weight with the D.C. Circuit. “Not to be overlooked, the district court also credited the efficacy of Turner Broadcasting's 'irrevocable' offer of arbitration agreements with a no-blackout guarantee. It characterized the no-blackout agreements as 'extra icing on a cake already frosted,'” Rogers wrote, quoting from U.S. District Judge Richard Leon's decision upholding the AT&T-Time Warner deal in May 2018.
When the Justice Department challenged the deal in November 2017, the case immediately drew close attention—for reasons both legal and political.
Antitrust lawyers saw the case as upending the decadeslong understanding of the government's approach to vertical mergers. Meanwhile, because the deal involved the provider of CNN, questions emerged about whether the Justice Department's challenge was driven by President Donald Trump's criticism of the network's coverage of his campaign and administration.
In their push for communications between the White House and Justice Department, the two companies enlisted William Barr, then a Time Warner board member, who questioned in an affidavit whether Justice Department officials had “political or other motivation.”
Barr has since been confirmed as U.S. attorney general, reprising a role he previously held in the George H.W. Bush administration. In the confirmation process, Barr said he'd recuse himself from matters related to the merger.
At the trial court stage, AT&T turned to O'Melveny & Myers partner Daniel Petrocelli, a veteran trial lawyer who prevailed in Leon's court despite not being an antitrust expert. Petrocelli's team included antitrust partner Katrina Robson and M. Randall Oppenheimer, chairman of the firm's litigation department. Christine Varney, an Obama-era head of DOJ's antitrust division and now partner at Cravath, Swaine & Moore, was counsel for Time Warner.
Read the D.C. Circuit's decision below:
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
Read more:
AT&T Argument Pits DOJ Antitrust Newcomer vs. Big Law Appellate Vet
Judge Richard Leon Wasn't Mocking Trump! Exclamation Points Are His Mark!
Sidley Austin's Keisler Takes on More Formal Role for AT&T in Antitrust Battle
AT&T Case 'Will Shape the Future,' DOJ Tells DC Circuit in Opening Brief
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 AllLitigators of the (Past) Week: Tackling a $4.7 Billion Verdict Post-Trial for the NFL in 'Sunday Ticket' Antitrust Litigation
Take-Two's Pete Welch on 'Getting the Best Results While Getting in the Way the Least'
Litigators of the Week: Kirkland Beats Videogame Copyright Claim From Lebron James' Tattoo Artist
Trending Stories
- 1California Court Denies Apple's Motion to Strike Allegations in Gender Bias Class Action
- 2US DOJ Threatens to Prosecute Local Officials Who Don't Aid Immigration Enforcement
- 3Kirkland Is Entering a New Market. Will Its Rates Get a Warm Welcome?
- 4African Law Firm Investigated Over ‘AI-Generated’ Case References
- 5Gen AI and Associate Legal Writing: Davis Wright Tremaine's New Training Model
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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