Fair Trade Law

Section 1 of the Sherman Act prohibits every contract, combination or conspiracy in restraint of trade. In practice, the courts distinguish between per se violations and those analyzed under the "rule of reason." Per se violations, such as price-fixing and market allocation, are considered inherently illegal regardless of the surrounding circumstances. Conversely, the rule of reason analysis requires a detailed forensic examination of the competitive effects of the conduct. SJKP LLP specializes in conducting these exhaustive analyses to justify legitimate business practices that might otherwise be misinterpreted by regulators.

Section 2 of the Sherman Act targets the act of monopolization and the attempt to monopolize. It is not illegal to have a monopoly obtained through superior products or business acumen, but it is a violation to maintain that power through exclusionary or predatory conduct. Federal regulators look for "anticompetitive intent" coupled with the actual power to control prices or exclude competition. Protecting a market-leading position requires a sophisticated legal defense that can articulate the pro-competitive benefits of aggressive commercial strategies while avoiding the triggers for a DOJ investigation.

A CID is a powerful administrative tool that allows regulators to compel the production of documents and written answers under oath. It is a fundamental error to treat a CID as a standard discovery request. Every document produced and every statement made during the investigative phase is analyzed for evidence of anticompetitive intent. SJKP LLP manages this process with absolute rigidity, ensuring that every piece of evidence is vetted and that the corporation’s legal privileges are strictly maintained throughout the duration of the investigation.

When federal agencies identify a potential violation, they often seek a consent decree rather than pursuing a full trial. A consent decree is a court-enforced settlement where the business agrees to change its practices without admitting to a violation of the law. While a settlement may seem like a safe resolution, the long-term impact on operational autonomy can be profound. We provide the forensic analysis required to negotiate settlement terms that preserve your commercial flexibility while satisfying the government's demand for regulatory compliance.

Price-fixing involves any agreement between competitors that raises, lowers or stabilizes prices. Market allocation occurs when competitors divide up territories or customers to avoid direct competition. These acts are considered a direct assault on the principle of fair competition and are prioritized for criminal prosecution by the DOJ Antitrust Division. Corporations must implement rigorous internal controls and training programs to ensure that employees do not inadvertently exchange sensitive pricing data during industry conferences or trade association meetings.

Bid-rigging is a fraudulent practice where competitors coordinate their bids to ensure a specific party wins a contract at an inflated price. Group boycotts occur when a group of competitors agrees to stop doing business with a particular supplier or customer to gain an unfair advantage. Both practices trigger immediate scrutiny and can result in significant treble damages in civil litigation. SJKP LLP provides the authoritative oversight needed to identify these risks within your procurement and sales departments before they escalate into a federal enforcement action.

The HSR filing is a complex administrative requirement that triggers an initial 30-day waiting period. If the regulators have concerns, they will issue a "Second Request," which is a massive demand for information that can take months to fulfill. This stage of the process is extremely expensive and invasive. SJKP LLP coordinates the entire HSR process, ensuring that your filings are technically perfect and that you are prepared to respond to the government’s inquiries with a data-driven defense of the transaction’s pro-competitive benefits.

To resolve antitrust concerns, regulators often demand structural remedies, such as the divestiture of certain business units or assets. The goal is to ensure that the merged entity does not possess sufficient market power to raise prices or limit innovation. Negotiating these remedies requires a sophisticated understanding of both the legal landscape and the commercial realities of the industry. We assist our clients in identifying and negotiating divestiture packages that satisfy regulatory requirements while preserving the strategic value of the primary transaction.

Resale Price Maintenance (RPM) occurs when a manufacturer mandates the minimum or maximum price at which a distributor can sell a product. Tying arrangements involve conditioning the sale of one product on the purchase of a second, separate product. While the legal standard for RPM has shifted toward the rule of reason in federal courts, many state laws still treat it with suspicion. SJKP LLP provides the jurisdictional analysis required to structure these agreements in a way that minimizes the risk of a private lawsuit or a state-level enforcement action.

Exclusive dealing contracts require a buyer to purchase exclusively from one supplier, which can be seen as an illegal foreclosure of the market to competitors. Price discrimination, governed by the Robinson-Patman Act, prevents sellers from charging different prices to competing buyers for the same goods. Although federal enforcement of the Robinson-Patman Act has diminished, private litigation remains a persistent threat. We audit your sales and pricing policies to ensure they do not create an exposure to these costly civil claims.

Under the Leniency Program, the first corporation to report a conspiracy and cooperate with the DOJ can receive a complete pass on criminal prosecution. This creates a "race to the courthouse" where the failure to disclose can result in total legal exposure while your competitors secure immunity. SJKP LLP provides the incisive insight required to evaluate the benefits of the leniency program versus the risks of disclosure, ensuring that your decision is based on a clinical assessment of the evidence and the potential outcomes.

Following the principles established in the "Yates Memo," the DOJ prioritizes the prosecution of individual executives to deter corporate wrongdoing. Executives can no longer hide behind corporate settlements; they are personally accountable for their roles in antitrust violations. This shift in enforcement strategy makes individual legal representation and robust internal indemnification policies essential for all senior management. We provide the aggressive defense required to protect your personal freedom and professional reputation during a criminal antitrust investigation.