Bradley Arant has a long history of providing a full range of services in the competitive practices area - from providing antitrust advice in connection with mergers and acquisitions to litigating the most complex civil and criminal antitrust, business tort, and unfair competition matters. Antitrust is and for many years has been one of the firm's premier practice areas. A then partner in this firm served on the blue-ribbon Attorney General's National Committee to Study the Antitrust Laws (1954), the only member of that Committee from the Southeast to do so.
A few of this firm's other distinctions in antitrust and competitive torts are:
- Founded and have had multiple members of the firm serve as Chairs of the Business Torts and Antitrust Section of the Alabama Bar
- One Bradley Arant partner for 12 years served as Adjunct Professor of Law at the University of Alabama teaching Antitrust Law
- Lectured widely on antitrust law at seminars
- Litigated many significant cases in Alabama under the antitrust laws, including such reported cases as: Gulf States Reorganization Group, Inc. v. Nucor Corp., C.A. No. CV-02-P-2600, (summary judgment, monopolization case, 2005); Abbott Laboratories v. Durrett, 746 So.2d 316 (Ala. 1999)(holding Alabama's state antitrust statutes do not provide cause of action based on agreement to control prices of goods shipped in interstate commerce); In re Brand Name Prescription Drug Antitrust Litigation, 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18818 (N.D. Ill. 1996); Forth Way Plant Farm v. NCCI, 894 F. Supp. 1558 (M.D. Ala. 1995); Chlorine Antitrust Litigation, 877 F.Supp. 1504 (N.D. Ala. 1995), rev'd in part, 158 F.3d 548 (11th Cir. 1998)(alleged price fixing, settled on remand for nuisance value); Gas Pump, Inc. v. General Cinema, 12 F.3d 181 (11th Cir. 1994)(alleged price fixing); Askew v. DCH Health Care Authority, 995 F.2d 1033 (11th Cir. 1993)(applying state action doctrine in monopolization case); Dunnivant v. Bi-State, 851 F.2d 1575 (11th Cir. 1988)(alleged price fixing and group boycott); Massey v. Disc. Mfg. Co., 601 So.2d 449 (Ala. 1992)(seizure of corporate opportunity).
- Helped draft Alabama Trade Secrets Act and Alabama Trademark Act
- Authored Alabama portion of ABA treatise State Antitrust Practice and Procedures
- Authored Cambridge Institute book Unfair Competition under Alabama Law.
Best Lawyers
Members of Bradley Arant are listed 73 times in The Best Lawyers in America. The publishers of Best Lawyers have advised the Firm that it has the highest percentage of Best Lawyers of any of the top 250 law firms in the nation. A number of the listings under "Business Litigation" are for lawyers who have considerable antitrust litigation experience. There are two Bradley Arant partners listed under the Antitrust category in Best Lawyers. There are three Bradley Arant listings under various Intellectual Property categories of Best Lawyers, who also have considerable antitrust and technology experience. Additionally, three partners are listed in Who’s Who Legal: USA, the official Research Partner of the International Bar Association.
American Law Institute
Two of our attorneys who have significant antitrust practices are members of the American Law Institute.
The firm's broad experience in the antitrust area includes representation of a variety of clients in connection with allegations of price fixing, predatory pricing, monopolization, dealer terminations and franchise litigation. Our competitive torts practice regularly involves litigating and counseling concerning trade secrets, covenants not to compete, tortious interference with business and contractual relationships, breach of fiduciary duties, design piracy and false advertising claims under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act.
Criminal Proceedings and Investigations
Our firm has represented clients in federal grand juries proceeding, and investigations conducted by state attorneys general, and has successfully defended corporate executives charged with price fixing in a number of criminal trials. One of our partners is the former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama who has extensive experience in criminal antitrust matters.
Unfair Competition and Intellectual Property
Bradley Arant has a very strong practice in the related area of intellectual property. Increasingly, antitrust and intellectual property issues are intertwined in the same transactions and lawsuits. Our antitrust lawyers are especially suited to deal with these related issues. Two of the firm's antitrust attorneys are also registered patent attorneys and two other firm antitrust lawyers also work regularly on intellectual property matters.
Our lawyers defended Intel in a complex case involving both antitrust and intellectual property issues.
Electronic Paperless Trials
Bradley Arant pioneered some of the earliest paperless trials, starting with a lengthy and well-publicized case in Seattle in the early 1990s and including ongoing cases. One of our partners has done extensive lecturing and writing on this subject, and several have used these techniques in large document cases.
Class Action Experience
Alabama has been one of the nation's most active venues for class action lawsuits in recent years, many of them antitrust suits. The firm has recently defended, or is defending, more than one hundred class action lawsuits, in more than thirty Alabama counties as well as each of the three federal district courts in the state. These cases include putative statewide or nationwide class actions involving, among other things, pharmaceuticals, electronic databases, overnight delivery services, sports utility vehicles, baby food, infant formula, homeowner's insurance, retail sellers' extended service contracts, polybutelene pipe, aspirin, frozen foods, medical devices, dental rinse, low carbohydrate bars, construction materials, cable television late fees, liquid carbon dioxide, worker's compensation insurance, bankruptcy proofs of claim, cancer insurance, milk, asbestos, rental car insurance, mortgage lending practices, and automobile dealer fee practices. These cases encompass a large range of substantive law, including antitrust, copyrights, contract and warranty, fraud, environmental law, lending and real estate law, securities, and employment law.
The firm has repeatedly been successful in opposing class certification and many of its cases have resulted in important Rule 23 precedents. See GMAC v. Bank of Red Bay, 894 So.2d 650 (Ala. 2004) (class certification vacated due to municipalities’ and counties’ failure to comply with Alabama Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights Act); Atlanta Cas. Co. v. Russell, 798 So. 2d 664 (Ala. 2001) (certification vacated for lack of commonality); Ex parte Household Retail Servs., Inc., 744 So.2d 871 (Ala. 2000) (certification in fraud class action improper on predominance grounds); Ex parte First National Bank of Jasper, 717 So. 2d 342 (Ala. 1997) (practice of no-evidence, “conditional” class certifications outlawed).
Some of the firm's recent or ongoing class action cases include:
Homestead 2000 v. Federal Express Corporation. This nationwide class action, filed in Obion County, Tennessee, involves a challenge to a fuel surcharge by the defendant on its customers; plaintiffs seek damages in excess of $100 million. Albe Conte, author of the treatise Newberg on Class Actions, testified as an expert witness for plaintiffs at the class certification hearing. Class certification was nonetheless denied.
Dellaveccia v. Bayer Corporation. This case was a nationwide class action against the manufacturer of aspirin, based on alleged false television advertising. Plaintiffs sought as damages the entirety of the increase in defendant's profits attributable to advertising campaign. Class certification was denied and the case was dismissed.
Coleman v. Home Oil Company. We represented a Chevron jobber in a class action alleging price fixing in the sale of gasoline. The class sought to recover in excess of $25 million. In a jury trial in the federal court for the Middle District of Alabama, the class was awarded one dollar.
State Court Class Actions
Our firm has had extensive experience in recent years defending state court antitrust actions. In the past several years, we have defended roughly fifteen putative statewide class actions, all brought in Alabama state court under Alabama’s antitrust statute, Alabama Code § 6-5-60. One of these cases, in which the firm represented one of the defendants, resulted in a significant decision of the Alabama Supreme Court holding that the state antitrust statute has no application to interstate restraints of trade. Abbott Laboratories v. Durrett, 746 So. 2d 316 (Ala. 2000).
In addition, our firm also defended a milk producer on a state law parens patriae price fixing class action brought by the state attorney general.
We have repeatedly been successful in opposing class certification and have been involved in cases leading to many of the precedent setting decisions on this issue.
