Price Fixing

When several major gasoline refiners were accused of fixing prices, restricting capacity, and limiting production, counsel for one of the defendants retained Cornerstone Research to evaluate plaintiffs' collusion theory. We showed that our client's pricing, capacity, and production decisions were consistent with competition and contradicted plaintiffs' claims of collusion. The trial court awarded summary judgment for the defendants, and that ruling was unanimously affirmed on appeal.

Collusion

In a class action alleging collusion among certain manufacturers, defense counsel retained Cornerstone Research and an economics professor to assess the extent of competition in the industry and to analyze the plaintiffs' contentions regarding the current pricing and marketing programs of the defendants. In granting summary judgment to the defendants, the judge accepted our expert's testimony, unrefuted by the plaintiffs, that if there had been a cartel, prices should have been higher during the alleged cartel period.

Daubert / Price Fixing

Plaintiffs alleged that several manufacturers had participated in a scheme to fix and maintain prices. We were retained by plaintiffs to review the methodology presented by plaintiffs' experts and to address defense experts' criticisms. When defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of plaintiffs' experts, we demonstrated at the subsequent hearing that the experts had used sound econometric methodology. The court concluded that most of the testimony was admissible.

Mergers & Acquisitions

Cornerstone Research supported the parties of a multi-billion-dollar telecommunications merger during regulatory review by the Department of Justice Antitrust Division and the Federal Communications Commission. To assess the effects of the merger on prices, quality, and market concentration, Cornerstone Research analyzed data provided by the parties to estimate the relationships among these variables at various levels of market aggregation. Our analysis demonstrated that prices were not affected by variations in local market structure, suggesting that the merger would not lead to pockets of high-priced service. The merger and license transfers were approved, with some divestitures, by the regulatory agencies.

Monopolization / Tying

In a class-action antitrust case, the franchisees of a major fast-food company alleged that it illegally tied approved products, which franchisees were required to purchase, to its franchise licenses. The franchisees separately claimed that the company monopolized a purported market for approved products and that it colluded with multiple warehouse distributors in order to achieve this monopolization. Cornerstone Research worked with an economics professor who, assessing franchising and distribution economics, demonstrated that the company did not have the ability or the long-term incentives to act as a monopolist. Our finance expert analyzed the validity of the plaintiffs' damage claims. The case settled favorably for the defendants.

Wage Fixing / Class Certification

Plaintiffs alleged that firms in a major energy-related industry participated in compensation surveys in an effort to restrict wages and benefits for tens of thousands of their workers. Defendants retained Cornerstone Research and two expert economists to examine class certification issues. The experts showed that any impact of the alleged conspiracy could only be measured on an individual basis and that many workers would not have been harmed even if the allegations were true. The experts also showed that there was no systematic relationship between the survey results and subsequent compensation decisions. Prior to any decision on class certification, the case settled for a small percentage of the original, multi-billion-dollar damages claim.