Antitrust & Trade Regulation


Representation of International Malt Beverage Manufacturer

Representation of client over last 20 plus years on issues pertaining to distributors, distributorship acquisitions, advertising, employment and labor-related issues, antitrust (Kentucky tied house issues), and regulatory issues governed by Kentucky Department of Alcohol Beverage Control

American Electric Power Co. v. General Electric

Defense against the price-fixing claim was handled by New York counsel.  Dinsmore & Shohl prosecuted Westinghouse's counterclaim, alleging that AEP was monopolizing the sale of bulk electric power to municipalities in Ohio and other states.  The case was settled.

Class Action Plaintiffs v. Document Services Provider

Dinsmore & Shohl represented a firm accused of conspiring with its competitors to prevent sales representatives from moving between the defendants.  This class action was settled.

Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Schein Pharmaceuticals

We were lead counsel for Schein Pharmaceutical in litigation brought by Duramed Pharmaceuticals concerning the conjugated estrogens drug sold as "Cenestin." After extensive discovery and motion practice, the case settled shortly before trial in 2000 with Duramed paying Schein $15 million and agreeing to pay an additional $15 million if certain profit milestones for Cenestin were met. Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Schein Pharmaceuticals, Case No. A9705498 (Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas)

In re: New Steel Pails Antitrust Litigation

This was a nationwide class action.  We served as liaison counsel for seven defendants and worked closely with their out-of-town counsel.  They saved substantial costs on local counsel.  Some defendants settled.  One defendant won summary judgment.  Another defendant was dismissed.

Indian Coffee v. Procter & Gamble

Dinsmore & Shohl defended our client, Procter & Gamble, against a claim in excess of $1 million in a suit alleging predatory pricing and Robinson-Patman price discrimination.  The case resulted in a directed verdict for the defense, and later settlement.

Microsoft Windows Antitrust Class Action Litigation (Ohio and Kentucky Cases)

We served as counsel for Microsoft Corporation in Ohio and Kentucky class action antitrust cases involving the Windows operating system. We obtained dismissal of the Kentucky class action suit against Microsoft (Jefferson Circuit Court, July 21, 2000), which was affirmed by the Kentucky Court of Appeals in the first Windows antitrust case to be decided by a state appellate court, Arnold v. Microsoft Corp. (Kentucky Court of Appeals, November 21, 2001), and the Kentucky Supreme Court declined to hear a further appeal. We obtained dismissal of a similar Ohio state court suit (Hamilton County Court of Common Pleas, August 6, 2002), which was affirmed by the First District Court of Appeals, Johnson v. Microsoft Corp., 155 Ohio App. 3d 626 (2004), and by the Ohio Supreme Court, 106 Ohio St. 3d 278 (2005).

Nash Finch Company Litigation

We were lead counsel for grocery wholesaler Nash Finch Company and its subsidiary Super Food Services, Inc. in "Fleming" suit brought against Nash Finch/Super Food by grocery retailers alleging breach of contract, fraud and other claims arising out of prices charged retailers for goods and services. Summary judgment for Nash Finch and Super Food on all claims was affirmed on appeal. Super Food Services v. Munafo, Inc., 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 779. We have subsequently been lead counsel for Nash Finch and Super Food in numerous other cases from 2001 through the present in Ohio and Kentucky involving breach of contract, fraud, antitrust, consumer protection and related claims.

Procter & Gamble v. Bankers Trust

We were counsel for Procter & Gamble in litigation in 1994-96 against Bankers Trust arising out of two substantial derivatives contracts entered into by P&G. The litigation raised numerous issues of first impression involving the application of contract, fraud, negligence and fiduciary duty, federal and state securities and commodities and RICO law to derivatives contracts, and led to Sixth Circuit and Supreme Court decisions on issues including the discoverability of materials relating to Federal Reserve Board examination of regulated banks and the power of District Courts to enjoin publication of materials filed under seal under protective orders. The case involved massive discovery of hundreds of thousands of pages of documents and thousands of audiotapes and computer files, and required extensive computerization for discovery management. The matter settled shortly before trial, resulting in a $165 million recovery by P&G, the largest (in absolute or percentage terms) of any such publicly reported derivatives recovery.

United States of America v. Bluefield Regional Medical Center

We represented a hospital in a federal antitrust investigation by the United States Department of Justice regarding an agreement between two hospitals relating to the provision of open heart surgery and cancer services.

Vacco v. Procter & Gamble

We defended Procter & Gamble against a suit seeking in excess of $1 million claiming violation of the Sherman Act for an alleged conspiracy to eliminate consumer coupons.  Our firm worked closely with New York counsel, doing most of the factual case development work in Cincinnati, where the company has its corporate headquarters, thus saving the client significant defense costs.  The case was settled.