Competition Economics provides economic research and consulting services to law firms, corporations, and government agencies. The focus of our research and consulting is in four practice areas: antitrust, damages, intellectual property, and regulation.
Our directors and academic affiliates are distinguished experts in their respective fields and testify with authority on complex issues arising in business litigation and regulation in the United States and around the world.
Competition Economics Provides Economic Analysis on Two of Five Disputes Selected by Global Competition Review as Finalists for 2012 Matter of the Year
GCR’s Matter of the Year nominees are those competition matters where the economic and legal teams demonstrate creative, strategic, and innovative work. CE participated in 2 of the 5 disputes selected by GCR as the Matter of the Year for 2012. In Imperial Tobacco vs Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”), Competition Economics' Director Luke Froeb submitted testimony on behalf of Imperial Tobacco Group concerning the anticompetitive conduct alleged in the OFT's 2010 infringement decision. In that matter, the Competition Appeal Tribunal set aside an OFT Decision in which it fined Imperial Tobacco Group a record £112 million for alleged anticompetitive trading agreements with ten retailers. In its investigation of the AT&T-T-Mobile proposed merger, Professor David Sibley and Competition Economics was retained by the DOJ to perform an evaluation of the competitive effects of the proposed merger. A CE case team, led by Director Michael Doane, assisted Professor Sibley in his analysis. The proposed merger would have brought together the second and fourth largest telecommunications carriers in the United States. AT&T announced on December 19, 2011 that it would no longer pursue its $39 billion attempt to purchase T-Mobile.
Competition Economics Retained by DOJ in its Investigation of a Large Horizontal Merger
Professor David Sibley was retained by the DOJ to perform an evaluation of the competitive effects of the proposed merger of AT&T and T-Mobile. A Competition Economics case team, led by Director Michael Doane, assisted Professor Sibley in his analysis. The proposed merger would have brought together the second and fourth largest telecommunications carriers in the United States. AT&T announced on December 19, 2011 that it would no longer pursue its $39 billion attempt to purchase T-Mobile.
Competition Economics Client Successfully Appeals £112 Million Fine
The Competition Appeal Tribunal set aside an Office of Fair Trading (“OFT”) Decision in which it fined Imperial Tobacco Group a record £112 million for alleged anticompetitive trading agreements with ten retailers. Competition Economics Director Luke Froeb submitted testimony on behalf of Imperial Tobacco Group concerning the anticompetitive conduct alleged in the OFT's 2010 infringement decision. The Competition Appeal Tribunal concluded that the OFT's Decision could no longer stand in light of the detailed factual evidence presented to the tribunal during the six-week hearings.
Ashurst provided legal counsel to Imperial Tobacco Group.
CE Directors Prof. Simon J. Wilkie and Dr. Michael A. Williams Assist Cable One, Inc. in Receiving Favorable Rulings in Arizona and Iowa
Competition Economics Directors Prof. Simon J. Wilkie and Dr. Michael A. Williams assisted client Cable One, Inc. in the cases of Cable One, Inc. v. Arizona State Department of Revenue, et al. and Cable One, Inc. v. Iowa Department of Revenue. The cases involved claims by the Arizona and Iowa state tax boards that Cable One should be classified as a telecommunications company for tax purposes because of its provision of VoIP services. We provided economic testimony demonstrating that Cable One’s investments in plant and equipment were made for the provision of video services, and that the company is not a telecommunications company as it does not own communications transmission facilities nor does it provide public telephone or telecommunications exchange or inter-exchange access for compensation to effect two-way communications. On June 24, 2011, the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals ruled in Cable One’s favor, and on November 15, 2011, the Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County ruled in Cable One’s favor, both courts finding that Cable One is not a telecommunications company.
Counsel from Cahill, Gordon & Reindel LLP represented Cable One, Inc.
