Sunday, November 30, 2014

GCR Live 4th Annual Antitrust Law Leaders Forum - 6 February 2015 at 09:00 to 7 February 2015 at 18:00 in South Beach, Florida at the Ritz-Carlton

This year, the University of Florida is a proud co-sponsor of the of GCR Live 4th Annual Antitrust Law Leaders Forum, which will be held 6 February 2015 at 09:00 to 7 February 2015 at 18:00 in South Beach, Florida at the Ritz-Carlton.   

Global Competition Review is pleased to present a major one and a half day international conference to be held in Miami in February 2015 in association with Charles River Associates and the University of Florida.
All delegates are invited to attend a cocktail reception hosted by Blake, Cassels & Graydon on Thursday, 5 February at the Dilido Beach Club at the Ritz-Carlton from 20.00 onwards, and the conference dinner kindly hosted by Charles River Associates on Friday, 6 February.
Delegates who wish to stay at the Ritz-Carlton, South Beach can book using a discounted rate. More information on how to book can be found on the confirmation email after registering for the conference.  
See here.
Thursday, 5th February
8:00pm: Welcome Reception - Sponsored byBlake, Cassels & Graydon LLP
Friday, 6th February
7:30am – 8:30am:
Registration/ Light Breakfast
8:30am – 9:15am: (Plenary)
Chairpersons’ Opening Remarks
  • Jason Gudofsky, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP (Toronto)
  • Margaret Sanderson, Charles River Associates (Toronto)
Keynote Address
  • William Baer, Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, US Department of Justice (Washington)
9:15am – 10:30am: (Plenary)
Roundtable with Recent Agency Heads of Economics
  • Margaret Sanderson, Charles River Associates (Toronto)
  • Tim Brennan, Chief Economist, US Federal Communications Commission (Washington)
  • Giulio Federico, Economist, DG Competition, European Commission (Brussels)
  • Mike Walker, Chief Economic Advisor, Competition and Markets Authority (London)
  • Nancy Rose, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Economic Analysis, US Department of Justice (Washington)
  • Francine Lafontaine, Director, Bureau of Economics, US Federal Trade Commission (Washington)
10:30am – 10:45am:
Coffee Break
10:45am – 12:30pm: (Concurrent sessions)
Merger: Evidence in Merger Reviews – Handling Customer Views
This panel will discuss the relative and potentially changing importance of customer feedback and economic evidence to agencies conducting merger reviews in light of the court's discounting of the views of customers in BazaarVoice.
  • Is it still an effective use of agency time to solicit the views of large numbers of customers, and if so, why?
  • What is the value and what are the limitations of commissioning a customer survey, and how should surveys be best used by merging parties?
  • How should agencies interpret economic evidence that is at odds with feedback from customers and other market participants?
  • Are theories of harm about the exercising of bargaining power - whether resulting in exclusion of upstream suppliers or horizontal competitors (e.g., water-bedding) - economically provable in the merger context?
  • If customer opinion is not capable of being determinative of a merger's legality in some instances, does this diminish the probative value of customer opinion in other circumstances?
  • Olivier Antoine, Crowell & Moring LLP (New York)
  • Jordan Ellison, Slaughter and May (Brussels)
  • Scott Sher, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati (Washington)
  • David Wales, Jones Day (Washington)
  • Carl Shapiro, University of California at Berkeley (Berkeley)
Antitrust: Sharing Technology and Facilitating Competitor Success as a Remedy in Innovation Markets
This panel will discuss the obligation to share technology with competitors and facilitate the success of competitors as a remedy in certain innovation markets, and the effectiveness of such remedies in restoring competitive market dynamics.
  • Is there good evidence of a causal relationship between a lack of sharing and the achievement of dominance or exclusion in certain industries? If not, why is sharing a potentially appropriate remedy?
  • In what circumstances is sharing or facilitating a competitor likely to overcome tying and other exclusionary practices? In what circumstances is it likely to overcome entrenched business models that customers are accustomed to?
  • What are the economic circumstances in which mandated sharing or facilitation is most likely to succeed? Is sharing an appropriate remedy in regulated industries (when other regulators are capable of ordering sharing)?
  • Does the imposition of "net neutrality" regulations constitute a facilitation?
  • Is "Big Data" an industry where sharing should be required, given the high barriers to entry (both for data accumulation and server capacity)?
  • If sharing and facilitation is an effective and appropriate remedy, particularly in industries given to innovation, what does it mean if Aspen Ski is considered to be at the outer edge of monopolization/ abuse of dominance?
  • Ilene Knable Gotts, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz (New York)
  • Sean Durkin, Charles River Associates (Chicago)
  • Jenine Hulsmann, Clifford Chance LLP (London)
  • Dina Kallay, Director, Intellectual Property and Competition, Ericsson, Inc. (Washington)
  • James Keyte, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP (New York)
  • Nikhil Shanbhag, Director, Competition, Google Inc. (California)
12:30pm – 1:45pm:
Lunch (Plenary)
Introduction: William Kolasky, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP (Washington)
Keynote Speaker: Joshua Wright, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission (Washington)
2:00pm – 3:45pm: (Concurrent sessions)
Merger: Merger Review in Rapidly Evolving Industries
This panel will discuss how agencies should approach the task of merger review when industries go through rapid consolidation and successive transactions, including a discussion of how innovation competition and portfolio effects can be reliably assessed in such circumstances.
  • Industry consolidation, especially in the technology sector, may be driven by product evolution or technology convergence. How should agencies address relevant product market definition in such cases?
  • Is rapid industry consolidation an appropriate time to apply theories of competitive harm that are more difficult to apply from an evidentiary perspective, including portfolio effects and innovation effects?
  • Where consolidation occurs rapidly (e.g., Samsung/SeaGate and Hitachi/Western Digital) how should agencies assess the likelihood of future coordinated effects? Will these circumstances bring about the first "tipping point" case?
  • Susanne Zuehlke, Latham & Watkins LLP (Brussels)
  • Deborah Feinstein, Director, Bureau of Competition, US Federal Trade Commission (Washington)
  • Antonio Bavasso, Allen & Overy LLP (London)
  • Ronan Harty, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP (New York)
  • Aviv Nevo, Northwestern University (Evanston)
  • Scott Darling, Vice President, General Counsel, Trulia, Inc. (San Francisco)
Antitrust: Creating Transparency in Markets: Coordination and Information Exchange
This panel will discuss the recent antitrust scrutiny of coordination and information exchange practices used by market participants to create price discovery mechanisms and enhance price transparency as well as agency responses to information exchange and hub-and-spoke coordination.
  • Industries that do not operate in open markets have little price transparency. How can this information gap be remedied in a pro-competitive manner? Is a lack of transparency necessarily a bad thing?
  • In what cases can information exchanges be pro-competitive (e.g. Rx 360, Tristate Health Partners)? How can economic tools be used to make this determination?
  • What steps have European regulators taken recently to reduce the risk of horizontal coordination and hub-and-spoke coordination in particular (e.g. Tesco, Post Danmark)? How have these efforts affected particular sectors, especially the food and textile sectors?
  • What benefit do these antitrust cases have for consumers (e.g. Libor, Gold Investigation)? What are the economic benefits?
  • How has the American approach to coordination and information exchange to enhance price transparency differed from the European approach?
  • Katrin Gaßner, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP (Düsseldorf)
  • Matthew Reilly, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP (Washington)
  • Matthew Bennett, Charles River Associates (London)
  • James Mutchnik, Kirkland & Ellis LLP (Chicago)
  • Cecilio Madero Villarejo, Deputy Director-General for Antitrust, DG Competition, European Commission (Brussels)
  • Kyriakos Fountoukakos, Herbert Smith Freehills LLP (Brussels)
3:45pm – 4:00pm:
Coffee Break
4:00pm – 5:30pm: (Concurrent sessions)
Merger: Clean Up in Aisle 3 – New Approaches to Merger Review in the Retail Sector
This panel will discuss competition and consolidation in the retail sector and how the rise of online sales platforms and other disruptive technologies have influenced the development of merger analysis.
  • In a world with Amazon, are mergers in the retail sector (outside of groceries) ever likely to be anti-competitive again?
  • How are agencies approaching the effects of retail mergers on upstream suppliers? How can economics be used to further our understanding of these effects?
  • How should merger analysis (both as presented by the parties and as performed by the agencies) reflect the rapid (and continuing) evolution of distribution structures?
  • How do antitrust agencies approach the general problem of disruptive new entrant retailers when performing merger review?
  • Rebecca Farrington, White & Case LLP (Washington)
  • George Cary, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP (Washington)
  • James Fishkin, Dechert LLP (Washington)
  • Paul Collins, Stikeman Elliott LLP (Toronto)
  • Peter Boberg, Charles River Associates (Boston)
Antitrust: "Sir, please step out of line" - Extraterritoriality and Extradition in the Antitrust Context
This panel will discuss the implications for clients of the US DOJ demonstrating its ability to extradite a foreign national for participation in a cartel and explore the limits of extraterritoriality in cartel enforcement today as well as the incentives of those subject to extradition.
  • Is the risk of extradition to the United States more significant than previously?  Is this a general risk, or specific to the country in which individuals reside?
  • What impacts the incentives of individuals who are potentially subject to extradition?
  • Do antitrust laws properly capture the risk profiles of individuals who engage in such behavior?
  • What is an appropriate threshold for "dual criminality" under antitrust law?
  • In trans-national cartels, in which jurisdiction should individuals plead guilty, and where should they serve their sentences?
  • How can corporate counsel best handle potential extradition proceedings against one of its employees? Should those employees be carved out of plea agreements? Should they be advised to retain separate counsel? Should they enter cooperation agreements?
  • What are the limits on extraterritoriality in U.S. law and what are the implications for individuals and companies likely to arise out of Motorola v. AU Optronics Corp?
  • Peter Niggemann, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP (Düsseldorf)
  • José Carlos da Matta Berardo, Barbosa, Müssnich & Aragão Advogados (São Paulo)
  • Kenneth O’Rourke, O’Melveny & Myers LLP (Los Angeles)
  • Kathryn Hellings, Hogan Lovells US LLP (Washington)
  • Yusuke Nakano, Anderson Mori & Tomotsune (Tokyo)
  • Matthew Boswell, Senior Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Criminal Matters, Competition Bureau (Ottawa)
7:30pm: Conference Dinner - Sponsored by Charles River Associates
Saturday, 7th February
8:15am - 8.45am:
Welcome Coffee
8:45am – 10:30am: (Plenary)
A Retrospective on the Term of Commissioner Joaquín Almunia, and a Look Ahead
GCR Miami 2015 will be one of the first opportunities to reflect on the outcomes and accomplishments of Joaquín Almunia's term as EU Commissioner of Competition, and to look ahead at the challenges facing the new Commission.
  • What are the key accomplishments of the European Commission under Joaquín Almunia?
  • In what areas has the European Commission under Joaquín Almunia failed to advance enforcement? What are the circumstances necessary for the next Commissioner to address these areas?
  • How do these accomplishments and failures match against those of American agencies during the same time period? What are the lessons that other agencies can take from Joaquín Almunia’s term?
  • What ought to be the priorities of the next Commissioner? How do these proposed priorities compare to trends in other jurisdictions?
  • Paula Riedel, Linklaters LLP (London)
  • Rachel Brandenburger, Senior Advisor to Hogan Lovells US LLP (New York)
  • William Blumenthal, Sidley Austin LLP (Washington)
  • Cristina Caffarra, Charles River Associates (London)
  • Frédéric Jenny, Chairman, OECD Competition Law and Policy Committee (Cergy-Pontoise)
10:30am – 10:45am:
Coffee Break
10:45am – 12:15pm: (Concurrent sessions)
Merger: A Vertical Tide in Merger Review
This panel will discuss recent trends in vertical theories of harm in merger review.
  • Are vertical concerns the new horizontal? 
  • Are questions of vertical effects more important to the exercise of market power in certain industries?
  • What strategies should merging parties consider in the context of a vertical merger?
  • How does the analysis of vertical mergers differ across jurisdictions?
  • Navin Joneja, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP (Toronto)
  • Ian John, Kirkland & Ellis LLP (New York)
  • Joshua Soven, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (Washington)
  • Ulrich Denzel, Gleiss Lutz (Stuttgart)
  • Steven Salop, Georgetown University (Washington)
  • Sophie Moonen, Deputy Head of Unit, European Commission (Brussels)
Antitrust: From Compliance to Crisis
The panel will discuss the qualities that make up effective antitrust and anti-corruption compliance programs and their growing importance, and consider how those policies help (or hinder) in a crisis situation.
  • What are the key substantive and procedural aspects of an effective compliance program?
  • How can economics help clients in determining their damage exposure and be used effectively in settlement discussions with the agency or private parties?
  • In what circumstances is compliance risk estimable for reserve purposes?
  • In what circumstances can compliance programs aggravate corporate liability? How can such circumstances be prevented?
  • How can compliance programs can help/ hinder after an investigation has been commenced? What economics tools can be used to gauge the scale of damages?
  • Daniel Sokol, Levin College of Law, University of Florida (Gainesville)
  • Alfredo O’Farrell, Marval O'Farrell Mairal (Buenos Aires)
  • Fiona Schaeffer, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP (New York)
  • Helen Bardell, Director, Competition Team, Barclays Bank (London)
  • Claire Debney, Vice President & General Counsel, Group Legal Affairs & Compliance, Reckitt Benckiser Group plc (Slough)
12:15pm – 1:00pm: Chairpersons' Concluding Remarks and Lunch
  • Jason Gudofsky, Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP (Toronto)
  • Margaret Sanderson, Charles River Associates (Toronto)

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference GCR Live 4th Annual Antitrust Law Leaders Forum - 6 February 2015 at 09:00 to 7 February 2015 at 18:00 in South Beach, Florida at the Ritz-Carlton:


Post a comment