Tell a Friend


Perspectives on Innovation, Information Exchange, and Antitrust in a Global Context
   LIVE Webcast  


Event Details:                                                                                                                                                          

Recent government challenges of proposed and consummated mergers and enforcement actions and investigations against companies engaged in price fixing or exclusionary contracting have taken antitrust scrutiny to new levels. In a complex and dynamic economy, the issues can involve intellectual property rights, investments in innovation, and relationships with distributors and customers.

The Knowledge Group is assembling a panel of key experts and thought leaders to help companies understand and manage the antitrust risks and issues that they may encounter before they embark on an acquisition strategy or a contract negotiation with key customers, distributors, and suppliers. In a two-hour LIVE webcast, speakers will provide an in-depth analysis of the key antitrust issues of the day and their implications. Panelists will also discuss how companies can effectively deal with potential antitrust scrutiny and provide practical guidance on how companies can remain in compliance with the antitrust laws.

Course Level: Intermediate
Prerequisite: None
Method Of Presentation: Group-Based-Internet
Developer: The Knowledge Group, LLC
Recommended CLE/CPE Hours: 1.75 - 2.0
Advance Preparation: Print and review course materials
Course Code: 124323
Recording Fee: $299 (Please click here for details)


Featured Speakers for Perspectives on Innovation, Information Exchange, and Antitrust in a Global Context LIVE Webcast :

Agenda  (click here to view more)

Albert A. Foer, President,
American Antitrust Institute

  • • The DOJ Statement in its February review of two large scale acquisitions of patents begins an important clarification process
  • • The benefits and risks of standard-setting in the presence of standard-essential patents.
  • • Should FRAND (fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory) commitments travel with the patent?
  • • What conditions would be unreasonable re price or grantbacks?
  • • Would it be inconsistent with FRAND to seek injunctions, e.g. before the International Trade Commission?
  • • What should be the role of standard-setting organizations in clarifying concepts and requirements?

Lawrence Wu, Senior Vice President,
NERA Economic Consulting

Merger Analysis from an Economist’s Perspective
  • • By the end of the summer, we will have two years of experience in understanding how the 2010 Merger Guidelines are being used. How are the U.S. antitrust agencies assessing the competitive effects of proposed mergers and acquisitions? How are the courts analyzing competitive effects?/li>
  • • What do some of the recent litigated and approved transactions (e.g., LabCorp, AT&T/T-Mobile, H&R Block/Tax Act, Express Scripts/Medco) tell us about the types of evidence that the agencies are looking at to assess competitive effects?
  • • Looking ahead, what are the key challenges for merger policy? One area, is how we analyze competitive effects in markets where there is high innovation. Another area is non-price competition.
  • • Pre-transaction advice and planning: what can acquiring and target firms do to assess the potential competitive risks and antitrust issues prior to a transaction agreement?

Matthew Wright, Corporate Vice President,
Economists Incorporated

Economics of Information Sharing
  • • What are the potential economic benefits from information sharing? How can information sharing improve efficiency?
  • • What are the potential competitive risks from information sharing?
  • • What are the implications of the uncertainty associated with antitrust enforcement in this area? What factors are relevant when considering the potential costs and benefits associated with enforcement actions in this area?
  • • How should industry-specific factors affect a rule-of reason analysis of information sharing?
  • • Perspectives on recent enforcement activity in this area.

Andrea Agathoklis Murino, Of Counsel,
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati

  • • The Supreme Court will take on two antitrust cases in the Fall term: Behrend v. Comcast, which addresses the appropriateness of awarding treble damages on a class-wide basis, and FTC v. Phoebe Putney Health System, which addresses whether an acquisition of a hospital is exempt under the state action doctrine. Respectively, both cases could result in a substantial shift on the success of private plaintiffs’ victories in antitrust class actions, and the ability of the Agencies to intervene in certain acquisitions that may otherwise prove anticompetitive. What are the possible outcomes? What are the right outcomes?
  • • Merging parties continue to wilt under Agency demands for ever more voluminous documents and data. Should the Agencies work to better improve the merger review process? If so, how? What kinds of tangible improvements can be provided to make life easier for the merging parties? For the Agencies?
  • • The “internationalization” of antitrust and competition laws is very real. What is the appropriate way in which jurisdictions should work together? What limitations make sense? What is the appropriateness of instituting joint remedies? What are the risks?
  • • Conduct or behavioral remedies are increasingly in fashion at DOJ, and have been consistently used at the FTC. Do the Agencies need to be more clear about the boundaries and appropriateness of instituting conduct remedies? What kinds of boundaries make sense? What kinds of risks are present in using conduct remedies, especially as to enforcement and monitoring compliance?
  • • Section 5 of the FTC Act is often talked about as a potential avenue to bring enforcement actions that are not easily covered by the Sherman Act. FTC Chairman Leibowitz and Commissioner Rosch are on the record very regularly on this point. In recent years, however, the FTC has only rarely brought an action under Section 5 alone, and when they have, it is only in the posture of a negotiated consent agreement (not a litigated judgment). Why is this the case? What can we expect to come? And how might an Article III court consider Section 5 in light of its history?

American Antitrust Institute
Albert A. Foer
speaker bio »»

NERA Economic Consulting
Lawrence Wu
Senior Vice President
speaker bio »»

Economists Incorporated
Matthew Wright
Corporate Vice President
speaker bio »»

Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati
Andrea Agathoklis Murino
Of Counsel
speaker bio »»

Who Should Attend?

- General Counsel
- Antitrust Lawyers
- Business Consultants
- Senior Management
- Directors

Why Attend?

This is a must attend event for anyone interested learning strategies to deal with antitrust scrutiny.

- New guidance explained by the most qualified key leaders & experts
- Hear directly from key regulators & thought leaders
- Interact directly with panel during Q&A

Get to know the facts by clicking the “Register” button below. Hurry as space is limited and discounts apply for early registrants.

Registration Information:                                                                                                                                    

(Click here for information on group registrations and discounts)

Please note, the event date is firm although it may be subject to change. Please click here for details.
The Knowledge Group, LLC is producing this event for information purposes only. We do not intend to provide or offer business advice. The contents of this event are based upon the opinions of our speakers. The Knowledge Congress does not warrant their accuracy and completeness. The statements made by them are based on their independent opinions and does not necessarily reflect that of The Knowledge Congress' views. In no event shall The Knowledge Congress be liable to any person or business entity for any special, direct, indirect, punitive, incidental or consequential damages as a result of any information gathered from this webcast.









































Perspectives on Innovation, Information Exchange, and Antitrust in a Global Context
LIVE Webcast
Event Sponsors

NERA Economic Consulting ( is a global firm of experts dedicated to applying economic, finance, and quantitative principles to complex business and legal challenges. For half a century, NERA’s economists have been creating strategies, studies, reports, expert testimony, and policy recommendations for government authorities and the world’s leading law firms and corporations. With its main office in New York City, NERA serves clients from more than 20 offices across North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.

Founded in 1981, Economists Incorporated ( is a premier economic consulting firm in the fields of law and economics, public policy, and business strategy. EI offers expert consulting and testifying services in the context of litigation, arbitration, proposed mergers and acquisitions, regulatory hearings, and business planning. EI’s clients include legal counsel, businesses, trade associations, government agencies, and multilateral organizations.

EI economists hold advanced degrees from leading universities, and many have held senior positions in government agencies. EI economists have the academic credentials and practical experience required to devise competitive strategies, conduct rigorous analysis for litigation, and formulate public policy. Throughout its existence, EI has established a reputation for delivering consistently high-quality economic analysis while participating in path-breaking and high-profile antitrust, commercial litigation, and regulatory matters. EI has offices in Washington, D.C. and San Francisco.

With long-standing roots in Silicon Valley and 11 offices in technology, business, and regulatory hubs worldwide, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati has a national presence with a global reach. Over the past five decades, WSGR has developed a wide-ranging international practice, with particular strength in North America, Asia, and Europe. WSGR’s global experience includes the representation of both U.S. and international clients in such matters as litigation, cross-border mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, competition law, intellectual property counseling, and branch operations. WSGR clients span a broad array of industries, from energy to media and Internet, medical devices to food services, pharmaceuticals to many technology sectors.

Speaker Firms:

American Antitrust Institute


The Knowledge Group, LLC is registered with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor of continuing professional education on the National Registry of CPE Sponsors. State boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. Complaints regarding registered sponsors may be addressed to the National Registry of CPE Sponsors, 150 Fourth Avenue North, Suite 700, Nashville, TN, 37219-2417. Website:


We are an approved multi-event sponsor in the state of California. Our provider ID is: 14451. In Texas, Illinois, and Virginia, we submit programs for individual approval in advance. In all other states, once attendance is verified, participants are emailed an official certificate of attendance which they submit to their respective State Bar Associations. Our programs are created with continuing education in mind and are therefore designed to meet the requirements of State Bar Associations. The State Bars will have the final determination on whether to provide credit or not. If you have any questions, please email our CLE coordinator at:

Attention New York Attorneys:

This program is approved for CLE credit under New York’s Approved Jurisdiction policy. The Knowledge Group, LLC is an approved sponsor in the state of California, a New York Approved Jurisdiction. This program fulfills the non-traditional format requirement of exceeding 60 minutes in length. Please note only experienced attorneys (more than 2 years) are eligible to receive CLE credit via non-traditional format learning platforms. The Knowledge Group will verify attendance during the webcast via secret words (3 per credit hour) and by auditing attendees log in and log out records. All verification instructions will be provided during the webcast. Once attendance verification requirements have been completed, the attendee will be issued a certificate of attendance be The Knowledge Group for the course with the recommended number of credit hours. The Certificate of Attendance is normally sent via email in 24 hours or less.

To Claim Your CLE Credits:

The attorney should simply include credits earned via Knowledge Group webcasts when computing the total number of CLE credits completed, and keep the Knowledge Group Certificate of Attendance for a period of at least four (4) years in case of audit. An attorney may count towards her/his New York CLE requirement credit earned through the Approved Jurisdiction policy without notifying the CLE Board.

To learn more about New York’s Approved Jurisdiction policy. Please visit:

Enrolled Agents Sponsor ID Number: 7602U

We have entered into an agreement with the Office of Professional Responsibility, Internal Revenue Service, to meet the requirements of 31 Code of Federal Regulations, section 10.6(g), covering maintenance of attendance records, retention of program outlines, qualifications of instructors, and length of class hours. This agreement does not constitute an endorsement by the Office of Professional Responsibility as to the quality of the program or its contribution to the professional competence of the enrolled individual.