Antitrust Advice & Advocacy
Our antitrust attorneys have experience in complex mergers, acquisitions and litigation cases in the region's most important markets, including:
- Forest products
- Aviation and transportation
- Athletic apparel and equipment
Antitrust LitigationWe help our clients find resolutions that achieve their business objectives when facing or pursuing antitrust litigation or administrative action. Our antitrust legal team has experience negotiating when situations call for preserving supplier, dealer, customer or strategic competitor relationships. When needed, we aggressively advocate for our clients' interests in antitrust litigation or regulatory action. We handle matters in local, state and federal court, before the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, and in arbitration proceedings.
Our attorneys have significant experience acting on behalf of both antitrust defendants and plaintiffs. The antitrust litigation matters we handle cover a broad spectrum of cases, including:
- Price fixing
- Refusals to deal
- Reseller terminations
- Vertical non-price restrictions
- Monopolization and attempted monopolization
- Defending against government and competitor challenges to mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures
- Pursuing litigation in connection with terminated distributor and dealer agreements
- Bringing claims in connection with terminated hospital privileges
- Defending against challenges to labor agreements
- Advocating against monopolization, including in the intellectual property arena
- Defending against, and bringing, conspiracy claims among competitors
Tonkon Torp Guides Pacific Foods through Oregon’s Largest Acquisition of 2017
Tonkon Torp led Oregon's largest M&A transaction in 2017, the $700 million acquisition of Tualatin-based Pacific Foods of Oregon LLC by Campbell Investment Company. Pacific Foods is an iconic, nationally distributed organic food brand founded in 1987.
Successfully Navigated DOJ Antitrust Concerns for NORPAC Bankruptcy
Tonkon represents NORPAC Foods, Inc. and its affiliates as debtors-in-possession in their chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. The case has included two major asset sales, the first of which caused the United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division to withhold approval and investigate potential anticompetitive impacts and other antitrust violations. Tonkon worked with the DOJ through its investigation by submitting voluntary document productions, offering key witnesses for interviews, and submitting white papers on various legal issues. The DOJ eventually closed its investigation without taking any action and the sale proceeded without incident.
Columbia Helicopters v Honeywell
Successfully negotiated agreement on behalf of Columbia Helicopters in a dispute with Honeywell, a leading manufacturer of engines for military helicopters, after alleging an unlawful refusal to deal under the Sherman Act on the part of Honeywell.
Columbia Helicopters v. Boeing
Represented Columbia Helicopters in a dispute over Boeing’s refusal to sell Boeing helicopter parts to Oregon-based Columbia Helicopters, to allow Columbia to fulfill its contracts to repair Boeing-manufactured military CH-47 Chinook helicopters. To resolve threatened antitrust litigation, Boeing ultimately agreed to recognize Columbia Helicopters as an independent service organization provide Columbia with Boeing parts to perform CH-47 repair services.
Evergreen Helicopters v. Erickson Air-Crane, Inc.
In a precedent-setting refusal-to-deal case, Tonkon Torp obtained a summary judgment in federal court for client Evergreen Helicopters after alleging competitor Erickson Air-Crane was exerting monopoly control over spare helicopter parts.
Helicopter Transport Services, Inc.
Won partial summary judgment for Helicopter Transport Services, Inc. in a dispute with competitor Erickson Air-Crane Inc., alleging Sherman Act § 2 monopoly leveraging and refusal to deal claims, as well as breach of contract claims.
Horizon Radiology filed a complaint against VDIC in February of 2009 alleging antitrust violations under California law along with other California statutory and common law claims. The matter was resolved by settlement on in May of 2009.