Photo of Stephen R. Chuk

Stephen R. Chuk

Subscribe to Stephen R. Chuk's Posts

Stephen Chuk is a partner in Proskauer’s Antitrust and Sports Groups. He advises companies in complex multidistrict litigation, cartel cases, and compliance matters. Stephen also counsels individuals and corporate clients facing criminal and regulatory investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and state attorneys general.

Stephen has extensive experience advising on antitrust matters involving alleged claims of price fixing, monopolization, group boycott, and bid rigging across a wide range of industries, including fintech, sports, agriculture, and health care.   In addition, he advises on consumer protection matters involving marketing practices and false advertising.

Contact:Read more about Stephen R. Chuk

Anyone who watches Survivor or Game of Thrones knows that alliances are critical. And while they may be necessary to endure from one day to the next, alliances are inevitably broken.

Co-defendants in antitrust cases can draw lessons from these shows. Like alliances, joint defense agreements (“JDA” or “JDAs”) help facilitate defendants’ common interests. JDAs create efficiencies and cost savings by “present[ing] a pooling of resources, a healthy exchange of vital information, a united front against a common litigious foe, and the marshaling of legal talent and advice.” Lugosch v. Congel. Under the right circumstances, JDAs also serve the vital purpose of allowing defendants to realize those benefits without waiving privilege. Id.

Recent federal court opinions dismissing cases under Rule 12(b)(6) may provide an early off-ramp for antitrust defendants where a roadblock has often existed. Courts are increasingly dismissing cases at the 12(b)(6) stage for failure to properly plead market definition and therefore failing to meet the requirements of Twombly as to the market definition allegations of a Sherman Act claim. Antitrust plaintiffs are finding that it is progressively more difficult to proceed to discovery if the alleged product or geographic market is narrowly defined – a tactic that has frequently been used in support of allegations that an antitrust defendant has market power or to exclude potentially competing products that would decrease the alleged market share at issue. Three recent examples raise the question of whether this trend is here to stay.