Brendan McShane, a partner in the Antitrust & Competition Practice, advises market-leading companies in complex litigation and government investigations, with a particular emphasis on class action defense.
Mr. McShane helps clients across a variety of industries resolve disputes in high-exposure, complex antitrust and unfair competition matters. He counsels and defends clients against claims related to:
- Price fixing
- Bid rigging
- Group boycotts
- Exclusive dealing
- False advertising
- Resale price maintenance
- Unlawful tying
He regularly resolves disputes at the motion to dismiss, class certification, and summary judgment phases — and if necessary, litigates cases through trial. His advocacy spans cases in both the class action and private litigation contexts.
Mr. McShane also helps clients navigate civil and criminal investigations brought by the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and State Attorneys General.
Mr. McShane’s experience includes representing:
- Toshiba Corporation and its joint venture affiliates in connection with their successful defense of several multi-district cases filed by putative class and direct action purchasers who alleged more than US$3 billion in damages from a global price-fixing conspiracy among suppliers of optical disk drives. Mr. McShane’s team defeated certification of a direct purchaser class, and then obtained summary judgment in December 2017 against the remaining indirect purchaser and direct action purchaser plaintiffs.
- Hyatt Corporation in defending against a proposed nationwide antitrust class action filed against Hyatt and four other hotel chains. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant hotel companies conspired to restrict the purchase and use of branded keyword search terms in internet search engine advertising.
- Ferrellgas (d/b/a Blue Rhino) in defending against 38 class action lawsuits by direct and indirect purchaser plaintiffs claiming that Blue Rhino and its competitor conspired to reduce the fill-level in propane exchange tanks sold to retailers across the country.
- Waddell & Reed in defeating a complaint filed by Top Rank Boxing that alleged W&R and boxing manager Al Haymon violated the antitrust laws by entering into a series of tie-out and exclusive dealing agreements in order to monopolize the market for promoting professional boxing. Secured dismissal with prejudice of all claims against W&R in what The American Lawyer’s Litigation Daily referred to as an “unequivocal win.”
- Orbitz Worldwide in two separate lawsuits — a multidistrict action challenging the “rate parity” provisions in supply agreements between major hotel chains and online travel agencies as illegal resale price maintenance, and a lawsuit brought by American Airlines asserting exclusive dealing, conspiracy to monopolize, and group boycott claims in connection with the distribution of airline tickets.
- Electronic Arts in its successful defense of a billion dollar class action challenging EA’s exclusive licensing agreements with the NFL, NCAA, and ESPN as unlawful monopolization.
- Chevron in its successful defense of a putative statewide class action, asserting claims that Chevron was liable under state unfair competition and consumer fraud statutes for selling motor fuel at a specified ‘price per gallon’ without disclosing or adjusting for temperature expansion. Chevron’s dismissal of the lawsuit was selected as a Top Defense Verdict by the California Daily Journal.
- Oracle Corporation in its successful trial defense against a lawsuit brought by the US Department of Justice to enjoin Oracle’s acquisition of PeopleSoft. The victory was named by the National Law Journal as the Top Defense Win of 2004.
- An online gaming and broadcast company in connection with a Department of Justice investigation
- A major technology company in connection with a criminal investigation brought by the Department of Justice, and related investigations by foreign competition authorities in multiple jurisdictions
- A major healthcare pharmaceutical company in connection with a Federal Trade Commission investigation