Stites & Harbison has a diverse and talented group of attorneys experienced in antitrust, unfair trade practice, and consumer protection law in both state and federal court. Practicing attorneys include a former investigator for the Federal Trade Commission and a former Commonwealth’s Attorney.
Our firm has particular experience in dealing with what have recently become the largest state court litigations – complaints brought by a state’s Attorney General. Stites & Harbison pursues successful outcomes in these actions through pre-suit discussions and negotiations, but has also served as lead counsel in some of the largest and most recent actions brought by Kentucky’s Attorney General.
Examples of our team's experience include:
- Ongoing representation of international pharmaceutical companies in the Kentucky “AWP” cases. In these cases, the Attorney General has sued manufacturers alleging conspiracy to inflate reported drug prices and thereby defraud state Medicaid programs. Stites & Harbison served as lead counsel in what has become one of the most favorable AWP rulings in the country.
- Represents state and national trade associations in construction, distilling and other industries
- Numerous successful pre-suit negotiations and mediations with Kentucky’s Attorney General concerning alleged statewide deceptive advertising.
- Achieving dismissal of antitrust counts against a state contractor accused of employing unfair trade practices.
- Securing dismissal of recently-filed antitrust suit tying claims premised upon an alleged market restricted to franchisees.
- Successfully representing Kentucky banks in defending and blocking acquisitions involving competitive issues.
- Achieving a dismissal in the defense of a television company accused of unlawful exclusive dealing.
- Successfully representing a medical products manufacturer against tying claims.
- Achieving a successful preemption defense of a Kentucky Attorney General “Do Not Call” civil penalty action against a national bank.
- Successfully representing retaliatory termination claims under a distribution/franchise contract in violation of Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
- Achieving summary judgment against viable aftermarket claims under Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
We have posted twice before on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals’ incorrect decision in Madden v. Midland Funding, LLC, 786 F.3d 246 (2d Cir. 2015). There, the court of appeals reversed a district court ruling and refused to enforce a Delaware choice of law provision citing the public policy inherent in the New York criminal usury statute.