| | Michael Freeborn's Practice Areas:
Antitrust Litigation
Commercial Litigation
Employment Law
Environmental Litigation
Product Liability
Securities Litigation
His antitrust litigation has included the
following cases --
 | In re Uranium Antitrust Litigation
Michael Freeborn's antitrust practice began almost 25 years ago when
Westinghouse Electric Corporation sued 29 domestic and foreign companies
alleged to be co-conspirators in an international cartel controlling the
supply and price of uranium.
Westinghouse had sold numerous nuclear reactors to electric utilities, with
accompanying contracts to supply uranium -- the fuel necessary for the
reactors. The uranium contracts were for long terms at low fixed
prices. When the price of uranium rapidly rose from about $6 per pound
to about $40 per pound, allegedly as a result of the cartel, Westinghouse
was caught short. If it had to buy on the open market at $40 but
resell to the utilities at $6, it would allegedly incur damages in the
billions of dollars.
Michael and others in a previous firm represented a defendant, Noranda Mines
Limited, a Canadian natural resource company whose Australian subsidiary was
alleged to be a member of the cartel.
The case was reportedly one of the largest civil suits then pending in the
United States. According to Earle Gray's 1982 book on the subject,
"The record of all the litigation related to the uranium cartel has
been estimated to total well in excess of 10 million pages."
Gray, The Great Uranium Cartel 295 (1982).
Because uranium is not just a fuel used by electric utilities but also a
strategic mineral used for nuclear weapons, foreign governments with uranium
reserves resisted efforts by the parties to obtain discovery. This
resulted in a clash between Judge Prentice Marshall, who had ordered the
discovery, and companies like Noranda, which were constrained by orders of
their home governments prohibiting the discovery. At one point,
Michael found himself at the center of this international
incident.
The case was vigorously fought until a settlement was reached.
According to Gray's book, "Early in 1981, a lot of the pressure that
had boiled up in the Chicago litigation cleared as rapidly as the clouds
after a summer storm, when most of the suits were settled out of
court. The settlements meant that the costs to the defendants would be
only a fraction of the $2 billion to $6 billion range that Judge Marshall
had suggested was inevitable." Id. at 259.
Gray asserts that, "Under the terms of these settlements, Westinghouse
was to receive $100 million in cash ($25 million of this from Gulf), plus
favorable terms for the purchase of 23 million pounds of uranium.
Westinghouse, in turn, was obligated to share these benefits with the power
utilities that had earlier sued it." Ibid.
|
| First Comics v. World Color Press
Later, Michael tried to jury verdict a case brought under the federal Robinson-Patman
Act by a small comic book publisher, First Comics, against its printing
company, World Color Press. First Comics alleged that World Color, one
of the largest magazine printers in the nation, gave discounts and other
favorable treatment to its larger customers, including competitors of First
Comics like Marvel and DC Comics.
Because the plaintiff alleged that this price discrimination could not be
justified as a volume discount, and because it had allegedly been defrauded
by the defendant's misrepresentations that the pricing was
"standard," First Comics sued to recover actual damages, punitive
damages, treble damages and attorney fees -- totaling millions of
dollars. Michael defended World Color.
After a 19-day trial in federal court in Chicago, the jury found for World
Color on the Robinson-Patman claim but found for the plaintiff on the fraud
claim and assessed damages of $407,072. However, after post-trial
motions and appeal, even this amount was further reduced by more than half,
to less than $200,000. No punitive damages, treble damages or attorney
fees were assessed.
|
| Information Resources v. AC Nielsen
Presently, Michael is assisting others in his firm representing Information Resources (IRI) in its
antitrust case against AC Nielsen, pending in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York.
IRI pioneered the use of grocery store bar code data for market research
purposes. IRI initially gained market share from Nielsen in the United
States, and began to expand internationally. However, IRI alleges that
Nielsen has tried to eliminate this competition by resorting to a number of
tactics which are illegal under the US antitrust laws, including:
tying, predatory pricing, monopolization, and attempted monopolization.
Over $300 million, before trebling and attorney fees, is at stake in this
case.
|
|
