Insights

Orange County – April 8, 2026: Dan Sasse, chair of Crowell & Moring's Antitrust and Competition Group, has been named the recipient of the Thurgood Marshall Bar Association's (TMBA) Brooke Weitzman Allyship Award. Sasse was honored at the TMBA's 8th Annual Awards & Installation Gala on April 3rd at the Segerstrom Concert Hall and Samueli Theater in Costa Mesa, California.

New York – February 24, 2026: William Reiss, a first-chair litigator with nearly 25 years of experience in leading complex antitrust class actions, has joined Crowell & Moring as a partner in the firm’s Antitrust and Competition Group in New York.

Washington – December 2, 2025: Crowell & Moring’s Antitrust and Competition Group has been recognized as one of “the world’s best competition practices” by Global Competition Review’s 2026 “GCR 100.” GCR ranked Crowell as “recommended” in California, Washington, D.C., and both the Belgium and Brussels categories. The firm was also ranked as “highly recommended” in New York.

On April 15, 2026, a federal jury found Live Nation and its subsidiary Ticketmaster liable on every antitrust count submitted, including monopolization of primary ticketing markets and illegal bundling of its promotions and venue business lines. The jury found the defendants liable for $1.72 for each primary concert ticket sold pursuant to the anticompetitive conduct.[1] The trial opened March 2, 2026, before Judge Arun Subramanian in the Southern District of New York, as a case brought by the federal government and a coalition of states. The case, however, was rocked by an early-trial settlement between the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the defendants. Although the DOJ and six of the plaintiff states (Arkansas, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Dakota) exited the trial, 33 states and the District of Columbia rejected the settlement, brought in a law firm, and moved forward with the trial. Next up for the case: (1) a statutorily required Tunney Act review of the DOJ’s settlement; (2) defendants’ Rule 50 and Rule 59 motions; (3) determination by the Court of how many tickets are subject to the $1.72 damage award (before trebling as per the Clayton Act); and (4) a remedy phase where the Court will consider plaintiffs’ likely proposal to sever Ticketmaster from Live Nation.

It is increasingly difficult for universities to rely on traditional funding sources. Public colleges and universities rely on states (and to lesser extent localities) for 53 percent of revenue used for instructional programs.1 Forty-seven states spent less per student in the 2014-2015 school year than they did before the recession.2 As result, public higher education institutions received 20 percent less state funding per student than they did in 2007-2008.3 Considerable evidence indicates that universities have reduced spending to compensate for lost funding – often in ways that reduce academic quality or offerings.4

The Seventh Circuit issued an opinion yesterday that makes it easier for the U.S. antitrust laws to be applied to international price-fixing cartels that are alleged to have injured U.S. companies and consumers.  Continuing a trend started by the Third Circuit in Animal Sci. Prods. v. China Minmetals Corp., 654 F.3d 462 (3d Cir. 2011), the Seventh Circuit held that the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvement Act of 1982 (the “FTAIA”) imposes an additional substantive merits limitation on Sherman Act claims involving foreign trade or commerce, instead of a limitation on the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal courts.  The decision in Minn-Chem, Inc., et al., v. Agrium Inc., et al., Case No. 10-1712 (7th Cir. June 27, 2012), means that defendants will now face an increased burden when seeking dismissal of antitrust claims involving alleged foreign anticompetitive conduct.

Huntington Beach housing fight signals stronger state enforcement of planning law

The 2019 Hotel and Lodging Legal Summit is brings together top hotel and lodging attorneys from worldwide companies to identify the most pressing legal issues and topics facing the hospitality industry. 

The Government Investigations & Civil Litigation Institute's (GICLI) Fifth Annual Meeting shares valuable experiences and practical strategies for handling government investigations and related civil litigation at collegial round-table and panel discussions.

In recent years, 75% of Fortune 500 companies were plaintiffs in recovery matters. Many of those and other large companies have developed affirmative recovery programs and have dedicated resources in legal and procurement to recoup the value of affirmative opportunities created by the business. As in-house counsel and legal departments seek to bring added value in the current corporate environment, a mature and comprehensive program can generate multiple significant recoveries annually. But, as in-house counsel and departments are already stretched, how do you navigate the dynamic world of affirmative recovery to start or grow a program?

This Corporate Counsel Litigation Forum webinar will feature a panel of in-house attorneys who are leaders in affirmative recovery. Panelists will address trends for corporations and institutions to recover overcharges resulting from price-fixing and other antitrust violations, as well as recoveries relating to health care, financial instruments, supply chain, commercial contracts, tax, and international trade. The panel will engage in discussion and take questions on a range of topics, including: