2016 Spring Council Meeting - American Bar Association [PDF]

ABA Section of Antitrust Law 2016 SPRING COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, April 5, 2016 2:00 – 5:15 p.m. JW Marriott, Washington, DC Salon III AGENDA (As of 04/01/16) Please note that some items may not occur in the same order as reflected on the agenda. Presenter(s) 1.

Reports of Council Liaisons/Special Guests A. B. C. D. E. F.

2.

Department of Justice Antitrust Division Federal Trade Commission Multistate Antitrust Task Force ABA Board of Governors Young Lawyers Division* Law Student Division*

Baer Ramirez Domen Goodman Alvarado-Rivera Hyatt

Officer Reports/Updates A. Chair i. Recent Activities ii. OECD – ABA Foreign Investments Task Force Report iii. Action Item—LAMP Project Funding Request* iv. Other

Henry

B. Chair-Elect

MacLeod

C. Vice-Chair i. Long Range Planning Committee Report*

Jacobson

D. Immediate Past Chair

Feller

E. Committee Officer* i. Committee Activities Chart ii. Committee Reports a. Agriculture and Food b. Competition Torts

Garza

c. Trade, Sports and Professional Associations

F. Consumer Protection Officer*

Horvath/Howell Russo (for Grimmer/Kent) Creighton (for Tisch) Zych

3.

G. Finance Officer* i. Action item—Approval of FY2017 Reserves Projects Proposals a. Renewal Projects* b. New Projects* ii. Increase in Reserves Spending Limit iii. 2016 International Scholar-in-Residence Recipient

O’Connor

H. International Officer

Gleklen

I. Program Officer*

Henry, B.

J. Publications Officer* i. Standing Committee on Publishing Oversight (SCOPO) Update ii. Antitrust Law Journal, Antitrust, and the Antitrust Source

Nigro

K. Secretary and Communications Officer* i. Membership and Diversity Committee* a. Action Item—Diversity Strategic Plan* ii. Section Web Analytics Report*

Chavez Perlman/Tabor

L. Section Delegates i. House of Delegates activities ii. Other

Ross/Zanfagna

Balasingham, B.

Miller

Task Force/Working Group/Other Reports i. Content Delivery & Technology Investment

Martin

4.

Section Director’s Report*

Travis

5.

Other Business

*Attachment(s)

2

REPORT TO COUNCIL FOR 2016 SPRING MEETING Report by: Jesús M. Alvarado-Rivera SAL Position: YLD Liaison Email: [email protected]

The Antitrust Law Committee (ALC) of the Young Lawyers Division (YLD) has been working on several initiatives for the past months. Here is a summary of our work.

1.

2.

3.

4.

The ALC published its second quarterly newsletter in February (see attached), with two articles written by young antitrusters -one on invitations to collude, and one on new merger control rules in Ecuador. ALC is currently working on its next newsletter and have at least two articles lined up to be published, and hoping for a few more. The ALC have four young lawyers drafting articles for its 101/201series articles, with topics ranging from MFNs to EU merger enforcement. Timing is TBD, but we are hoping to have at least one published in the next month. The ALC have four teleconferences in the works, including one with the Canadian Bar Association. The ALC is pushing these on timing, but a few are not likely to occur until the summer due to a few trial schedules. ALC is also co-sponsoring an in-person panel at the YLD Spring Meeting in St. Louis on IP implications in the TPP. Finally, the ALC is hosting a networking event/happy hour in DC on April 5 (not co-sponsored by the Spring Meeting).

TO:

Council, Section of Antitrust Law

FROM:

Jason Hyatt, Liaison from ABA Law Student Division

RE:

Report from Law Student Division Liaison

DATE:

March 17, 2016

Since the Midwinter Meeting, there have been many opportunities for law students to become involved with the Section of Antitrust. Thus, the Section has been working closely with the Law Student Division to promote a number of its initiatives. To start, it is exciting to see the drastic increase in law student membership this year as compared to last. Even though Section membership is free for law students, students only get to choose up to 5, so the increase in student membership is a positive sign of law student enthusiasm for what the Section has to offer. The increase in membership is a testament to the hard work put in by the Membership and Diversity Committee as well as the Section at large. One of the biggest opportunities that the Section advertised recently is the mentoring program. I was lucky enough to be able to publish a blog post on behalf of the Section onto the Law Student Division website. The post centered on the benefits of mentor-mentee relationships and why the Section of Antitrust’s program is a great one to join. While I am unsure of the total number of students who applied for a mentor, I know that we had a substantial amount of interest prior to the deadline. The passion and interest displayed by law students in antitrust is a good sign of things to come. The Section is also in the midst of advertising a new opportunity for law students and young lawyers. Through the Consumer Protection, Privacy, and Advertising Disputes & Litigation Committees, students and young lawyers will have an opportunity to be published in a special edition newsletter. I am currently working with the Law Student Division to advertise this program. I plan to help get another blog post published on the Law Student Division’s website to promote this unique opportunity.

The Law Student Division is always looking for attorneys to publish blog posts for their website. Each post only has to be about 1,000 words in length (give or take 200) and can be on any topic so long as it is geared towards law students. Topics can range from interesting developments in the field of antitrust to career advice. There is no commitment to writing on a consistent basis if you do not wish to do so. If you aren’t interested in writing a blog post, the Law Student Division can also post webinars, slide shares, Google hangouts, videos, and other types of content. This is a great way to reach out to law students whether it is advertising an event or getting students inspired about a particular legal trend. As always, if anyone has an event, initiative, or other opportunity that they would like to get law students involved with, please do not hesitate to reach out for my help. I would be happy to assist anyone in spreading the word about his or her program.

2015-2016

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

CHAIR Clyde J “Butch” Tate II (703) 781-3998 [email protected] MEMBERS Dwain Alexander II Norfolk, VA William S. Aramony Alexandria, VA Lt. Col. Michelle Leatrice Raven Lavon, TX Danielle Reyes San Antonio, TX Gregory L. Ulrich Grosse Pointe Woods, MI Chloe Woods Saint Louis, MO BOARD OF GOVERNORS LIAISON Hon. William C. Carpenter Jr. Wilmington, DE SERVICE LIAISONS COL James Garrett U.S. Army JAG School Christopher Dunne U.S. Coast Guard Mary Hostetter U.S. Marine Corps Kate Somerville U.S. Navy COL Paul Kantwill Department of Defense John Meixell U.S. Army CAPT Shannon Kopplin Naval Justice School Lt Col Ryan Oakley U.S. Air Force Col Kristine Kijek U.S. Air Force JAG School MAJ Traci Winston National Guard Bureau DIVISION FOR LEGAL SERVICES STAFF COUNSEL Jason T. Vail (312) 988-5755 [email protected] ASSISTANT STAFF COUNSEL Jane Nosbisch (312) 988-5754 [email protected] MILITARY PRO BONO PROJECT DIRECTOR Mary Meixner (312) 988-5783 [email protected] PRO BONO PROJECTS MANAGER Tali K. Albukerk (312) 988-5704 [email protected] PROGRAM MANAGER Victoria L. Shea (312) 988-5760 [email protected] ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Kathleen Hughes (312) 988-5786 [email protected]

February 24, 2016 Ms. Roxann E. Henry Morrison & Foerster LLP 2000 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Ste 6000 Washington, DC 20006-1831

Standing Committee on Legal Assistance for Military Personnel 321 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654-7598 FAX: (312) 932-6433 http://ambar.org/lamp

VIA US MAIL AND EMAIL: [email protected]

Dear Ms. Henry: As Chair of the ABA Standing Committee on Legal Assistance for Military Personnel (LAMP), I am proud of the ABA’s long history of support for military members and veterans. I also recognize the ABA Section of Antitrust Law’s commitment to justice and invite your section to partner with us in support of LAMP’s nationally recognized pro bono legal assistance projects. Since its creation in 2008, the ABA Military Pro Bono Project, which connects junior enlisted servicemembers facing civil legal issues with volunteer civilian attorneys, has secured pro bono assistance for over 1,300 military members throughout the United States. This represents over $7.8 million in donated billable hours – a return of many times the actual cost of the Project’s operation. In addition, LAMP currently has over 700 attorneys in nearly every state registered with Operation Stand-By, its online platform for civilian attorneys to provide legal guidance to military attorneys. Last year, LAMP also completed the ABA Veterans’ Claims Assistance Network (VCAN) pilot program, through which attorneys assisted over 150 veterans with their VA benefits claims, generating nearly $1.4 million in donated billable hours. We are currently raising the funds to relaunch VCAN as an ongoing, nationwide pro bono initiative serving veterans with their VA claims. Finally, through ABA Home Front, LAMP’s online legal education and resource portal, veterans and military personnel have access to free publications and easy-to-understand information on a variety of legal topics, as well as a directory of legal services that help military families. LAMP is in the process of synchronizing its data with other ABA legal aid entities to provide the most current information while optimizing online access. For many years, LAMP has largely depended on generous donations from other ABA entities such as the Section of Litigation, Business Law Section, and Section of Public Contract Law to operate its programs. We invite you to visit http://www.militaryprobono.org/support/ to see how other ABA entities, as well as a number of other contributors, play a critical role in helping us fulfill our mission to connect veterans, military personnel, and their families to high-quality, free legal services. We hope your Section will consider joining this esteemed group of supporters. I welcome the opportunity to discuss our entities’ potential for partnership during this fiscal year and can be reached at (703) 781-3998 or via email at [email protected]. Sincerely,

Clyde J. “Butch” Tate II Major General, US Army (Retired) Chair Cc:

Joanne Travis - [email protected]

ABA Standing Committee on Legal Assistance for Military Personnel (LAMP) The LAMP Project donation levels are 1 star through 5 stars, and range from $100 - $25,000. Five stars:

$25,000

Four stars:

$10,000 - $24,999

Three stars:

$5,000 - $9,999

Two stars:

$2,000 - $4,999

One star:

$100 - $1,999

The three ABA entities mentioned in the letter (Business Law, Litigation, Public Contract Law) make substantial contributions. Litigation is at the four stars level; and Business Law and Public Contract Law are at the three stars level.

American Bar Association: Legal Resources for Military Families and Attorney Volunteer Opportunities Recognizing the sacrifices that military personnel make on behalf of us all, the ABA Standing Committee on Legal Assistance for Military Personnel (LAMP) provides legal resources for military members, veterans and their families, along with volunteer opportunities for attorneys.

The ABA Military Pro Bono Project, a web-based program on www.MilitaryProBono.org, accepts case referrals from military legal assistance attorneys anywhere in the world on behalf of junior-enlisted servicemembers with civil legal issues, and it then places these cases with attorneys who offer to provide pro bono help where the legal assistance is needed in the United States. The Project also includes Operation Stand-By, through which civilian attorneys may volunteer to offer lawyer-to-lawyer guidance to military attorneys who have questions so they can further help their servicemember clients. Attorneys and pro bono coordinators interested in helping may register on the Project’s website to learn more and get involved.

In 2014, the ABA launched a new pilot program, the ABA Veterans’ Claims Assistance Network (VCAN), on www.ABAVCAN.org. In collaboration with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), VCAN provided attorneys with the opportunity to help veterans with the preparation and completion of their VA disability compensation claims. Attorneys who registered to volunteer with VCAN were provided free CLE courses to learn how to prepare veterans’ claims. VCAN was operated as a demonstration pilot that was completed in the summer of 2015. A post-pilot relaunch to make VCAN permanent is anticipated pending necessary funding from donors.

ABA Home Front, at www.ABAHomeFront.org, is an online resource to help military members, veterans, and their families find legal information, referrals, and representation for civil legal matters. The ABA Home Front website includes an Information Center that features a wealth of materials created specifically for those connected to the military to help them understand legal issues, and a Directory of Programs that features a national, stateby-state guide to the free and low-cost legal service programs.

To learn more, please visit the ABA Standing Committee on Legal Assistance for Military Personnel (LAMP) website, www.ambar.org/LAMP, or contact us at [email protected].

February 6, 2016 REPORT OF THE LONG RANGE PLANNING COMMITTEE American Bar Association, Section of Antitrust Law 2015 – 2016 This report summarizes the recommendations of the 2015-2016 Long Range Planning Committee. Because the Section has operated so effectively for so long, the Committee focused on a narrow set of issues with a potential, incrementally, to make the Section even stronger.

The

Committee identified five such issues: 1. How to ensure that optimizing content delivery to our members continues to be a Section priority. 2. How to encourage greater participation by academics in the Section. 3. What is, and what should be, the role of consumer protection in the Section. 4. How best to ensure that the Section remains in the forefront of foreign investment issues. 5. Whether the Section should utilize additional reserve funds to encourage greater ethnic diversity within the Section. We discuss each of these issues in order below. I.

CONTENT DELIVERY A. Overview One of the most important challenges facing the Section is how to ensure that the high

quality content it produces gets to its members in a way that is effective and efficient. This is not a new issue; indeed, content delivery was the subject of a detailed analysis by the Long Range Planning Committee less than three years ago. Our recommendations now are that the Section streamline the work being done on the delivery of content by: (1) making content delivery the responsibility of the Communications Officer; (2) creating a permanent Communications Operations Committee that would report to the

Communications Officer and would have the ultimate responsibility for the development of policy and execution of content delivery; and (3) fold the Content Delivery Task Force (the “CDTF”) into the Communications Operations Committee. We describe these recommendations in more detail below. B. The 2012-13 Long Range Planning Committee’s Content Delivery Report In the 2012-2013 Section year, the Long Range Planning Committee reviewed in depth how the “Section could improve its delivery of content through committee output, programs and publications” (the “Feller Report”).

The Feller Report included a SWOT analysis, which is

summarized as follows: Strengths •

The Section Has Tremendous Substantive Expertise at its Disposal

•

The Section Has a Depth of SelfMotivated Volunteers Willing to Help

•

The Section Has a Strong Brand in Publications and Programs

•

Collaboration within the Section and with Other Sections Increases Quality of Content

Weaknesses

-2-

•

The Section Relies on Volunteers to Deliver Content

•

Section Content Delivery Is Decentralized and Inconsistent

•

Section Communications Can Be Repetitive

•

The Section Has Struggled To Take Advantage of Technology

•

The Section Can Be Slow In Delivering “Breaking News”

Opportunities

Threats

•

Section Members Value, and Will Pay For, Current and Substantive Analysis

•

• •

•

The Section Is at a Competitive Disadvantage with Regard to the Delivery of Competition News

There Is No Competing Content Provider That Can Offer the Depth of Knowledge and Expertise Within the Section

•

The Section Faces Increasing Competition from Alternative Program Providers

The Section Has Access to the Leading Voices

•

The Current Content Delivery System Can Exhaust Users and at the Same Time Have Them Miss Valuable Content

Technology Offers Many Opportunities to Deliver Content

The Feller Report also included a series of recommendations, which included (i) centralizing the content delivery from committees to a single repository, (ii) reducing duplication, (iii) offering more options, and (iv) implementing a social media tool. The Feller Report also recommended that the Section invest in technology, and recommended that the Section spend up to $3 million from reserves in order to improve content delivery. C. Content Delivery Since the Feller Report Three years later, we see substantial progress, but also significant opportunity for growth and improvement.

The most apparent development has been the Section’s investment in the

Connect platform to improve and centralize communications.

Virtually all committees have

transitioned to Connect, and there has been progress made in the reduction of duplication. Connect also allows for better access to data about how members are accessing various forms of content, and helps to measure what practices are effective and ineffective by measuring how many members subscribe or unsubscribe to various Committees. Certainly, the transition to Connect has been challenging. The technology is imperfect and, among other things, is designed for organizations that -3-

are more centralized. However, the two Communications Officers who have been in place since Connect launched have made heroic efforts to make it work, and we believe that there is opportunity to make even more progress, particularly in light of the expected adoption of Connect by the entire ABA. There has been less progress with regard to other recommendations in the Feller Report. The CDTF has worked hard to consider how best to deliver books electronically, and how to offer a service that would expand Section content, but has not developed solid solutions. Optimal pricing of eBooks remains a particularly difficult problem. The Section has tried alternative ways of delivering programs, such as through simulcasts, but with only limited success. The recommended $3 million from reserves have not been expended, and we are not aware of any specific recommendations to spend this money. The Section has been strong on study and ideas but, other than the efforts to implement Connect, has not made substantial progress in modernizing content delivery. D. Recommendation: Focus on Execution The authors of the Feller Report recognized that they were performing a delicate balancing act. While they endeavored to identify opportunities and threats and make recommendations about how to address these issues, they did not believe that it was within their mandate to describe precisely how to implement these recommendations.

Thus, for example, the Feller Report

recommends investing in technology, but does not describe what technology to purchase. The CDTF has certainly contributed to the improvement of content delivery by continuing to study the problem and make recommendations. However, implementation of the recommendations in the Feller Report has fallen largely to an ad hoc combination of the Communications Officer and the Committee Operations Co-Chairs, while the CDTF has largely (and properly) performed a more policy-oriented function. -4-

We believe that, to make content delivery a continuing priority, the Section should make content delivery improvement and execution the responsibility of the Communications Officer and should give the Communications Officer the tools to succeed. Currently, content delivery policy is being driven by the CDTF, while content delivery execution is being driven by the Communications Officer with assistance from the Co-Chairs of Committee Operations. These two functions—policy and execution—should be combined into a separate Communications Operations Committee (the “COC”) responsible for both policy and execution. The COC should report to the Communications Officer while coordinating closely with Committee Operations, and should be responsible for both the ideas about how to improve content and the execution of content delivery on its current platforms. We suggest appointing one chair and up to four vice chairs. While we believe that the COC may function in ways similar to Committee Operations, we believe that the Committee Leadership should be structured slightly differently.

Whereas

Committee Operations has four separate co-chairs, we recommend that the COC have a single chair, with 3-4 vice chairs. We recommend that the chair be an experienced Section leader with some technical savvy who will be both motivated to take on a challenge, and experienced enough to work across different parts of the Section and closely with the Section Staff. The vice chairs should be motivated and energetic leaders, ideally with some background in technology so that they can help to execute. We also recommend that the Section consider placing the Daily Digest administrative committee under the Secretary and Communications Officer, so that it can be part of the content delivery solution that we hope will develop. The policy issues that the COC could consider include the issues identified in the Feller Report, as well as other issues that may arise. For example, the COC should consider how to move into electronic versions of written material; how to expand the audience for distance learning -5-

initiatives; how to make older content accessible to members; how to centralize communications on Connect (or a new platform) to avoid duplication; and what investments should be made to improve content delivery.

The COC should also execute on content delivery developments by taking

ownership of the common content delivery tools, which at this time is primarily the Connect platform, but could also include other functions such as coordination with the Daily Digest. There are functions on Connect that need to be moderated, and the Communications Committee can try to develop ways to communicate within the Connect universe that will deliver content to a greater audience with less duplication. (This moderation function would be similar to the function served by the Technology Resources Committee back in the days of AT-Conversation.) II.

ACADEMIC PARTICIPATION We believe that Section members would benefit from additional involvement by law

professors and academic economists in Section activities and programs. We believe this is true, primarily because academics bring new ideas to the real-world work of practitioners and because the job of the academic involves studying issues in depth. We also believe that many academics would benefit from involvement in the Section, because exposure to the real-world issues and problems faced by Section members can enrich their research and teaching, and because some academics are interested in serving as consultants or expert witnesses. The Section has long encouraged academic participation. There is typically an academic on the Council (often an economist). Each January, the Section co-sponsors a “Next Generation of Antitrust Scholars” conference at NYU Law School. There is good participation by academics on the board of Antitrust Law Journal. But there is a strong sense that we can and should do more. We recommend that the Section make a particular effort to reach out to mid-career academics who are not already engaged with the Section. We have in mind law professors or economists who -6-

have received tenure in the past 5-10 years. Currently, it appears to us that the Section relies heavily on a relatively small set of very accomplished, senior scholars, especially those with large consulting practices. Academics currently active with the Section can be called upon to help identify less senior and more diverse colleagues who are good prospects for increased involvement with the Section. The natural starting place for such involvement is in Section programs, but invitations to publish in the Section’s journals could also be extended. We envision increased involvement by academics in Section programs taking place on two tiers. First, greater involvement by established academics is likely to improve the quality of programs and attract more participants. The best academics are unsurpassed in their ability to raise issues, draw connections, and place current issues in historical context. Furthermore, many Section members are keen to hear from enforcers, and enforcers appreciate being on panels with top academics. We have a sense that participation by key academics has not increased, and may have even declined, in the past few years. Second, greater involvement by accomplished academics who are not well known to Section members (the group discussed above) can alert Section members to new research findings and expose them to rising academic stars. One key to making this work is to pick academics who have recently written papers with findings that will interest Section members and who have strong presentation skills. More senior law professors and economists can help identify these papers. Another key is to make sure the benefits of Section membership are communicated effectively to this group. The Economics Committee’s newsletter includes a “recent scholarship” section that describes recent papers. By tasking a number of other committees (Unilateral, Joint Conduct, M&A,

-7-

Consumer Protection), we could expand this to all (or at least most) antitrust and consumer protection academic articles and publish a monthly roundup on Connect. To these ends, we believe that there should be a Vice Chair of our Membership & Diversity Committee specifically assigned to develop and further these efforts each year. III.

CONSUMER PROTECTION The LRP Committee decided to give renewed consideration this year to the role of consumer

protection in the Section, the core expertise that the Section brings to consumer protection, where the Section can hold itself out as preeminent, where it should focus efforts to grow, and how the Section can broaden participation in leadership from different constituents. The Committee consulted with the Section’s Consumer Protection Officer, Tom Zych, and the leadership of the consumer protection committees for their input and insights. History.

The Section has long addressed consumer protection issues. According to

information collected by the Section staff from available records, the Section’s Consumer Protection Committee was formed in 1992, though even earlier there was a consumer protection subcommittee of the FTC Committee (one of the predecessors of today’s Federal Civil Enforcement Committee). The Privacy and Information Security Committee was established in 2005 and the Private Advertising Litigation Committee was established in 2009, to give more attention to issues previously covered by the Consumer Protection Committee. The Section included a separate chapter in Antitrust Law Developments addressing consumer protection in 2002, after previously addressing consumer protection within the treatise’s chapter on the FTC. The Section published a separate Consumer Protection Law Developments treatise for the first time in 2009 and expects to publish a second edition of that treatise by the Spring Meeting 2016.

-8-

The Section created the Consumer Protection Officer position in 2009, and it adopted the tag line “Preserving Competition / Protecting Consumers” the same year. Notwithstanding this long and positive history, integration of consumer protection in the Section has been challenging. In preparing books and treatises, it has been difficult to recruit and retain large numbers of highly qualified writers. Attendance at stand-alone consumer protection CLE programs has been disappointing. And the Section faces far greater competition from other ABA Sections and other providers of consumer protection books and programs than it does for antitrust books and programs. A key challenge is how to make the Section as recognized a leader in consumer protection as it is in competition. Relationship Between Antitrust and Consumer Protection. There is a relationship between antitrust and consumer protection law through the FTC Act and the mission of both sets of laws to promote and protect the interests of consumers. The FTC Act, enacted in 1914, prohibits both “unfair methods of competition” and “unfair and deceptive acts and practices,” which ultimately led the FTC to establish the Bureaus of Competition and Consumer Protection. The FTC is not the only enforcement agency with dual responsibility between the fields. Numerous state attorneys general combine enforcement responsibility in a single office. A number of foreign enforcement agencies also have responsibility for both antitrust and consumer protection. It is also worth noting that a number of the Section’s members in the private bar and in house also practice both antitrust and consumer protection law, and are currently members of both the Section’s antitrust and consumer protection committees. Current Consumer Protection Activities. The Section’s consumer protection committees serve a large number of members, with approximately 800 current non-overlapping members of the

-9-

three committees. The Section has sold approximately 735 copies of Consumer Law Protection Developments and 710 copies of the 2011 and 2013 supplements to that treatise. Of the committees’ 800 current members, 623 have self-identified their role, including 388 in private practice in the U.S., 86 in house, 32 in the federal government, 22 in state government, 21 consultants, 12 academics, and four in self-regulatory agencies. The committees currently have 58 international members. The Section has sponsored a typically bi-annual stand-alone consumer protection program, though paid attendance has been modest, with 138 paid attendees in 2013 and 132 in 2014, together with 55 FTC staffers attending at no charge in 2014, according to Section records. The Section has also established a consumer protection “track” at the Spring Meeting to attract attendance from consumer protection practitioners. The Section’s Core Consumer Protection Expertise. We believe that the Section’s core consumer protection expertise comes from its FTC expertise, giving the Section and its members extraordinary knowledge of the agency’s procedures and personnel to complement its substantive know-how. The FTC Bureau of Consumer Protection’s focus on advertising and marketing practices, privacy and data security, and financial services, has led the Section to be relatively strong in those fields, as well as on the occasional intersection of antitrust and consumer protection issues. The participation of government regulators, including the FTC and self-regulatory organizations such as the National Advertising Divisions of the Better Business Bureau and domestic and international data protection authorities provides the Section with credibility in the field. There have historically been some gaps in the Section’s consumer protection offerings which the Section’s consumer protection committees have been seeking to fill. The Section, for instance, has not attracted litigators handling private consumer protection litigation to the same extent that it -10-

has attracted those practicing before the FTC. Nor has the Section had the same level of involvement from senior officials and staff at the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau (CFPB) that it has had from FTC officials, or the same level of involvement of foreign consumer protection officials as it has had from foreign antitrust officials. Other Providers.

The Section faces substantial competition in addressing consumer

protection from a number of entities. The Business Law Section’s Consumer Financial Services Committee has approximately 1400 members, and provides educational and networking opportunities for its members, who represent consumers, industry, and regulators. Its committees focus on such issues as truth in lending, financial privacy, credit reporting information security and identity theft, debt collection and consumer bankruptcy, credit discrimination and fair access to financial services, housing and personal property finance, and litigation and arbitration.

The Antitrust Section’s consumer

protection committee leaders believe that that many CFPB staff attorneys and private practitioners representing clients before the CFPB are members of the Business Law Section’s CFPB committee and not members of the Antitrust Section. The ABA Intellectual Property Law Section and ABA Science & Technology Section also have committees and programs that address consumer protection issues.

The IP Section, for

example, has an Online Data, Transactions, and Security committee, and the Science & Technology Section has a Big Data, E-Privacy Law, Information Security and Privacy, and Computer Crime committee. Competition also comes from mixed membership entities including the Brand Activation Association (BAA) and International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) both of which serve non-lawyers as well as lawyers. -11-

Growth and Improvement. In an era of declining resources to invest in bar association activities and concomitant membership declines, consumer protection continues to be one of the areas with growth potential. We recommend that the Section build on its core expertise, by focusing on close adjacencies, building on efforts the consumer protection committees are already undertaking, in part based on our discussions in recent months. The most important objective, albeit easier to state than accomplish, is to attract and retain the recognized leaders in the various consumer protection fields. The Section benefits from the expertise of its current leaders, but attracting lawyers and economists with expertise beyond the FTC is the single most important improvement we can achieve. It is also one that our existing leaders are in the best position to accomplish. International growth is perhaps the most natural expansion of our current expertise, following the Section’s tremendous success in addressing international competition issues. Some of the same characteristics that have allowed the Section to succeed in building international competition are present with international consumer protection: for example, a large scale data breach could have global implications. The area is especially important now given Europe’s “right to be forgotten” and the recent changes in Europe’s data protection rules. Marketing the Section’s expertise in these areas to European practitioners, and attracting the leaders there, should be a priority for the Consumer Protection Officer and PRIS. In addition, adding European practitioners could help the Section achieve preeminence in this important area. Addressing CPFB enforcement is also a natural expansion insofar as the CFPB is charged with consumer protection in financial markets, the Bureau shares concurrent jurisdiction with the FTC on some financial services consumer protection issues, and a number of former FTC staff work

-12-

for the CFPB at all levels of the agency. The Insurance and Financial Services Committee can and should be made part of this effort. Consumer protection enforcement in telecommunications markets by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) may also be an appropriate area for expansion, given Section expertise on telecommunications competition issues, which are addressed by the FCC as well as the DOJ. The Media and Technology Committee is a natural fit for this initiative in cooperation with the Consumer Protection Committee.. Consumer protection and class action counsel are increasingly active in bringing and litigation consumer protection cases. Private privacy litigation has exploded in recent years and is a natural outgrowth of the Section’s expertise in FTC and self-regulatory privacy issues.

The

Section’s government consumer protection and class action expertise make such private litigation a natural area for growth. In focusing on such litigation, we suggest that the PAL more aggressively reach out to attract members of the plaintiff’s bar, as it has on antitrust issues, to ensure that the Section’s programs and publications are balanced and respected by all practitioners. Considering the above, we have identified seven areas for potential growth: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii)

international enforcement CFPB enforcement FCC enforcement state enforcement private consumer protection litigation private privacy litigation the plaintiff’s bar

There already are initiatives underway in most of these areas by the consumer protection committees, and those efforts merit continued focus and support from Section Leadership. International consumer protection should be a top priority, recognizing that many foreign enforcers are responsible for consumer protection as well as antitrust, like the FTC, the Section’s reputation -13-

abroad is deservedly stellar, and so the prospect of growing additional foreign members seems promising from such efforts. We do not recommend forming any new committees at this time.

We do, however,

encourage Section committees with expertise in these areas (e.g., financial services, telecommunications, state enforcement, international) to address consumer protection issues, in coordination with the consumer protection committees. These other Section committees should recognize the dual mission of the Section in preserving competition and protecting consumers, and make consumer protection a core part of their offering, coordinating with the three consumer protection committees on publications and programs. In seeking to grow, the Section and the consumer protection committees will need to focus on three elements – publications, programs, and leadership/membership outreach. To address these areas, the Section will need to address both basics (of interest to in house counsel and those new to the field) and cutting edge enforcement and litigation issues (of greatest interest to outside lawyers and government officials). Section leadership beyond the three CP committees should also be encouraged to make sure their colleagues practicing in these areas who are not current members are aware of Section efforts and encourage their participation. Participation. A question has been raised whether the Section’s CP activities have been dominated by too few law firms. The two law firms accounting for the greatest number of CP members, Venable (27 members of the three CP committee) and Kelley Drye (19 members of the three committees), together account for approximately 6% of the members and four of 23, or 17% of the current leadership positions (chairs, vice chairs, and YLRs). These are the firms that have most actively sought to participate in Section activities. Lawyers in those firms should be commended for their hard work in building the -14-

consumer protection activities of the Section and other lawyers in those firms should be encouraged to continue to work to move into leadership, with opportunities to advance. At the same time, the leadership of the committees should work to expand participation from other firms, as well from federal and state enforcers, in house lawyers, the plaintiff’s bar and other constituencies. Section Chairs should be cognizant when making appointments, to ensure that the Section is not perceived to be dominated by any single constituency. Marketing to the Business Law Section. The CP committee has reached out to the Business Law Section to explore potential areas of collaboration. We recommend working with the Business Law Section to market the Section’s CP programs to reach a broader audience and recruit new members to the Antitrust Section. We are, however, more cautious about co-sponsoring Section programs with the Business Law Section through co-branding. Our goal remains the promotion of the Section of Antitrust Law as the go-to resource for CP issues. Publications. We do not believe the time is ripe for the Section to launch a new periodical publication, given the issues in attracting qualified authors for existing periodicals and other publications (as well as the potential overload on staff). Once those issues are resolved, the Section may well want to consider an additional periodical, modeled on the Source. In the meantime, our three existing periodicals should provide sufficient publication opportunities for our members. IV.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT The Section’s 2015 Report of the Foreign Investment Review Task Force has been

extraordinarily well received in the global competition area. The recommendations at pages 227-232 of the Report cover a number of areas, from timetables/process to substantive criteria to involvement of the Section with other entities such as the OECD and the ICN. Indeed, great interest has already been expressed by the OECD in particular with the support of BIAC; interest as well exists at the -15-

ICN, among others. The recommendations also include a suggestion that the Section undertake further work, such as examining jurisdictions not included in the Section’s Task Force Report and adding them to the analysis. The issues covered by the Report do not come up often, but when they do they are particularly important, and one of our goals should be to make sure that the Section is the “go to” resource for knowledge and information in these areas. The question the Long Range Planning Committee addressed, with input from the Section’s Chair and Chair-Elect, is how best to achieve that goal. A number of options were considered: creating a new committee, a new permanent task force, or lodging the issues with an existing committee, such as M&A or International, or with the International Task Force. Ultimately, we concluded that the issues do not arise so frequently as to warrant a separate committee or permanent task force. Instead, we recommend that the issues be the responsibility of the M&A committee as these issues arise only in the context of mergers, acquisitions, and similar affiliations. Given the significance of the issues, however, we also recommend that M&A have a dedicated vice chair with responsibility for leading the committee, and the Section, into continued and increased prominence in this area. The dedicated vice chair will have the responsibility of ensuring that the Section keep current with the issues; that programs be scheduled, especially when significant issues arise; that our publications reflect the state of the art in the area; that we provide whatever expertise we can to OECD, ICN, BIAC, and others; and that resources from the International committee, the International Task Force, and others be utilized optimally to ensure that we gain and maintain prominence in the analysis of foreign investment issues.

-16-

V.

ETHNIC DIVERSITY “Balance and diversity” is a key goal of the Section, with our long history of commitment to

promoting diversity. In April 2013, the Council approved the Section’s Diversity and Inclusion Plan, which included the following two goals (among others): •

Raise awareness that diversity is valued and supported in the Section.

•

Increase diversity in Section leadership. Consistent with these goals, in March 2015, the Council approved a Request for Funding

from Section Reserves from the Membership and Diversity Committee to “create a diversity grant program to defray the costs of Section membership for individuals willing to commit to the further diversification of the [Section’s] membership.” ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Reserves Proposal – 2015, Request for Funding (Revised March 16, 2015). This proposal, now called the “Ambassador Pilot Program,” was only available to non-Section members. It was intended to encourage diverse membership by defraying ABA and Section membership dues and to promote leadership by giving the fellowship recipient(s) admission to the Spring Meeting, a travel stipend, and the opportunity to serve on the Membership and Diversity Committee advisory board, including developing outreach events. Law students are not eligible for this program. The Section has achieved modest success in increasing gender diversity although much remains to be done. Where we continue to fall far short, however, is in ethnic diversity, where our numbers are consistently and unfortunately low year in, year out. Our shortfalls extend to all areas: membership, leadership, and young lawyers. Put simply, we cannot meet the Section’s overall diversity commitment unless increasing our ethnic diversity is a real priority. The discussion below focuses on just one small step in what needs to be an enduring and comprehensive effort.

-17-

Specifically, we believe the Section should consider expanding its diversity initiatives by developing and administering one or more fellowships, including developing application materials, applicant qualifications (including defining objective criteria for each), and other project coordination. There should be a particular focus on enhancing our ethnic diversity, with efforts as well to target women, LGBTQ practitioners, and the disabled. The goal of the fellowship(s) is to increase participation by diverse Section members in Section activities with a specific focus on including participation in Section leadership and conferences. To proceed with these initiatives, we suggest tasking the Membership and Diversity committee with responsibility for developing the details and administration of the fellowship(s), and for working with the Advisory Board on Section Reserves to develop specific details to be presented for Council approval. We present two options below which could be implemented simultaneously and are intended to supplement the existing diversity project approved from Section reserves. Fellowship for Diverse Law Students •

Similar to the Steiger Fellowship to encourage careers in state enforcement, this fellowship would be intended to encourage diverse law students to pursue careers in antitrust and consumer protection and to participate in Section activities. This fellowship would expand the reach of the Section’s diversity programs to law students who are not eligible for the Ambassador Pilot Program described above.

•

Applicant requirements could include that the applicant is a member of an underrepresented group, be a current law student, and become a Section member at the time of application.

•

Fellowships could involve one or more of the following:

-18-

o Internship opportunities. For law students (similar to the Steiger Fellowship), the Section could partner with law firms and/or state or federal antitrust agencies to provide paid internship opportunities. o Committee leadership. Fellows could participate in Section leadership as a Young Lawyer Representative for a Section committee with positions to be appointed by incoming Section Chair.

Some more junior fellows might also participate in

committees as invited observers, without the necessity of an official appointment. o Reimbursement for Section dues and conference expenses. Fellows would be relieved for a specified time from any Section dues obligation, and could receive complimentary registration and be reimbursed (up to a specified dollar amount) for expenses to attend the Section Spring Meeting and one additional substantive conference per year. o Mentoring. Fellows could be assigned one or more mentors. Mentors could include current members of the Section leadership, volunteers from antitrust agency leadership, and/or former fellows. Fellowship for Diverse Experienced Practitioners •

This fellowship would be intended to increase participation by experienced diverse practitioners in Section activities. This fellowship would expand the reach of the Section’s diversity programs to more experienced practitioners who are already Section members and may be better suited for Section leadership positions than serving on the Membership and Diversity committee’s advisory board through the Ambassador Pilot Program described above.

-19-

•

Applicant requirements could include that the applicant is a member of an underrepresented group, have a minimum of three years of practice, and have been a Section member for at least one ABA year prior to applying. We note that these application requirements might overlap with the requirements for the Ambassador Pilot Program already approved by the Council. In considering this fellowship option, we would ask the Membership and Diversity Committee to evaluate whether diverse experienced practitioners are taking advantage of the Ambassador Pilot Program.

•

Fellowships could involve one or more of the following: o Reimbursement for Section dues and conference expenses. Fellows could be relieved for a specified time from any Section dues obligation, and could receive complimentary registration and be reimbursed (up to a specified dollar amount) for expenses to attend the Section Spring Meeting and one additional substantive conference per year. The Membership and Diversity committee could consider a requirement that applicants’ whose employers pay for part or all of their ABA dues would not be eligible to receive reimbursement of Section dues to avoid cannibalization of current paying members. o Mentoring. Fellows could be assigned one or more mentors. Mentors could include current members of the Section leadership, volunteers from antitrust agency leadership, and/or former fellows. In order to ensure the success of these fellowships, the Membership and Diversity committee

should actively identify potential fellowship applicants. This could include outreach to non-Section members who meet the fellowship criteria to encourage them to join the Section (possibly benefitting from the already-approved diversity grant) and remain involved in the Section. -20-

We understand that the Section is also updating the Diversity and Inclusion Plan. Part of this plan should include identifying ways to capture data regarding the ethnicity, gender, and other diversity statistics of current Section members. This data would form the foundation for identifying Section members who would be candidates for these fellowships. Finally, Section Chairs should take concerted efforts to appoint existing diverse Section members to leadership positions. ***** February 8, 2016 Respectfully submitted, Long Range Planning Committee Jonathan Jacobson, Chair Patricia Brink Michael Cowie Calvin Goldman Scott Hemphill Neil Imus Howard Morse Richard Parker John Roberti Carl Shapiro Amanda Wait

-21-

To:

Officers & Council, Section of Antitrust Law

From: Deborah A. Garza, Committee Officer Date:

March 18, 2016

Re:

Report to Council, Spring Meeting 2016

1. The committee activity charts attached to this memorandum summarize the extensive activities of our 29 committees, particularly committee programs, over the last several months. From September 3, 2015, up to this year’s Spring Meeting, there have been 107 committee programs and 40 newsletters. This is a slight dip from the prior year, when there were 129 programs and 54 newsletters. This reduction in activity could possibly reflect that our members within and outside government, who give so generously of their time to make these programs and newsletters happen, have been busier in the last several months. We will continue to monitor the level of activity going forward. But I want to note that the quality of the output has been very high, we have seen some really creative programming and ideas for driving membership and increased participation and we have identified some strong new faces for our future leadership. 2. Diane Odom, the Committee Operations team and I worked with the committee’s to update the Committee Brochure, which is available to everyone attending the Spring Meeting. 3. The Corporate Counseling Committee (“CCC”) has proposed an initiative designed to encourage membership and participation in the Section by in-house counsel. The proposal is set forth in the attached memorandum from Jerry Swindell and Derek Ludwin and summarized below. As many of you know, the CCC offers monthly updates for inhouse counsel. A different law firm organizes and presents the program each month. Historically, attendance has exceeded 80 people each month. But last year that number dropped to about half as much. The Committee thinks that happened in part as a result from the shift from a dedicated invite list to Connect and has been working on improving marketing through Connect. But it would also like to encourage attendance by enabling

Officers & Council, Section of Antitrust Law March 28, 2016 Page 2

the sponsoring law firm to invite client in-house counsel to attend and to pay the $25 fee for such in-house counsel who might not belong to the Section. ABA staff have confirmed that they can easily accommodate this by providing a discount code for registrants to use and invoicing the law firm for the $25. The proposal is consistent with our objective of expanding inhouse counsel membership and participation in the Section and with requiring payment for access to the benefits of Section membership. We will be able to track how well it is working. And, if it succeeds, we can think about expanding the approach to other committee programs. Thanks to Jerry, Derek, Adam Biegel, Diane and Joanne for pulling the proposal together. 4. The Committee Operations team and I provided committee evaluations and advice on leadership appointments to Chair-Elect Bill MacLeod. This was an exhaustive effort by John Roberti, Amy Manning, Adam Biegel, and Christie Grymes Thompson.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart March 2, 2016

Advertising Disputes & Litigation (ADL) Committee Chair(s)

Vice Chairs

John E. Villafranco

Jessie Beeber Christopher Cole John Graubert David Mallen Terri Seligman

Leadership

YLR

Members Current period 323

Last period 316

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

RCM

Tiffany Ge

Operations

Christine Sommer

Svetlana Gans

Newsletters Last year 259

Current Period 0

Current Year 0

Plan (Number) Not Specified

Sponsored Programs: Number Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

12

2

16+

23

0

0

9

4

1 0

0 0

1 1

0 0

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Co-Sponsoring Committees

Date

Title

Type

Attendees

9/8/2015

CP, PRIS, Corporate Counseling

Consumer Protection Monthly Update

Committee Program

28

10/13/2015

CP, PRIS, Corporate Counseling

Consumer Protection Monthly Update

Committee Program

28

9/16/2015

10/14/2016 11/10/2015 11/17/2015 12/8/2015

12/14/2015 12/15/2015 1/12/2016 2/2/2016 2/9/2016

2/11/2016 2/25/2016 3/8/2016

CP, PRIS

CP, PRIS

CP, PRIS, Corporate Counseling N/A

CP, PRIS, Corporate Counseling CP

CP, PRIS

CP, PRIS, Corporate Counseling CP

CP, PRIS, Corporate Counseling N/A

CP, PRIS

CP, PRIS, Corporate Counseling

Privacy and Information Security Monthly Update

Privacy and Information Security Monthly Update Consumer Protection Monthly Update

Teleseminar: What's New in Advertising Law, Claim Support and Self-Regulation?: A Recap of NAD's Conference Consumer Protection Monthly Update

The ABA Working Group Report on the Advertising Industry SelfRegulatory System Privacy and Information Security Monthly Update Consumer Protection Monthly Update

Teleseminar: The Role of Surveys in False Advertising and Trademark Litigation Consumer Protection Monthly Update

A Virtual Fireside Chat with the FTC on Native Advertising Privacy and Information Security Monthly Update Consumer Protection Monthly Update

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date TBD

Description of Initiative Law school program to reach out to young attorneys

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program

10

19 25 21 29 3

25 47 56 18 50

TBD TBD

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart March 2, 2016 TBD

ABA Advertising, Consumer Protection, and Privacy Law Networking Happy Hour

Publications Title

Status

“What’s In Store” – Article re NAD’s changes to its procedures following the Self-Regulation Working Group Report

Published

ASRC/NAD Practice Manual

In progress - John Villafranco leading team to discuss options

Consumer Protection in China

CP/ADL Bi-Monthly Update

Symposium on Science, Advertising and the FTC Handbook on Advertising Claim Substantiation

In progress – John Graubert leading team to discuss options Bi-Weekly

In progress – John Graubert leading team to discuss options David Mallen is working with CP Committee; target for publication is summer

Status Last Period Submitted for Publication

In progress – John Graubert leading team to discuss options In progress - John Villafranco leading team to discuss options Bi-weekly In progress – John Graubert leading team to discuss options N/A

Original Date

Current Date

December, 2015

January, 2016

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Ongoing

Ongoing

N/A

March, 2016

N/A

N/A

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review Committee has a plan for and has begun using Connect for committee events, news and sharing of information. So far this year, there are 55 Connect messages posted on ADL’s Connect page.

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart March 2, 2016

Agriculture and Food Committee Chair(s)

Leadership

Vice Chairs

Vandy Howell August Horvath

YLR

Anthony Aaron James Pizzirusso Daniel McInnis

RCM

Adrian Fontecilla

Members

Operations

Steven Cernak

Adam Biegel

Newsletters

Current period

Last period

Last year

Current Period

Current Year

Plan (Number)

222

213

188

1

2

3

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Spring Meeting

Sponsored Programs: Number Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

0

2

3-5

4

7 Submissions

3 Accepted

1

1

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Date 9/2/2015

Co-Sponsoring Committees

Title

Type

Attendees

3 Spring Meeting Panels:

- Taming the Beast – Corporate Counsel Speak

- Marijuana, Twenty-Three States and Counting…

- Technology, Big Data and Juries: What Persuades?

Adrian Fontecilla - “Agriculture & Food Litigation Roundup: Updates and Perspectives on Active Antitrust Cases in the AG and Food Sectors.”

Committee Program /Teleconference

5/19/2016

Bryan Ricchetti – Food Lion Class Action Court Decision

5/2016

Bryna Dahlin has agreed to speak on the marijuana panel – date will be in May.

Committee Program /Teleconference

3/10/2016

(ABA date set) (ABA date set)

Committee Program /Teleconference

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date

Description of Initiative

3/2015

Jamie Pizzirusso reached out to the Diversity Committee to discuss strategies 8/2015 – Call set up with the Diversity Committee on March 8.

9/2015

Chairs/Vice-Chairs reached out to own firm ABA members for interest in Agriculture and Food Committee

10/2015 3/2016

Chair letter to members

Launched Ag & Food Committee Membership Outreach on a larger scale

Publications Title

Status

ALD 8

1st draft submitted

Agriculture and Food Newsletter #2

Working on 2nd newsletter for March 2016 release

Agriculture and Food Newsletter #1

Agriculture and Food Handbook

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

Status Last Period

Original Date

Current Date Feb 2016

Released

10/13/2015

B&T requested changes. Currently expanding and revising key chapters.

Planned release late summer 2016

3/15/2016

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart March 2, 2016 Other Developments Relevant for Council Review A total of 7 installations of “The Afternoon Snack: Recent News in Food & Agriculture” have been posted to the Connect discussion board (3 released this period). Committee Program plans for Summer 2016 - FDA Action and Inaction in Food Litigation - Sell by Dates on Food: Center for Food Integrity

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2015

Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee Chair(s)

Mark Rosman

Leadership

Vice Chairs

Members As of today

As of your last report

731

712

YLR

Michelle M. Burtis Joyce E. Choi Alan R. Dial Stacy E. Frazier Adam C. Hemlock Randal T. Hughes J. Brent Justus Roberta D. Liebenberg John F. Terzaken

RCM

Milosz Gudzowski

Newsletters As of the beginning of the ABA year 693

Since your first report 2

Since the beginning of the ABA year 2

List Serv/Blog Messages No. in Annual Plan

As of today

As of your last report

As of the beginning of the ABA year

3

17

9

9

Sponsored Programs: Number

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

Since the beginning of the ABA year

Upcoming/ Scheduled

No. in Annual Plan

9 0

1

N/A

1

9+

2

1

0

Operations

Hill B. Wellford

2

1 2

During the last ABA year 8 2 1 1

Sponsored Programs: Description Since 9/3/15 Co-Sponsoring Committees

Date September 21, 2015 September 22, 2015

October 26, 2015

---

Legislation

November 2015

--

November 20, 2015

--

November 19, 2015 November 30, 2015 December 17, 2015

--

Compliance and Ethics Insurance and Financial Services

February 18. 2016

Title

Type

Attendees

Navigating the Globe – Cartel Enforcement Around the World: UK update

Committee

30

Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act (ACPERA): An Insider's Perspective on the First Ten Years and Beyond

Committee

16

Extradition and Antitrust: Where Are We Now?

Committee

Bi-Monthly Criminal Antitrust Enforcement Update

Committee

Ask Me Anything About... Cartel Investigations in Latin America

Committee

Hot Topics in Antitrust and Criminal Enforcement

Cartel Facilitators: When Vertical Conduct Crosses over to Horizontal Liability Bi-Monthly Cartel and Criminal Practice Update Bi-Monthly Cartel and Criminal Practice Update

February 3-5, 2016 March 2016 May 2016 April 2016

41

Committee

49

Committee Committee

Description of Initiative Recruitment of International Attorneys: Reach out to international attorneys at ABA/IBA International Cartel Workshop in Tokyo Recuirtment of International Attorneys: Joint CBA (Canadian Bar Association) and CCP programs Examining recruitment of law students

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

--

Committee

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date

41

11

27 33

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2015 June 2016

Outreach to Women’s Antitrust Organization and Cartel Enforcement Group

Publications Title

Status as of today

Status as of your last report

International Criminal Cartel Handbook

In Process

In Process

ALD 2015 Annual Review

3rd Draft Submitted

In Process

Sentencing/Leniency Handbook

Finalizing Draft

In Process

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

Original Pub. Date May 2016 October 2015 January 2016

Current Antic. Pub. Date

May 2016 December 2015 January 2016

-- Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee Newsletter for Fall 2015

-- Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee Newsletter for upcoming Spring 2016

-- Updating Connect and committee website with new updates (DOJ organizational chart, jury instructions, and investigation information)

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart March 2, 2016

Civil Practice & Procedure Chair(s)

Leadership

Vice Chairs

Elizabeth A.N. Haas Tiffany Rider

Ian R. Conner Danielle Haugland Paul Saint-Antoine Kathleen P. Wallace Ronald F. Wick Eric J. Wilson

YLR

Members Current period 536

Last period 571

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

Last year 590

RCM

Erica Weisgerber

12/1/15

12/11/15

12/16/15

Co-Sponsoring Committees

Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals; Federal Civil Enforcement

Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals; State Enforcement; Intellectual Property

2/24/16

Current Period 3

Current Year 4

Plan (Number) 5

Sponsored Programs: Number Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

6

4

10

8

1

15 proposed; 1 accepted

3 approved

1

1 1

1

Title

3/15/16 3/15/16 5/15/16

Product Hopping Cases: Where Are We and Where Are We Headed

Committee

So Now You’ve Pleaded Guilty: Implications of Criminal Pleas in Civil Litigation

Committee

The DOJ Amnesty Program After The Yates Memo

Membership and Diversity

Women in Antitrust Litigation Reception (Chicago)

Prior:

Error! Unknown document property name.

Type Committee

Cartel and Criminal Practice Healthcare and Pharmaceuticals

1

The Steris-Synergy Case: A Post Mortem

Litigating Within the Commission: Part III Litigation at the FTC

3/4/16

Adam Biegel

Newsletters

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Date

Operations

Sean P. Gates

Where are we on Class Certification? Examples from Health Care and Pharmaceutical Cases

Class Action Fundamentals for Antitrust Litigators

Committee Committee Committee Town Hall

Committee

Attendees 45 attendees (60 registered) 68 attendees 46 attendees( 65 registered) No numbers available yet

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart March 2, 2016

11/9/15

Fall Panel & Reception – Be the Boss: Making it Rain

9/17/15 3/16/15 3/9/15 2/2/15

Membership and Diversity Committee

Town Hall

25 (39 preregistered)

Playing eDisco Ball with the Agencies…Do You know the Rules?

Committee

27

Women in Antitrust Litigation

Committee

29 attendees

So The Agency Wants to Talk: Advice and Issues in PreComplaint Depositions

Get Up, Stand Up: Preparing For Your First Oral Argument

Committee

Committee

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date

47 dialed in

21 dialed in (48 preregistered)

Description of Initiative We have a significant focus on diversity and discuss at each of our monthly calls how to attract diverse members. When planning content generated by the committee, we focus on outreach to diverse groups to ensure we can attract diverse members. We actively solicit participation of diverse members in Committee activities. Each vicechair responsible for each Committee activity will ensure that a diverse cross-section of the Section is involved. We are focusing on further exposure of our committee to attract more members. Each vice-chair responsible for each Committee activity/publication will identify other committees in which its members may have an interest in our activity/publication and ask the leadership of the appropriate committee to share it with its members.

Publications

Title

Status

The Indirect Purchaser Litigation Handbook Obtaining Discovery Abroad Jury Instruction Handbook

Antitrust Law Developments, Eighth Edition

Published.

Revised 4 chapters and submitted to International Committee.

Completed revisions and awaiting further feedback. Has a full slate of drafters and chapters submitted for review.

Status Last Period Complete. Submitted to ABA Publishing November 2015. Editing phase. Danielle just edited a chapter on obtaining discovery from Italy. Assisting on as needed basis

Original Date

Current Date

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review The Committee formed the Young Lawyers Advisory Panel (“YLAP”) in 2012 with a pair of goals: (1) filling the void in legal writing between rapid-fire client alerts and more inscrutable law review articles; and (2) providing meaningful opportunities for young antitrust lawyers to show off their writing mettle. The panel, consisting of 25 members, published a monthly e-bulletin newsletter entitled “Perspectives in Antitrust” beginning in December 2012. We have continued the “Perspective in Antitrust” Newsletter in 2015-2016. We are continuing to create a pipeline active members by giving further opportunities to YLAP members within committee programs.

Error! Unknown document property name.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2015

Competition Torts Committee Leadership

Chair(s) Matthew Kent Nick Grimmer

Vice Chairs Angelo M Russo Dean Harvey Rachel Adcox

YLR

Members Current period 283

Operations Christie Grymes Thompson

Newsletters

Last period 280

RCM Alfred C. Pfeiffer

Marc Tobak

Last year 274

Current Year 1

Prior Year 4

Plan (Number) 3

Sponsored Programs: Number Type Committee Prog. Town Hall Spring Meeting

Completed 2 0 0

Scheduled 2 0 2

Annual Plan 6 0 11 (Proposed)

Prior Year 0 1 1

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Date 8/24/2015 12/15/201 5

Co-Sponsoring Committees Young Lawyers Division

Title

None

Type

Attendees

Preparing for an Antitrust Trial as an Associate

Committee Program

43

Multistate Indirect Purchaser Class Actions: Using Consumer Protection Statutes to Hurdle the Illinois Brick Wall

Committee Program

24

Sponsored Programs: Description (Planned) Date

Co-Sponsoring Committees

Spring Meeting Spring Meeting

Compliance & Ethics

Title

Type

Attendees

Private Jury Trials: Reality or Reality TV? (R. Adcox)

Spring Meeting Program Spring Meeting Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Programs Committee Program Committee Program

TBD

Committee Program

TBD

Rules of Conflicts: Considerations for Antitrust Practitioners

4/2016

Non-Competes: State By State (D. Harvey)

4/2016

Health Care & RICO (A. Russo)

5/2016

Class Certification Developments (D. Harvey)

5/2016

ACPERA/RICO Update (M. Kent)

6/2016

Litigating with the Agencies (M. Kent)

7/2016

One of the rejected Spring Meeting proposals

TBD

TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date

Description of Initiative

Ongoing

Recruiting Diverse Panelists. Our 2015 Spring Meeting programs had both minority and female speakers. We are committed to seeking out diverse speakers for future programs.

Ongoing

Encouraging Diverse Leadership. Women and LGBT attorneys occupy leadership positions in our Committee, both at the Chair and Vice Chair level. Our Vice-Chairs also represent a cross section of the antitrust bar, including attorneys from plaintiffs and defense firms.

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2015

Publications Title

Status In progress In progress

Competition Torts News RICO State by State

Status Last Period (3 issues per year)

Original Date 11/2015

Current Date

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review Our Committee is working with Books & Treatises on the third edition of the “RICO State by State” publication. Our Committee is submitted its long-range plan for council review and approval.

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

3/2016

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart

Committee Name Leadership

Chair(s)

Vice Chairs

Anita Banicevic Doug Tween

YLR

RCM

Jacquelyn Stanley

Holden Brooks Jason Dubner

Operations

Subrata Bhattacharjee

Christie Thompson

Thomas Lang Michele Lee Dorothy Raymond Deborah Salzberger

Members Current period 321

Newsletters

Last period 305

Last year 261

Current Period 1

Current Year 1

Sponsored Programs: Number

Plan (Number) 3

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar

Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

Town Hall Spring Meeting

4 1

2

7

5

2

2

2

1

0

1

2

1 4

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Date

Co-Sponsoring Committees

1/20/16:

Corporate Counseling

1/27/16:

CBA Mergers

1/28/16:

N/A

2/10/16:

N/A

Title

Type

Attendees

How to Maximize the Effectiveness of Your Antitrust Compliance Program:

Brown-Bag

28

Committee Town Hall

Town Hall

7

Competitive Intelligence Sources and Methods for Antitrust Lawyers

Brown-Bag

38

Due Diligence – Cross Border Compliance Considerations

Brown-Bag

81

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date

Description of Initiative Recruiting Diverse Authors. Efforts are continually made to recruit authors for newsletters that are diverse. As an example, our fall newsletter contained four articles, two of them authored by women. Encouraging Diverse Leadership. Women occupy leadership positions in our Committee, both at the Chair and Vice Chair level. Our Vice-Chairs also represent a cross section of the antitrust bar; we have outside counsel and in-house counsel. Recruiting Diverse Panelists. Our programs have included both minority and female speakers. We are committed to seeking out diverse speakers for future programs.

• • •

Publications

Title

Status

Antitrust Compliance: Perspectives and Resources for Corporate Counsellors

Still under way (working with Corporate Counselling Committee)

Status Last Period Under way

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

The next edition of our newsletter is being formatted and will be circulated prior to the Spring Meeting.

Tor#: 3313298.1

Original Date

Current Date

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart

Consumer Protection Committee Chair(s)

Vice Chairs

Svetlana Gans Trish Conners

Leadership

YLR

Dan Blynn Kathryn Farrara Nancy Felsten Michelle Christian Harvey Saferstein Sean Royall

Members Current period 508

Last period 517

RCM

Kenzie Rakes

Christine Thompson

Newsletters Last year

Current Period 1

Current Year 1

Plan (Number) 0*

Sponsored Programs: Number

Type Committee Prog.

Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

Teleseminar Town Hall

19 1

3

8 plus CP updates

15

1

Spring Meeting

9

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Date

Operations

Seth Silber

Co-Sponsoring Committees

1

9 (including law school programming) 8

Title

Type

Attendees

12/8/15

PRIS, ADL

Consumer Protection Update

Call

25

1/20/16

MT

Can you Hear Me Now – TSR, TCPA, and DNC Update from Regulators

Call

54

1/12/16 2/9/16

2/11/16

PRIS, ADL PRIS, ADL

2/10/16

State

2/29/16

State

2/25/16 3/8/16

Consumer Protection Update Consumer Protection Update

A Virtual Fireside Chat with FTC on Native Advertising Thou Shalt Not Steal – Criminal Issues in CP Cases

PRIS

Privacy & Information Security Update

PRIS, ADL

Debt Collection: Recent Developments & Best Practices Consumer Protection Update

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts

Date

Call

29

Call

18

Call

50

Call Call Call Call

Description of Initiative See below for initiatives

Publications Title

Claims Substantiation Handbook Bi-Weekly CP/ADL Developments Update

Bi-Weekly Federal Enforcement Developments Update (new feature – now capturing FTC and CFPB non-litigation developments, looking to capture International & DOJ (Consumer Protection Branch) Bi-Weekly State Enforcement Developments *What’s in Store Newsletter

(*we took it out of our annual plan because we were going to work on the stand-alone publication instead. Given the timeline however, we decided to AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

Status

Delayed; to B&T, December 2015 Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly Bi-Weekly

Second publication will be ready by Spring Meeting

Status Last Period This is again delayed – B&T has received all but a few chapters. Working with project chair to get the book finalized.

Original Date

Current Date Summer/ Fall 2016

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart add the Newsletter back in our repertoire in the meantime.)

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

We are not repeating here our past, completed initiatives/developments discussed in the previous Committee Charts, such as the CP Long-Range Plan and the Section Long-Range plan. We discuss current initiatives below, with updates as of March 1 in blue font. 1. Chairing working group on stand-alone CP publication. March update: discussions are ongoing given staffing constraints with current Section periodicals. 2. Revamping newsletter to include federal and state enforcement columns; December update – we expect the newsletter to issue this month and it will include federal and state enforcement columns. March update – December issue completed. Our second publication will be ready by Spring Meeting, featuring the FTC Chairwoman as the lead article and the State Enforcement column featuring Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. We have 5 solid articles, including a law student-written article and a plaintiff-attorney written article concerning damages. 3. Developing International working group with ITF and International Committee; December update: had first call November 2015 and are planning to do a joint program with (1) GALA on international food regulation and with (2) Compliance & Ethics on Canadian advertising law. March update – we have been busy on other matters this quarter but will be in discussions with GALA and our International Committee colleagues rd concerning co-sponsorship in the 3 quarter. 4. Developing Law School working group (focusing on CP professors) to continue to offer Why CP programs to a wider array of law students. March update –We have been approved for a Why CP Networking Event to be held June 21 in D.C. at Hunton & Williams. Young lawyers, law clerks, law students, government and private firm interns at area law firms and agencies will be invited to attend an afternoon panel discussion followed by a reception. We are also working with the Membership Committee to combine the Why CP and the Why Antitrust programming or at least obtain the Why Antitrust? established contacts so we can get Why CP programming off the ground more consistently. In addition, we are working with the State Enforcement Committee to sponsor a stand-alone program in Tennessee to cover both Antitrust and CP issues. 5. Working to expand under-represented groups, including state bar, West Coast attorneys, in-house counsel, law schools & students, and international through various working groups. March update: we have accomplished the following this quarter: (1) new state officials have come on board to help with the bi-weekly state updates; (2) an in-house counsel at Dell is now assisting us with the bi-weekly Federal Updates; (3) our in-house working group has expanded in membership and we are now working on proposal for an In-House Counsel CP FAQ book, similar to what we have on the antitrust-side; (4) we are working with Membership to identify additional opportunities to expand the Public Service Initiative. Specifically, we’d like to expand it to reach the CFPB and other agencies were also discussed; (5) we have tried to sponsor a stand-alone in-person event with the LA County Bar Association but did not receive approval. We would like to explore additional opportunities to work with the LA County Bar or other Bar associations in California to expand our West-Coast presence, given their solid CP work. 6. Additional State Outreach: December update: We followed up on the state CP Networking Event by sending a group email to the attendees with info on how to take advantage of the NAAG group membership...at least some of those 8 new members should be State Enforcers. March update: We had a very successful event in conjunction with the NAAG Consumer Protection conference in November. We have followed that up with emails through the NAAG listserv marketing membership. We also share all programming announcements now regularly through the NAAG listserv (the result has been that there appears to be increased attendance on our teleconferences by state enforcers), including just recently an email listing the Spring meeting CP track line-up and encouraging state CP enforcers to attend. The Networking event to be held at the bookstore during the Spring meeting will also be marketed directly to state enforcers. 7. International Outreach: March update: working with ITF on comments to Chinese Competition Law relating to CP issues. 8. Other Outreach: March update: we now have another individual, from a small non-profit, helping with outreach on the consumer financial practices side. He is working to identify key issues we should highlight in committee programs. We have also reached out to the Federal Communications Bar Association and the Sports & Entertainment Section of the ABA on separate programs of mutual membership interest. 9. Other Initiatives: March update: as new member benefit, we are, on the first of the month, sending our members a list of last month’s programs with links to all audio. Our target audience is in-house counsel but we hope all members take advantage of our programming.

10. Our plan is to transition to Connect, but we want to get our committee off the ground first, given new leadership. We aim to transition in early 2016.

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart for December 1, 2015 to February 29, 2016 Period

Corporate Counseling Committee Chair(s)

Leadership

Vice Chairs

Jerry Swindell Derek Ludwin

Members Current period 597

YLR

Kathy Beasley, Joel Cohen, Rani Habash, Elai Katz, Sara Walsh

RCM

Melissa Whitehead

Newsletters

Last period

Last year 639

633

Current Year 2

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

Prior Year 4

Adam Biegel

Connect/List Serv/ Blog Messages Plan (Number) 4

Sponsored Programs: Number

Current period 35C/0/0

Current Year 69C/0/0

Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

9

2

12

12

TBD

2

2

2 (sponsor) 1 (cosponsor)

0

0

0

0

0

0

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Date

Operations

Gail Levine

Co-Sponsoring Committees

Title

Last Year (8/14-7/15) 83C/7LS

1 1

Type

Attendees

12/8/15

Consumer Protection

Consumer Protection Update (co-sponsored)

Committee

29

1/12/16

Consumer Protection

Consumer Protection Update (co-sponsored)

Committee

47

12/9/15 1/19/16

1/20/16

N/A N/A

Compliance & Ethics

2/2/16

Pricing Conduct

2/9/16

N/A

2/9/16

Consumer Protection

November Antitrust Update for In-House Counsel December Antitrust Update for In-House Counsel

Committee

How to Maximize the Effectiveness of Your Antitrust Compliance Committee Program: Practical Considerations for Design, Resource Allocation, and Implementation

29 28 80

Woodman's Food v. Clorox: Does Package Size Constitute a Promotional Service under the Robinson Patman Act? (cosponsored)

Committee

37

Consumer Protection Update (co-sponsored)

Committee Committee

37

January Antitrust Update for In-House Counsel

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts

Date Ongoing

Committee

18

Description of Initiative We have enlisted a vice-chair to have responsibility for membership efforts, including follow-up from CCC events, collaborating with the Membership Committee and Section Staff, and developing membership initiatives. The focus of these efforts is on increased participation of in-house counsel in CCC activities. Publications

Title The Antitrust Counselor Antitrust Compliance Book

Status In production

Updated proposal in Draft

Status Last Period N/A Proposal in Draft

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

Original Date

Current Date

Spring 2015

3/17/16 Updated Proposal TBD 2016

N/A

As reported in June 2015, and as further discussed with Anthony Chavez and staff over the past two months, we are working to significantly enhance audience participation in the Monthly Update For In -House Counsel in the absence of the previously-used direct listserv messages. We plan continued work with our Advisory Board to elicit increased participation of in-house counsel in Committee programming.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart

Distribution & Franchising 3/2/16

Chair(s)

Leadership

Alicia Downey

Vice Chairs

YLR

Craig Falls Celeste Saravia Joy Fuyuno Jeff White Kati Robson

Melanie Hallas

Members Current period 396

RCM

Operations

Paula Martucci

Amy Manning

Newsletters

Last period

Last year 381

399

Current Period 1 (in process)

Current Year 0

Plan (Number) 3

Sponsored Programs: Number

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar (CLE) Town Hall Spring Meeting

Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

1

0

3

5

-

1 (D&F Primary sponsor) 2 (D&F cosponsor)

4 proposed/D&F as primary sponsor; 6 proposed/ D&F as cosponsor

2

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

0

Sponsored Programs: Description Date 2/18/16

Co-Sponsoring Committees n/a

Title

Type

RPM and Other Distribution Issues in Asia (9 p.m. EST)

Committee

Attendees 8

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date

Description of Initiative Ongoing practice of ensuring speaker diversity on Committee and Spring Meeting Committee-sponsored program panels.

Publications

Title

Status

The Law and Economics of Product Distribution

Pocket Guide to Distribution and Franchising Issues (f/k/a Thumbnail Guide to Distribution Antitrust Cases)

B&T review

Vice chairs overseeing this project are drafting a sample segment for authors to use as a template

Status Last Period B&T review Topic outline done, along with written plan for creating more practical, user-friendly content

Original Date 12/2014

Current Date

unknown 7/2016

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

Bimonthly e-bulletin, Up the Downstream, was published in early January; next edition will issue by end of March. The Chair posted a call for articles on Connect.

We held regular Monthly leadership calls held in December, January, and February.

We anticipate that the Spring Meeting program proposals that were not accepted will be calendared as committee programs in the coming months. The newsletter is in the final stages of editing and should issue soon.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2015

Economics Committee Chair(s)

Leadership

Vice Chairs

Donald Stockdale Joanna Tsai

Cani Fernandez Matthew Hall James Langenfeld Deena Jo Schneider

Members Current period 586

RCM

Last year 534

Current Year 1

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

Prior Year 1

Operations

Sean Gates

Newsletters

Last period 587

YLR

Robert McNary Michael Kheyfets (Economist)

Adam Biegel

ListServ/Blog Messages Plan (Number) 2

Sponsored Programs: Number

Current period 18

Current Year 23

12/10/15

Co-Sponsoring Committees

12/14/15

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

4

4

8

10

0

0

1

3

0 1

Title

Type

2/8/16

Committee Program

37

A Session with the Chief Economist of the EU Commission DG Comp

Committee Program

55

Economic Issues Raised in the Comcast-Time Warner Cable Merger.

2/16/16

Co-Sponsored: Defendant’s Analysis of the Profitability of Price Increases and the Detection of Collusion

3/10/16

Attendees

Co-Sponsored: Implications of Sixth Circuit’s Collins Inkjet Corp. v. Eastman Kodak Co. Decision Fundamentals of Antitrust Economics Series: Market Definition

1/11/16

15

Compl.

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Date

Last Year

Fundamentals of Antitrust Economics Series: Market Power

Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program

80

53 33

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date Ongoing

Description of Initiative We periodically seek volunteers from our list of members for various projects, including programs, publications, and newsletters. We also work to put together diverse panels for all our programs.

Publications Title ALD Chapter 6 – Annual Update

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

Status Final Draft has been submitted as required.

Status Last Period Monthly drafts have been submitted as required.

Original Date

Current Date

Spring 2016

Spring 2016

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2015

ALD 8th Edition

Distribution Handbook

Proving Antitrust Damages

Outline of proposed substantial revision of ALD 7 given B&T on Nov. 29. First draft received on Jan. 24 and extensive comments provided. Awaiting next draft to review and submit to B&T.

None

Spring 2017

Spring 2017

Sent new draft to B&T committee on 12/4/15., received comments back on 2/3/16, next draft to B&T by 3/14/16.

Implementing suggested edits from B&T committee

Spring 2014

Spring 2016 (?).

Editors are reviewing authors’ responses to Council edits and comments. New draft expect to be delivered to Council by third week in March.

Council has reviewed the manuscript but noted that the citations are outdated and need to be updated. Tasneem Chipty, editor of the book, has assessed the situation and expects the necessary revision to be completed by March 2016.

Spring 2015

?

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

The ABA Board of Directors have approved the Economic Research Grant in the amount of $15,000 per year for the next three fiscal years. Marketing materials for the program have been posted and circulated to solicit proposals for the grant. We have received a number of emails and questions from interested applicants, and we expect to receive a number of proposals for the grant by the end of February.

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2016

Exemptions & Immunities Committee Chair(s)

Vice Chairs

Layne E. Kruse

Leadership

Members* Current Period 244

Last Period 241

YLR

Vittorio Cottafavi Stephen M. Medlock Charles C. Moore Katherine S. Phillips

RCM

Todd Hutchison

Current Period 0

218

Current Year 2

Plan (Number) 3

Sponsored Programs: Number

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

Since the beginning of the ABA year

Current Period 7

Upcoming/ Scheduled

No. in Annual Plan

1

3

3

Two are set for Spring Meeting

2 (one main sponsored and one cosponsored)

2

0

Amy Manning

List Serv/Blog Messages**

Newsletters Last Year

Operations

Arthur J. Burke

0

0 0

Current Year 30

Last Year 35

During the last ABA year 4 0 0 1

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Co-Sponsoring Committees

Date 03/01/16 03/07/16 03/09/16

Title

State Enforcement and Exemptions and Immunity, and Legislation

State Action Immunity Update

State Enforcement and Exemptions

NC Dental One Year Later: Implications for regulating the sharing economy?

Exemptions

Developments in Noerr-Pennington

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date Ongoing

49760342.1

Description of Initiative Vice Chair is coordinating with Membership and Diversity Committee

Type

Attendees 81

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2016 * Member counts are taken from CONNECT. ** Current period and current year numbers reflect posts (including updates to original posts) on CONNECT Bulletin Board. Publications

Title

Status as of today

2015 Review of Antitrust Law Developments: Chapter 13 (General Exemptions and Immunities) & Chapter 14.H (Organized Labor) State Action Practice Manual (3d edition) ALD8 (revisions to the same key areas as are in the Annual Review) E&I Update Newsletter

ALD Annual Review is progressing. Exemptions & Immunities Committee to receive in February 2016 for final review. We have reached out to our authors. Started drafting and certain parts have been turned in. Expected three editions; fall edition published.

Status as of your last report Kate Phillips is in charge and she has three primary drafters and has completed her great work.. Vittorio Cottafavi is in charge of this project.

Books & Treatises signed off on our book proposal on 3/3/15. Stephen Medlock is project leader

Charles Moore, editor; Todd Hutchison; asst. editor

Original Pub. Date

Current Antic. Pub. Date

January 2016

2016

Later in 2016

2017 2015 – 16

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

Steve Medlock represented ABA E&I Committee in October 2015 at meeting with Japanese Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) representative who requested meeting with private attorneys to discuss shipping exemption; this was at the request of the Section Chair We officially announced our move to CONNECT on our list-serv on 5/7/15.

We continue to monitor and report on legislative developments in the exemptions area. In particular, we have discussed with the Legislative Committee a committee program for after the Spring Meeting on the possible legislation to reverse the impact of NC Dental. .

49760342.1

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart December 1, 2015

Federal Civil Enforcement Committee Chair(s)

Vice Chairs

Paula Render

Leadership

Members As of today

As of your last report

418

433

YLR

Shylah Alfonso Elinor Hoffmann Randall Weinstein Jeffrey Jacobovitz Carla Hine Joshua Soven

RCM

Justin Bernick

Newsletters

As of the beginning of the ABA year 377

Since your first report 1

Since the beginning of the ABA year 1

Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

Adam Biegel

List Serv/Blog Messages No. in Annual Plan

As of today

As of your last report

As of the beginning of the ABA year

3

19

11

0

Sponsored Programs: Number

Type

Operations

Hill Wellford

Since the beginning of the ABA year

Upcoming/ Scheduled

No. in Annual Plan

7

2

8

8

0

3

2

3

*sponsored/co-sponsored

0

0

0

0

1 0

During the last ABA year 1 0

Sponsored Programs: Description Since 9/1/15 Date

Co-Sponsoring Committees

2/1/16

Unilateral Conduct

Title

Type

Attendees

U.S. v. United Airlines

Cmte Prgrm

74

1/14/16

HSR: Back to Basics (Teleseminar)

Cmte Prgrm

90

12/8/15

Modification of Consent Decrees: The BMI/ASCAP decree and effects on competition

Cmte Prgrm

30

12/3/15

Membership and Diversity

FTC Speed Networking Happy Hour

Cmte Prgrm

30

12/2/15

Intellectual Property, Media and Technology

The 1995 Licensing Guidelines Twenty Years Later: A Discussion with Agency Leadership

Cmte Prgrm

51

“Nuts and Bolts” of Responding to a Governmental Second Request

Cmte Prgrm

58

The FTC’s New Section Policy Statement: A Step Forward?

Cmte Prgrm

37

10/29/15 9/9/15

Media/Tech

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date Ongoing 4/28?

Description of Initiative Vice-chair in charge of membership and diversity working with diversity committee Upcoming: Networking with DOJ

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart December 1, 2015 Publications Title ALD Update ALD8

DOJ Practice Manual, revised edition FCE Newsletter

Status as of today Last draft submitted on schedule (2/12/16) First draft submitted on schedule (2/11/16) In progress. Next edition 3/16

Status as of your last report January draft about to be submitted Team identified, waiting to begin In progress. November 2016

Original Pub. Date

Current Antic. Pub. Date

Spr ‘16

Spr ‘16

2018

2018

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

9/2015: Recruited volunteers to assist with ABA comments on review of consent decree in BMI Music case 9-10/2015: Evaluating how to improve use of Connect and ABA website, and updating both

2/15/16: Most recent “Round-Ups” published to listserve and Connect (summary of recent events and developments at the agencies). We continue to publish these approximately twice a month.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart

Global Private Litigation Committee Chair(s) Leadership

Vice Chairs

Bruce Simon Jeffrey LeVee

Gregory P. Hansel Jon Lawrence Melissa H. Maxman Hollis L. Salzman Judith Zahid

YLR

Members Current period (Aug. – Aug.)

Last year

152

Unknown

Current Period (Aug. – Aug.) 1 (Aug. 2015)

Current Year

Plan (Number)

None in 2016 yet

3 additional (Mar. 2016, April 2016 & summer 2016)

Sponsored Programs: Number Type Telephonic Committee Prog. Teleseminar

Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

1

2

2

2

Town Hall Spring Meeting

0

0

0

1

0 0

0 2

0 0

Sponsored Programs: Description (Current period) Date 10/30/15 4/6/16

Operations

Subrata Bhattacharjee Backup: John Roberti

Fiona A. Schaeffer

Newsletters

Last period

175

RCM

Meegan Hollywood

Co-Sponsoring Committees

International Committee None

4/6/16

None

4/26/16

None

5/9/16

None

Title Brazil’s Piece of the Global Private Antitrust Enforcement Puzzle

0 4

Type

Attendees

Telephonic Program

60

GLOBAL PRIVATE SETTLEMENTS: PREFERRED PATHS TO RESOLUTION?

Spring Meeting

Unknown

"Strictly confidential": Hot topics in discovery and confidentiality in European private antitrust litigation

Telephonic Committee Program

Unknown

DOES CRIME PAY?

Telephonic Committee Program

Unknown

SIMPLIFYING EXPERT EVIDENCE TO ACHIEVE BETTER RESULTS

Legal cases worldwide require courts to make merits decisions about competing economic experts. The size and complexity of expert reports, which inevitably include regression analyses, present difficult case management issues. Join a federal judge, international practitioners and an economic expert in exploring ways to make experts more user-friendly in the U.S. and internationally. As private enforcement regimes develop, resolving disputes efficiently and effectively is of increasing interest. Claimants want compensation without undue delay or cost. Defendants want to quantify and crystallize liability and move on. Experienced litigators will discuss how international settlements play out, focusing on driving factors, pathways, timing, impediments, and favorable outcomes.

Three eminent European panelists will discuss discovery and the treatment of confidential information in private antitrust litigation. The focus of this session will be on highly anticipated case-law and legislative developments in Europe. The panelists will consider the status of the implementation of discovery provisions in the EU Antitrust Damages Directive, while also examining: (i) recent European and Member State case-law developments concerning, in particular, access to European Commission Decisions and the Commission case-file; and (ii) other protections applied to confidential and privileged information in European Member States A global panel of practitioners will examine past and projected profits of hard-core cartels and evaluate (debate) the ex post deterrence power of current monetary penalties and recoveries

Spring Meeting

Unknown

10335730.1

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart to inform ongoing enforcement efforts in the US, EU, and the rest of the world.

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date Ongoing Ongoing

Description of Initiative The Committee is working with WAPA to garner diverse participation.

A Committee member is actively working with the Diversity Committee.

Publications Title Update to the Class Actions Handbook (cosponsored with the Trial Practice Committee)

Status

Status Last Period

The Council approved this book proposal in June 2015. Second drafts are due in March and we will have all but one in on schedule. The last chapter will be in on 3/14/16. We then need to edit and get the chapters to Book & Treatises. The target publishing date is still November 2016.

The Council approved this book proposal approved in June 2015. We have received the first drafts of all of the Chapters and have edited about half of them and gotten them back to the authors; the other half should be back to the authors in January. Second drafts are due in March and the target publishing date is still November 2016.

Original Date

Current Date

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

Connect Blogging Project: Committee members have volunteered to participate in a two-week "posting" rotation and commit to posting recent news articles, or writing short summaries of recent developments on international private litigation issues. The project is designed to keep committee members engaged and aware of recent developments in international private enforcement, and also to invite committee members to become more active participants in the committee. The project began in July 2014, and we will have volunteers committed to the project for 2016. Joint Program with Law Schools: The first of the joint programs was completed at UC Hastings College of the Law on March 3, 2015. We are in the process of trying to schedule another program for the fall of 2016.

Young Lawyer and International Outreach Programs: The committee seeks to expand the membership of the Section among young lawyers and international lawyers through a variety of outreach initiatives. In addition, the Committee leadership would be willing to participate in the Section’s mentor program for foreign officials at the Spring Meeting. Plaintiffs Writing “Bench”: The Committee created a group of writers for section publications who are engaged in the practice of plaintiffs’ antitrust litigation to further advance the section’s outreach program. NAI-1500755842v1

10335730.1

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart March 2, 2016

Health Care and Pharmaceuticals Committee Chair(s)

Vice Chairs

Jeff Brennan Philip Nelson

Leadership

Patrick English Michael Gleason Amy Paul Lauren Rackow Anthony Swisher Nick Widnell

YLR

Members Current period 624

Last period 658

Last year 595

RCM

Brad Howells

Town Hall Spring Meeting

John Roberti

Newsletters Current Period 1

Current Year 2

Sponsored Programs: Number Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar

Operations

Seth Silber

Plan (Number) 4 [Note: Only includes Chronicle. We also have “Recent Developments” that is bimonthly and a Weekly “Week in Review”]

Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

10

3

12+

23

Submitted 10 proposals; also co-sponsored 8

Not under our control so no number

May 12-13 0

2 proposals accepted and speakers contacted

1 (Bi-Annual Antitrust Healthcare Conference) 0

1 0

0 0

1, plus 2 cosponsored

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Date

Co-Sponsoring Committees

Title

9/9/15

None

Recent Antitrust Developments in the Health Care & Pharmaceuticals Markets: July & August 2015 Update

10/20/15

Membership & Diversity Committee

The FTC's New Section 5 Policy Statement: A Step Forward? Networking Event

10/22/15

None

International Antitrust Developments in Health Care & Pharmaceuticals: March through September 2015

10/29/15

M&A Committee

Structural and Behavioral Remedies in Pharmaceutical Mergers: EU vs. US

12/1/15

Civil Practice & Procedures; Federal Civil Enforcement

The Steris-Synergy Case: A Post Mortem

None

Hot Topics in Federal FCA and Anti-kickback Cases

9/18/15

11/24/15

12/11/15 1/13/ 15

Insurance and Financial Services Committee

Health Insurance Mergers: What Will the Industry Look Like After Aetna/Humana and Anthem/Cigna?

None

Recent Antitrust Developments in the Health Care & Pharmaceuticals Markets: September and October Update

Civil Practice & Procedures; State Enforcement, Intellectual Property

Product Hopping Cases: Where are we and where are we headed?

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

Type

Attendees

Committee Program

15

Committee Program/

57

Committee Program

28

Committee Program

35

Committee Program

45 (plus in person)

Committee Program

Networking Event

Committee Program

Committee Program Committee Program

82

9

68 (plus 14 in person) 43 (plus in person)

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart March 2, 2016 Date 1/27/15

Co-Sponsoring Committees

None

Title

Type

Recent Antitrust Developments in Health Care and Pharmaceuticals Markets: November and December

Committee Program

Attendees 27

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date October November Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing Ongoing

Description of Initiative October: completed setting up a Zoomerang survey of members with help of JulianWiley November: distributed survey and collected and analyzed responses.

Each of our committee publications has at least one female editor

We always have at least one woman on each committee program panel, as well often having a government lawyer or economist. At our committee programs and in the Chronicle, we advertise our activities and encourage people to contact us. This outreach continues to bring out new volunteers. We have an ongoing effort to identify and contact by email “in-house” counsel at pharmaceutical companies and other health care industry in an effort to solicit their support. We spent considerable time developing email lists and then emailing them a letter from the co-chairs that described what we do and attached illustrative newsletters.

Publications Title

Status

Health Care Mergers and Acquisitions Handbook

Have recruited new authors; have continued to turn over new chapters

Pharmaceutical Industry Handbook

Antitrust Health Care Handbook

Antitrust Law Developments-2015 Annual Update

Antitrust Law Developments-8th Edition

Received unexpected edits from B&T. Have revised Appendix and hope to revise footnotes by March 7th

Working on revisions of first 4 chapters; preparing to submit other chapters to B&T to be edited

Completed chapter (waiting for any further requests) Have started drafting Chapter

Status Last Period Submit to B&T in what believe is final form (Vice Chair Gleason working with former Vice Chair Knight) Turned over some draft chapters. Recruiting authors to replace authors that dropped out. Finishing other chapters. Sent in edited versions of first 4 chapters to B&T; other chapters being edited Have submitted revised and updated drafts; moving along on schedule Have assembled team of people to work on this

Original Date

Current Date

Spring 2015

April, 2016

June 2015

July 2016

January 2016

January 2017

January 2016

January 2016

January 2017

January 2017

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

In addition to our regular newsletter (Antitrust Health Care Chronicle), we also publish a weekly report (Week in Review) and a bimonthly report (Health Care Recent Developments). These have been going out regularly.

We have continued to have an “advisory board.” This allows us to recognize and include people who want to be particularly active in the Committee (e.g., young lawyers that work on our three newsletters, a “consumer protection” lawyer that has been particularly effective in helping us organize programs, a European lawyer, and a state attorney general lawyer who has volunteered to help us organize programs related to her job).

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart—March 2, 2015

Insurance and Financial Services Chair(s)

Vice Chairs

Eric Stock

Brent R. Austin

Henry B. McFarland

Leadership

YLR

RCM

David R. Brenneman

Operations

Subrata Bhattacharjee

Christie Thompson

Brandon Bigelow Bret Fulkerson Michael Miller Elizabeth B. Prewitt

Members Current period 277

Last period 275

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

Newsletters Last year 272

Current Period 1

Current Year 1

Plan (Number) 2

Sponsored Programs: Number Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

5

1

6

3

0

1

1

1

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Co-Sponsoring Committees

Date

Title

Type

9/18/15

Healthcare

Health Insurance Mergers: What Will the Industry Look Like After Aetna/Humana and Anthem/Cigna? (82)

11/4/15

International;

Interchange fee regulation

None

Antitrust Law in the Financial Services and Insurance Industries: An Intro for Young Lawyers

9/21/15 11/30/15 2/16/16

International; Cartel and Criminal Practice

Navigating the Globe: the Competition & Markets Authority, Financial Conduct Authority and Competition Concurrency in the UK

Cartel and Criminal Practice

Cartel Facilitators

Attendees

Program

82

Program

30

Program Program Program

33 49 24

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date

Description of Initiative

3/3/16

Networking event in New York City is scheduled.

September

Sent out start of year message suggesting ways for members to get more involved.

TBA

Town Hall being planned for after Spring Meeting

2/16/16

Program held geared towards young lawyers

Publications Title Newsletter Insurance Handbook Private Equity Antitrust Handbook Bank Mergers Handbook ALD Annual Review

Status 12/15 issue published;; 4/16 issue planned In final review Waiting B&T comments on draft Starting to draft proposal Drafts submitted

Status Last Period

Original Date

Current Date

Periodically published

Final stage Waiting B&T comments on draft Starting to draft proposal Drafts submitted.

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review We switched from the list serve to Connect. We have sent 34 Connect Messages. (We also sent 2 listserv messages as we closed the listserv.) We held an Advisory Committee meeting in January.

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2016

Intellectual Property Committee December 2, 2015 – March 2, 2016 Chair(s)

Leadership

Vice Chairs

Renata Hesse Hartmut Schneider

Logan Breed Robert P. Davis Alexander Okuliar Dina Kallay Jonathan R. Lutinski

Members

YLR

David J. Shaw

RCM

Operations

James Musgrove

Newsletters

John Roberti

List Serv/Blog Messages

Current period

Last period

Last year

Current Year

Prior Year

Plan (Number)

This Reporting Period

648

669

599

29

15

55

14

Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

8

2

6

15

3-5

3

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

Sponsored Programs: Number

2

Sponsored Programs: Description Date 12/2/15 12/8/15

12/11/15 12/11/15 2/16/16

3/14/16 4/6/16

Co-Sponsoring Committees

Media and Technology and Federal Civil Enforcement Committees Federal Civil Enforcement International, International Task Force Health Care and Pharmaceuticals, Civil Practice & Procedure, State Enforcement Unilateral Conduct Intellectual Property International and International Task Force

Title

Ongoing

3/14/16 Ongoing

As of the beginning of the ABA year 10

Type

Attendees

Fall Networking Event: The 1995 Licensing Guidelines Twenty Years Later: A Discussion with Agency Leadership

Committee Program

51

Modification of Consent Decrees: The BMI/ASCAP decree and effects on competition

Committee Program

30

Product Hopping Cases: Where are we and where are we headed?

Committee Program

68

Antitrust and ITC: Friends, Foes or Unrelated?

Committee Program

43

Antitrust/IP Guidelines Worldwide: More Guidance Needed?

Committee Program

Recent Antitrust-IP Developments in China

In-House Counsel Speak: IP-Antitrust Issues Facing Tech Companies Today

Committee Program

Committee Program

31

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts

Date 12/2/15

Through Last Reporting Period 80

Description of Initiative Networking event with Bill Baer and Edith Ramirez.

Work with the Membership & Diversity Committee on takeaways and other documents for networking and outreach events. In-House Counsel Speak: IP-Antitrust Issues Facing Tech Companies Today Student essay contest being considered by the board of governors

Publications Title Intellectual Property and Antitrust Handbook Intellectual Property Misuse—Licensing and Litigation Antitrust Law Development—IP Chapter Update

Status Published

In process Complete

Status Last Period Published In process – Council approved proposal In process

Original Date

Current Date

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2016 Antitrust Law Developments VIII

Public Domain and eBulletin (recently combined)

Jury Instruction Handbook — Antitrust-IP Chapter

In process combination complete & in process In process

In process

combination complete

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

We participated in comments on China’s NDRC that were filed in February (joint effort with SAL/SIPL/SIL/Sc-Tech). We participated in comments on the ASCAP/BMI consent decrees, but the Section ultimately decided not to submit. We participated in drafting intellectual property guidelines for the Korean Fair Trade Commission, which were recently submitted, and we participated in the recent comments to the Canadian Competition Bureau relating to their proposed Intellectual Property Enforcement Guidelines and in the response to the recent Questionnaire distributed by the NDRC in China on IP misuse. We are currently assisting in reviewing a draft IP chapter in the ABA Handbook on Antitrust Jury Instructions.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2016

International Committee Chair(s)

Vice Chairs

YLR

RCM

Operations

John Taladay

Cecil Chung Thomas Collin Jon Gowdy Casey Halladay Megan Jones Krisztian Katona Julie Soloway

Yan Luo Daniel Weick

Fiona Schaeffer

John Roberti

Leadership

Members Current Report 777

Last Report 817

Type Committee Programs Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

Newsletters Start of ABA Year 817

Current Report 1

Current ABA year 2

Sponsored Programs: Number

No. in Annual Plan 4

Completed

Scheduled

Annual Plan

Prior ABA year

8 0 1 —

10 0 0 8

4 0 1 —

26 0 1 9

Sponsored Programs: Description (Since 9/1/2015) Co-Sponsoring Committees

Date

Title

9/21/2015

Cartel & Criminal Practice

9/23/2015

SIL–China SIL–International Antitrust

9/22/2015 9/25/2015

10/13/2015

Cartel & Criminal Practice

10/22/2015

Pricing Conduct

11/18/2015

Unilateral Conduct

10/30/2015 12/11/2015 3/9/2016

3/16/2016 3/17/2016

Extradition and Antitrust: Where Are We Now?

Seven Years in Beijing: China’s Merger Reviews of International Law A SMARTER Section 5 Town Hall Meeting

Global Private Litigation International Task Force SIL–China SIL–International Antitrust Civil Practice & Procedure

Navigating the Globe: the Competition & Markets Authority, Financial Conduct Authority and Competition Concurrency in the UK

SIL–International Antitrust

Most “Dis”-Favored Nations: Recent Scrutiny of MFNs in the US and Abroad Brazil’s Piece of the Global Private Antitrust Enforcement Puzzle Distinguishing Product Innovation from Predation: An Examination of U.S. and EU Antitrust Laws Recent Antitrust-IP Developments in China

Careers in International Antitrust Law and Practical Tips for International Practitioners Discovery Around the World Series – EU

Understanding Most Favored Nation Cases Across the Atlantic

Committee Programs Blackout Period 3/18/2016 — 4/24/2016

Type

Attendees

Committee

33

Committee

21

Committee Committee Town Hall

16

Committee

7

Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee

5/11/2016

CBA – International

Merger Control and Foreign Investment Review Regimes

Committee

--/--/2016

Civil Practice & Procedure

Discovery Around the World Series – Asia

Committee

5/--/2016 (TBC)

--/--/2016 --/--/2016 --/--/2016

Civil Practice & Procedure Civil Practice & Procedure Civil Practice & Procedure Global Private Litigation

--/--/2016

Date ongoing ongoing ongoing ongoing

Arbitrating Foreign Antitrust Claims: Barriers and Benefits Discovery Around the World Series – Latin America Competition Litigation Around the World: Israel

Meet the Enforcer Series – Johannes Laitenberger, DG COMP The Mexican Antitrust Revolution

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Description of Initiative

41

Committee Committee Committee Committee Committee

Committee programs and teleseminars: The Committee seeks to involve members as speakers and panelists. Our “Town Hall” meeting is structured to encourage member participation. International Antitrust Bulletin: Articles focus on developments of interest to international members, and we seek their involvement in contributing articles. Regional Listserv Reporters: The Committee representatives report on developments in their geographic areas.

Development of Asia initiative with Vice Chairs and Young Lawyer Representatives to increase committee exposure in China, India and Korea.

59 64 31

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2016 Publications Title ALD VII, 2015 Annual Review, Ch. 12

ALD VIII, Ch. 12 Handbook On Multijurisdictional Competition Law Investigations (Online) Obtaining Discovery Abroad, 3d ed.

International Antitrust Cooperation Handbook

Current Status

Status Last Report

Original Publish Date

Current Anticipated Publish Date

Complete

Ongoing

Jan. 2016

Jan. 2016

Ongoing

Ongoing

Ongoing

Editors are reviewing first drafts. Current edition under review to determine if an updated is warranted

Ongoing Editors are reviewing first drafts. Current edition under review to determine if an updated is warranted

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

Spring 2017

Spring 2017

Spring 2016

Fall 2016

Ongoing TBD

Ongoing TBD

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart

Joint Conduct Committee Chair(s)

Leadership

Vice Chairs

John Delacourt Mike Fanelli

Nick Levin Ryan Marth Samantha Knox Shannon McClure Joanne Lewers

YLR

Members Current period 563

Last period 559

Last year 524

RCM

Chris Abbott

Operations

Tara Koslov

John Roberti

Newsletters Current Period 0

Current Year 0

Plan (Number) 3

Sponsored Programs: Number

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall

Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

2

4

6

5

Spring Meeting

0

0 of 5 proposals accepted

0 0

1

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Co-Sponsoring Committees

Date 02/16/2016

Economics

03/15/2016

Young Lawyers Division – Antitrust Law

03/17/2016

State Enforcement

04/27/2016

Economics

05/02/2016

Corporate Counseling

Title

Type

Defendants’ Analysis of the Profitability of Price Increases and the Detection of Collusion Joint Conduct 101 Series – Session 2: Joint Ventures Parens Patriae: Can Citizens Protect Themselves? The CFTC’s Antitrust Mandate Communicating Without Signaling: Antitrust Compliant Analyst Calls

Attendees

Committee Program

41

Committee Program

N/A

Committee Program

N/A

Committee Program

N/A

Committee Program

N/A

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date Winter 2016

Description of Initiative Reached out to potential new authors to encourage diversity in content, particularly with respect to Proof of Conspiracy Under the Federal Antitrust Laws and Antitrust Law Developments (Eighth).

Publications Title

Status Review by Council; Awaiting publication

Handbook on the Rule of Reason

Proof of Conspiracy under the Federal Antitrust Laws

New editorial team in place. First complete draft completed. First round of edits on first completed draft due April 4.

Status Last Period Review by Council; Awaiting publication

Lead Editor resigned due to other work and personal commitments. Committee identifying a new Lead Editor and developing a revised timeline with B&T.

Original Date

Current Date

November 2015

Awaiting update from B&T

Spring 2016

Spring 2017

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review Spring Edition of Cartel & Joint Conduct Review (newsletter) – Will be ready for circulation at the Spring Meeting in April.

Spring Meeting – The Joint Conduct Committee prepared written materials on the TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation for use as written materials by Judge Illston, who is participating in the Judges Panel.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart November 30, 2015

Legislation Committee Chair(s) Leadership

James Burns

Vice Chairs

Members As of today

As of your last report

84 on Connect

67 on Connect

YLR

Anant Raut Anna Chehtova

RCM

Alek Livshits

Since your first report 0

Since the beginning of the ABA year 0

John Roberti

List Serv/Blog Messages

Newsletters As of the beginning of the ABA year N/A

Operations

Alysa Hutnik

No. in Annual Plan

This reporting period

1

28

Through the last reporting period 61

As of the beginning of the ABA year 89

Sponsored Programs: Number Type

Since the beginning of the ABA year

Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

During the last ABA year

Upcoming/ Scheduled

No. in Annual Plan

3 (2 plus one co-sponsored) 0

0

2

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

3 Proposed

0 2 proposed

Sponsored Programs: Description Since 07/2015 Co-Sponsoring Committees

Date

Title

Type

Attendees

Oct 26

ACPERA - Ten Years Later

Brown bag

27

Feb 17, 2016

The 114th Congress – An Antitrust Outlook

Brown Bag

40 (as of several days prior to the program)

State Action Immunity Update

Brown Bag

tbd

3/1/2016

Legislative cosponsored with E&!

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date

Description of Initiative Committee VC Anna Chehtova has recruited approximately 20 student volunteers (diverse and non-diverse) to assist us in tracking state legislation. She and YLR Alek Livshits have been overseeing these students in posting state legislative developments to our Connect page and they have contributed a significant number of posts. They will also assist with our newsletter, scheduled for publication at the Spring Meeting.

Continuing

We successfully recruited Kellie Lerner (woman lawyer/plaintiff lawyer) to participate in Committee programs and making blog posts last year, and she took the lead, with VC Anna Chehtova, in coordinating and moderating our brown bag on ACPERA. Kellie also acted as the co-moderator, with Jim Burns, on the Committee's Feb. 17 brown bag. In short, Kellie acts as a “VC without title,” and her contributions are important to our Committee, particularly given its small leadership.

Publications Title N/A

Status as of today

Status as of your last report

Original Pub. Date

Current Antic. Pub. Date

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart November 30, 2015 Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

We continue to make blog posts as events warrant, and have increased output, federal and state, this quarter. Anant Raut leads the posting of federal legislative developments, with assistance from the remainder of the leadership team. Anna Chehtova and Alek Livshits lead the coordination of state legislative posts, with the assistance of student volunteers. Both VCs (Anna Chehtova and Anant Raut) have performed quite well this year, with Anna, in particular, devoting considerable time and energy to the Committee on programs, initiatives, newsletters and member recruitment. YLR Aleksandr Livshits has also performed quite well, and expressed an interest in continuing as our YLR next year. We hope that he will be re-appointed and can continue to work with us on Committee activities. Committee Member Kellie Lerner has also been very involved in the Committee, co-leading two brown bags and assisting with posts. She also participates on Committee calls. We hope that she will be added to our leadership team for 2017.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart March 2, 2016

Media and Technology Committee Chair(s)

Ankur Kapoor Gregory P. Luib

Leadership

Vice Chairs

Members Current period 693

Last period 714

YLR

Jamillia P. Ferris Lisa Kimmel Gregory V.S. McCurdy Scott A. Scheele David S. Turetsky Craig A. Waldman

Nandu Machiraju

RCM

Arthur J. Burke

List Serv/ Blog Messages

Newsletters Last year 700725

Current Period 6 (biweekly e-bulletins)

Operations

Christie G. Thompson

Current Year 13 (biweekly e-bulletins)

Plan (2015-16) 26 (biweekly e-bulletins)

Current Period 24: Connect (17) LinkedIn (7)

Current Year 53: Connect (37) LinkedIn (16)

Sponsored Programs: Number Type

Completed

Committee Program Teleseminar Town Hall/Networking Event Spring Meeting

5

Upcoming/ Scheduled

No. in Annual Plan

Prior Year

0

0

1

2

0 1

0

0

2

5-6

6

n/a

2

2-3

Last Year 56: Connect (17) LinkedIn (18) Twitter (21)

1

Sponsored Programs: Description (Current Period) Date 12/02/15 12/10/15 01/20/16 02/11/16

Co-Sponsoring Committees

Title

Type

Attendees

Federal Civil Enforcement; Intellectual Property

Fall Networking Event: The 1995 Licensing Guidelines Twenty Years Later: A Discussion with Agency Leadership

Networking Event

51

Consumer Protection

Can You Hear Me Now? Enforcers' Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR), Do Not Call, and Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Update

Committee Program

54

Trade, Sports & Professional Associations

Advertising Disputes & Litigation; Consumer Protection

What Every Tech Trade Association Needs to Know About Antitrust

A Virtual Fireside Chat with the FTC on Native Advertising

1

Committee Program

42

Committee Program

50

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart March 2, 2016 02/16/16

Intellectual Property; ABA Section of IP Law Antitrust Interface with IP Rights Committee

Antitrust and ITC: Friends, Foes or Unrelated?

Ongoing

43

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts

Date Spring 2016

Committee Program

Description of Initiative We are investigating co-sponsorship opportunities with non-ABA entities, including the Federal Communications Bar Association and the Asian American Bar Association of New York, in an effort to increase our committee membership.

We have several committee members working on a host of projects, including drafting and editing our biweekly ebulletin, drafting our newsletter, Icarus, and participating in committee programs.

Publications (Other than E-Bulletins and Icarus Newsletters Noted Above) Title

Status

2015 Annual Review of Antitrust Law Developments (Chapter 14.B)

Antitrust Law Developments (8th ed.) (Chapter 14.B) Handbook on Antitrust in Technology Industries

Telecom Antitrust Handbook

Completed

Drafting underway

Partially reviewed by Books & Treatises Considering proposal for second edition, per B&T’s request for proposal in 2016

Status Last Period Drafting underway Putting together drafting team

Partially reviewed by Books & Treatises

Considering proposal for second edition, per B&T’s request for proposal in 2016

Original Date

Current Date

Spring 2016

Spring 2016

Early 2016

Mid-2016

Spring 2017

2017-18

Spring 2017

2017-18

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

We submitted a revised long-range plan to the Long Range Planning Committee in mid-December 2015, which was approved in January 2016.

2

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart

Mergers & Acquisitions Committee February 29, 2016 Chair(s)

Leadership

Norman A. Armstrong, Jr. Ronan P. Harty

Vice Chairs

Michael Keeley Michael H. Knight Mary N. Lehner Robert L. Magielnicki, Sr. Mary K. Marks

Members Current period 873

Last period Approx 900

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

YLR

Megan Browdie

Co-Sponsoring Committees

Operations

Adam Biegel

Newsletters Last year Approx 850

Current Period 1

Current Year 3

Plan (Number) 3

Sponsored Programs: Number Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

1

1

7-10

10

3

3

3

---

---

N/A

---

-----

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Date

RCM

Tara Koslov

Title

-----

Type

Attendees

9/18/15

Health Care

Health Insurance Mergers

Teleconf

82

10/29/15

None

Structural and Behavioral Remedies on Pharma Mergers: Eu v. US

Teleconf

35

10/27/15

None

11/16/15

Media and Technology

TBD

None

1/1/16 TBD

None None

Ongoing #88186496v1

Teleconf

Nuts and Bolts of FCC Merger Review

Teleconf

Mergers and Acquisitions in Brazil

Teleconf

Doubling-Down on Disgorgement

HSR

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts

Date Ongoing

Conversation between Jon Leibowitz and Josh Wright

Teleconf

20 31 57

Teleconf

Description of Initiative Direct Membership Outreach: In the last 24 months (since December 2013) we have added approximately 140 members, increasing our roster by more than 15%. Attractive Projects: Our projects continue to be a big draw. We estimate the committee has had 150 active members over the past ABA year who have been involved in various activities, including: two chapters of ALD

2015, brown bag programs, the new Mergers & Acquisitions book, the new Premerger Notification Practice Manual, Section comments projects, the website merger agreement database, updating of the product market catalogue and other website updating, and The Threshold. To that list, we can now add two chapters for ALD (8th).

DMSLIBRARY01\27620910.v1

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart

Publications Title

Status

Mergers and Acquisitions: Understanding the Antitrust Issues (4th Ed.)

The book is completed and has been published.

Premerger Notification Practice Manual (5th Ed.)

Published just prior to the 2015 Spring Meeting.

The Threshold

Premerger Coordination: The Emerging Law of Gun Jumping and Information Exchange (2d Ed.)

Published Summer (Aug.), and will publish Fall (early Dec.) and Spring (early April) editions. The Committee has discussed and decided not to pursue updating at this time.

Status Last Period The book was awaiting publication. Draft submitted to Committee and PMNO for final reviews

Original Date

Pub by Spring Mtg 2015

Fall 2015

Spring Mtg 2013

Pub just prior to Spring Meeting 2015

n/a

n/a

Published 12/29/15 The Committee was considering whether to update the book.

Current Date

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review 1. Website Project: Antitrust-Related Clauses in Merger Agreements. A team of volunteers has produced a database of antitrust related clauses in publicly available merger agreements. The database is now “live.” It is accessible through an HTML clickable outline/table of contents, with relevant merger clauses accessible both by deal name and by specific topics, such as “Cooperation,” “Conditions Precedent,” “Defense Strategy,” or “Reverse Break Fees.” We plan to update it regularly. 2. Participation in Antitrust internal Comments projects. The Committee will, as in the past, participate in Section comments on proposed foreign laws or regulations. We have already done this in September 2015 on proposed Colombian legislation and in October on competition law in Singapore. 3. Website Project: Product Market Catalog. The catalog has been updated through December 2014; the additions will be added to the website shortly. 4. Two Chapters of ALD 2015. The committee is responsible for two chapters—Joint Ventures, and Mergers and Acquisitions. Morrison and Forrester is the primary drafter for the Mergers and Acquisitions Chapter and Covington is the primary drafter for the Joint Venture Chapter. 5. ALD (8th). We have arranged for drafters of two chapters of the new ALD (8th), to be published in 2017. Cravath is the primary drafter for the Mergers and Acquisitions Chapter and Cleary is the primary drafter for the Joint Venture Chapter.

Prepared and submitted by: Norman A. Armstrong, Jr. and Ronan P. Harty, Committee Co-Chairs, February 29, 2016.

#88186496v1

DMSLIBRARY01\27620910.v1

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart

Committee Name Chair(s)

Vice Chairs

Melanie Aitken

Dale Grimes Sarah Zielinski Frank Qi James Nichols Thomas Ensign Meghan Rissmiller

Leadership

YLR

Members Current period 548

Last period 551

RCM

Tom York

Operations

Alfred C. Pfeiffer, Jr.

Amy Manning

Newsletters Last year 455

Current Period 1

Current Year 1

Plan (Number) 3

Sponsored Programs: Number Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall

Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

4

2

6

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

Spring Meeting

0

1

1

2

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Co-Sponsoring Committees

Date

Title

Type

February 2, 2016

Corporate Counseling

Woodman's Food v. Clorox: Does Package Size Constitute a Promotional Service under the RP Act?

Committee Program

February 19, 2016

Economics Committee

Ticket Pricing in Secondary Markets

Committee Program

Attendees 37

23

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date

Description of Initiative

Invitation sent to all attendees of committee programs sponsored or co-sponsored by the PCC, to join the Committee. Ongoing

Participation in project involving women in leadership in the Section: the project organized a series of interviews with women in leadership in the Section at Spring Meeting (interviews to be posted to the Section site, and used otherwise as helpful in recruiting women to join and become more involved in the Section).

Publications Title

Status

(proposed subject) Pricing in the Americas--FAQ

Pending discussion with Books and Treatises

Status Last Period N/A

Original Date

Current Date

TBD

TBD

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

We continue to develop our new last year "Price Tags" feature where recent articles and links are posted on our Connect page. We have a new editorial board that is assisting with the Price Point, our thrice yearly Newsletter. We have populated half with lawyers and half with economists. The next Price Point newsletter is scheduled to be published before Spring Meeting 2016. We were the first Committee to rise to Anthony Chavez's challenge to insert live links to each article in our Price Point publication (starting with the summer 2015 edition). We completed the ALD Supplement; we have staffed the group to handle the next edition of ALD and it is in progress as required. We submitted 8 Spring Meeting proposals. We have terminated our Listserv.

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45 WSLegal\052213\00011\12826503v2

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart

As noted above, we are developing a publication proposal and are in preliminary discussions with Books and Treatises.

AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45 WSLegal\052213\00011\12826503v2

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2016

State Enforcement Committee Chair(s)

Leadership

Vice Chairs

Victor J. Domen, Jr. Tracy Wertz

Darcy Brosky Gwendolyn Cooley Richard Lawson Amy McFarlane Elisabeth Stein

Members As of Today

As of your last report

291

303

YLR

RCM

George Laevsky

Newsletters As of the beginning of the ABA year 276

Since your first report 1

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

Since the beginning of the ABA year 1

4

No. in Annual Plan

This reporting period

2

13

Upcoming/S cheduled

No. in Annual Plan

2

7

5

2

Through last reporting period 19

0

Sponsored Programs: Description 09/01/2014 Date 9/10/14

9/30/14

1/9/15

2/23/15

2/26/15

3/19/15

5/13/15

12/11/15

2/10/16

Co-Sponsoring Committees

Media & Technology

Title Data Breach Prevention, Response & Management

Health Care & Pharmaceuticals

Vertical Integration in Health Care: A Cost/Benefit Analysis

Privacy & Data Security

Data Security & Privacy: Here a Breach, There a Breach

Media & Technology

Can US Warrants Reach Cloud Email Stored Abroad?

Insurance & Financial Services

Insurance Brokers Bid-Rigging: “The Scandal and Aftermath”

Health Care & Pharmaceuticals

Competition analysis and the role of State Enforcers in NonReportable health Care Transactions

Federal Civil Enforcement

Practicing Before the Enforcement Agencies

Consumer Protection

Thou Shalt Not Steal – Criminal Issues in Consumer Protection Cases

Health Care & Pharmaceuticals

Adam J. Biegel

List Serv/Blog Messages

Sponsored Programs: Number

Since the beginning of the ABA year

Operations

Paula C. Martucci

Product Hopping Cases: Where are we and where are we headed

As of the beginning of the ABA year 19

During the last ABA year 7 0 4

Type

Attendees

Teleseminar

65

Committee Program

36

Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program Committee Program

75

33 25 34 36 68 63

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2016 Consumer Protection

2/29/16

3/1/16

State Action Immunity Update

Media & Technology

NC Dental One Year Later: Implications for regulating the sharing economy?

Committee Program

Joint Conduct Committee

Are Parens Patriae Actions Duplicative of Other Forms of Recovery?

Committee Program

Exemptions & Immunities

3/17/16

March 2016

Committee Program

Exemptions & Immunities Legislation

3/9/16

Debt Collection: Recent Enforcement Actions and Counseling Best Practices

Consumer Protection

March 2016

Committee Program

Lanham Act

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts

Ongoing

81

Committee Program

RPM’s

Date

49

Committee Program

Description of Initiative The group membership program through NAAG provides a good means of also recruiting new Committee members, although some neglect to enroll separately in the Committee. Membership was discussed and encouraged at the October NAAG Fall Meeting in Little Rock and will also be discussed during our Spring Meeting on April 5th. The SEPEG grant program is also a recruitment tool within NAAG. In June 2015 we accepted applications for 10 new SEPEG recipients for the 2015-2016 ABA Year. In August 2015 SEPEG grants were awarded to 7 grantees. As is discussed in greater detail below we have also awarded 10 grants to state enforcers under the newly created State Enforcer Training Program. Finally, efforts this year to do joint programs with other committees has, we believe, increased the Committee’s appeal to corporate counsel and the plaintiff bar as well as to foreign attorneys.

Publications Title

Status as of Today

Antitrust Law Developments (ALD) Update and 8th Ed. State Antitrust Enforcement Handbook Class Action Practice

Status as of your last report

Members assigned and current on all deadlines

Current

Prepared to begin when needed

New

Submission to Books & Treatises Imminent

Current

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

Original Pub. Date

12/2015 tba

Current Antic. Pub. Date Late Spring 2016 tba

1. State Enforcement is working with the Publications Committee on a new edition of the Committee’s own publication, the State Antitrust Enforcement Handbook. Our editor, assistant editors and drafters have finalized editing the chapters which will be forwarded to Books & Treatises imminently. Publications has indicated that we are on target for a late Spring 2016 or Early Summer 2016 publication. 2. State Enforcement awarded five (5) SEPEG’s to five (5) to state enforcers for 2013-2014. We were given approval to expand the program and as a result ten (10) state enforcers were selected for the 2014-2015 ABA year. The recipients are now participating in State Enforcement activities and publications. State Enforcement’s also submitted reserve proposal to the Advisory Board on Section Reserves to continue the

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Tracking Chart March 2, 2016 program at a 10 participant level and the proposal was approved for the 2015-2016 ABA Year. We accepted applications for new SEPEG recipients in June and July 2015. We awarded 7 SEPEG grants to grantees in August 2015. 3. For the 2016 Spring Meeting we submitted 21 proposals for programs (15 as a sponsor and 6 as a co-sponsor.) 5 proposals as a sponsor or co-sponsor were accepted. Those programs not accepted are being developed as Committee Programs as can be seen in the above programs section. 4. During the 2016 Spring Meeting our committee will host a meeting of our own self-created Advisory Committee to solicit thoughts and ideas that can further the mission of the committee for the upcoming year. The Advisory Committee is made up of antitrust practitioners from the private bar, DOJ, FTC and state AG’s. Last year’s meeting generated nearly two dozen ideas for the committee to pursue over the upcoming ABA year. 5. State Enforcement was one of the first committees to volunteer for and develop an ABA Connect page and we continue to try to post items when appropriate. Our YLD Rep. is responsible for posting items and has done an excellent job when called upon but others have also posted items. As the Council knows, several committee members are public officials and cannot provide much commentary on decisions but can certainly get matters posted. Finally, we have successfully migrated all of our members to ABA Connect and eliminated our List Serv. 6. Finally, late last year Kevin O’Connor, Finance Officer for the Section, informed us that his and our committee’s proposal for a new grant program, the State Enforcer Training Program had been approved. The program allows for up to 10 state enforcers to attend merger training sponsored by the Section and the DOJ and FTC. We worked with Kevin to submit a budget for the 2015-2016 ABA Year and we are happy to report that on February 22, 2016, 10 state enforcers were awarded grants.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart

Trade, Sports and Professional Associations The Trade, Sports and Professional Associations Committee continues to operate at a very high level. We have record high membership and have gone on providing high quality programming on the Section’s behalf, including a Committee-best attendance at an excellent forum on antitrust counseling from an in-house perspective – 85 attendees. Our excellent cohort of vice chairs and volunteers are also turning out more written content than ever, with broadbased and frequent Connect interaction (and substantive commentary), another installment of our twice-annual newsletter, and completion of our contribution to the newest addition of Antitrust Law Developments. Chair(s)

Vice Chairs

Ryan Tisch

Leadership

Bob Hubbard Kimberly Scott Gail Slater Creighton Macy Gary Kubek Mark Katz

YLR

Denes Rothschild

Members Current period 375

Last period 369

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

Last year 352

RCM

Operations

Steve Cernak

Amy Manning

Newsletters Current Period 1

Current Year 2

Plan (Number) 2

Sponsored Programs: Number Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

4

3

3

3

2

1

1

2

1

1

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Date 10/5/2015

Co-Sponsoring Committees

Title

Type

Attendees

CP

24

Antitrust Counseling on Trade Associations: From the InHouse Perspective

CP

85

What Every Tech Trade Association Needs to Know About Antitrust

CP

42

Sports League Claims: 5 years after American Needle

Five years after the Supreme Court’s seminal decision in American Needle, some of the thorniest issues in sports antitrust cases have yet to be resolved. The lawyers and economists on this panel have helped shape the current landscape and will address and debate the issues. The panelists will address how to prove antitrust harm, including how to define the proper antitrust market. They will also navigate the Rule of Reason, including the tricky problem of balancing a restraint's potential benefits to the sports product (e.g., “competitive balance”) with harm in a downstream market. The panel will also address the role of the ancillary restrains doctrine and least restrictive alternative test.

10/28/2015

12/10/2015

Whether involved in sports antitrust litigation, advising sports clients, or simply applying this analysis in other contexts, you will want to attend this panel!

An executive at your company comes to you about a new trade association she would like to join on behalf of the company. The formal (or informal) association includes your competitors. What should you do? The discussion will offer a practical guide to dealing with antitrust issues involving trade associations, including best practices for you and your clients to employ when considering whether to join a trade association and how to participate in trade association activities. Don’t miss this opportunity to hear from a distinguished panel comprised of highly experienced in-house, trade association, and private firm practitioners!

From Microsoft to Intel and Google, antitrust enforcers in the U.S. DCACTIVE-35358422.1

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart and Europe have long since been fascinated by high tech companies. In this dial in, our expert panel composed of former and current agency lawyers will talk about the ins and outs of antitrust as it applies to the high tech sector. The panel will not assume an in depth knowledge of antitrust law but rather will provide a high level and practical overview for trade association staff, both lawyers and non-lawyers alike.

12/17/2015

Around the World: An Assessment of the International Antitrust Treatment of Trade Association

CP

21

Trade and professional associations continue to be the target of antitrust enforcement worldwide. In this dial-in teleconference, our expert panel of practitioners and representatives of foreign antitrust authorities will offer an international perspective on trade association enforcement, discussing key recent cases in their respective jurisdictions, the challenges faced by both authorities and associations in new enforcement regimes, and likely future developments for both enforcement and compliance.

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts Date Ongoing

Upcoming

Description of Initiative Our ongoing initiative to identify young and diverse authors for our TSPA newsletter has yielded a number of new and diverse members. We are planning a new initiative to hold a town hall, with specific focus on student and diverse members and those with interest in sports law.

Publications

Title ALD (Eighth) Section Antitrust and Associations Handbook

Status Complete Book Proposal

Status Last Period In Process Book Proposal

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

Original Date

Current Date

2016

1H2017

TSPA Connect: Our efforts to engage actively on Connect have continued to accelerate, and the Committee now has more contributors engaging in more discussion on Connect than ever. Our Connect page today reflects 18 new updates in the last 30 days – up from about 10 just a half year ago. There are 134 open conversations on TSPA Connect, with real diversity of participation along a number of dimensions. More and more of our posted content is real, substantial content that expands upon posted third party material and contributes to the advance of antitrust discussion. We dumped our listserv during this year’s PAM and have never looked back. TSPA Newsletter: We are about to release our second annual issue of the TSPA newsletter, Ass’n The newsletter will contain a substantial amount of new content and will come out in time for the Spring Meeting.

Spring Meeting: Our committee proffered a large slate of possible ideas for Spring Meeting sessions. Vice Chair Gary Kubek was successful and is currently hard at work realizing “Play Ball: What Rules are Reasonable.” This panel, focused on legal developments in the array of cases involving the NCAA, promises to be a highlight of the meeting.

DCACTIVE-35358422.1

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart

Transportation and Energy Industries Committee (March 2, 2016) Chair(s)

Vice Chairs

Amanda Wait

Leadership

Paul Brown Karen Kazmerzak David Meyer Leigh Oliver Brian Rafkin Bill Stallings

YLR

Members Current period 364

Last period 360

RCM

Laura Collins

Amy Manning

Newsletters Last year 354

Current Period 1

Current Year 1

Plan (Number) 2

Sponsored Programs: Number

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

Operations

Alysa Zeltzer Hutnik

Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

3

0

3-4

5

0

2

1-2

2

0

0

0

0

1

0

1-2

0

Sponsored Programs: Description (YTD) Co-Sponsoring Committees

Date

Title

Type

Attendees

11/30/15

none

Expedia Orbitz Approval: What it say about travel industry competition

Committee Program

66

2/1/2016

Unilateral Conduct

U.S United Continental: An Examination of DOJ's Recent Monopolization Suit Over United's Deal to Acquire Takeoff-andLanding Right Continental: An examination of the DOJ's recent monopolization suite against United deal to acquire takeoff-andlanding rights

Committee Program

63

1/11/2016

Mergers & Acquisitions

Federal Civil Practice

3/16/2016 (forthcoming)

none

Doubling Down on Disgorgement

Merger Processes at Regulatory Authorities: A TEI Committee Networking Event and Town Hall

Committee Program

Town Hall

71

TBD

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts

Date

Description of Initiative

Ongoing

Volunteer list; committee leadership continues to develop a list of past and potential volunteers. We started this initiative last year and it has proven very useful . For example, we recently utilized this list to identify volunteers to monitor substantive developments of interest to our members.

October 1, 2014 and ongoing

March 2016

Substantive update monitoring per our annual plan.

Town hall planned to engage members of our substantive industries.

Publications Title

Status

Transportation, Energy & Antitrust (committee newsletter)

Energy Antitrust Handbook (updated edition of existing Handbook) ALD Update ALD8

Second issue on track for publication in March 2016

Waiting for edits from B&T Complete On track per schedule

Status Last Period First issue published November 2015 Incorporating edits from B&T Complete

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

99997.032162 EMF_US 59544278v1 AMECURRENT 706724197.3 14-Jun-13 21:45

Original Date

November 2015 and March 2016 2015

Current Date

November 2015 and March 2016 Summer 2016

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart

Trial Practice Committee March 2, 2015

Chair(s)

Leadership

Vice Chairs

Brian Grube

YLR

William M. Katz, Jr. Bonny Sweeney Stephen Weissman Robert J. Wierenga

Members Current period 500+

Last period 500+

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall Spring Meeting

RCM

David Reichenberg Martha Goodman

Operations

Irv Scher

Amy Manning

Newsletters Last year --

Current Period 0

Current Year 1

Plan (Number) 2

Sponsored Programs: Number Compl.

Sched.

Plan

Prior Year

1

0

2+

3

0

1

--

3

1

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Date 1/19/16

Co-Sponsoring Committees n/a

Title

Type

Know Your Antitrust Audience: Agency Advocacy vs. Litigation

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts

Cmte. Program

Attendees 35

Date

Description of Initiative

2015-16

We believe we have more plaintiff bar participation than any other committee. We continue to have active participants from outside the leadership on the Jury Instructions Handbook, ALD Annual Review, ALD VIII, and our Spring Meeting program. We also are planning programming focused on trial/litigation skills for younger lawyers.

Publications

Title ALD Annual Review Model (Civil) Jury Instructions Handbook Antitrust Class Action Handbook ALD 8

Status Final Draft Submitted Addressing Council comments Drafting Drafting

Status Last Period Drafting Council review ongoing Drafting Planning

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review

Original Date 1/16 ----

Current Date 1/16 2/16 12/16 4/17

We are continuing to focus on programming. We are preparing to present our traditional mock trial program at the Spring Meeting. This year’s trial will focus on a merger challenge. In addition, we are developing a series of committee programs and tele-seminars. Potential topics include (among others): 1.

Fundamentals program for junior lawyers dealing with handling adverse expert witnesses.

3.

Program exploring reasons for recent trial victories for the FTC and DOJ in antitrust cases, both merger and non-merger. Is it the “white hat,” the pre-complaint discovery, the standard or proof, or something else. Enforcers and private practitioners debate the factors and warning signs to take into account when litigating against the government and the common attributes in rare government losses.

2.

4.

Mitigating the collateral civil litigation damage that can ensue from a government investigation, settlement, or lawsuit.

Program exploring potential strategies and considerations lawyers may consider to incorporate trial strategy into discovery, including how the record being created is best geared for summary judgment or trial; ideas such as conducting focus groups and mock trials in advance of even summary judgment could be explored.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Committee Activities Chart Unilateral Conduct

Committee Name

Chair(s)

Vice Chairs

Mark J. Botti

Scott A. Sher Rocky Tsai Rebecca Valentine

Leadership

YLR

RCM

Joshua Chad

Operations

John Roberti

James Musgrove

Tanisha James Kim VanWinkle Michael Lawrence

Members Current period 500+

Last period 500+

Type Committee Prog. Teleseminar Town Hall

Newsletters Last year 500+

Current Period 1

Current Year 1 - Spring 2016

Plan (Number) 2

Sponsored Programs: Number Compl.

Sched.

Plan

3

5

3

2

2

Spring Meeting

Prior Year

3

Sponsored Programs: Description (Last period) Date 10/3/2015

Co-Sponsoring Committees

Type

The Promise and Pitfalls of Section 2: Recent Developments

11/18/2015

Distinguishing Product Innovation from Predation: An Examination of U.S. and EU Antitrust Laws,

02/01/2016

U.S. v. United Continental.

Diversity and Other Membership Outreach Efforts

Date 02/25/2016

Title

Attendees

Brown Bag Brown Bag Brown Bag

Description of Initiative Initiated two-prong outreach plan to law firms/government agencies and law schools

Publications Title Monopsony Monograph ALD Update Chapter 2

Standard Setting Handbook (3d edition) Preparation for ALD VIII

Monopoply Matters Newsletter

Status Terminated book project and converting chapters to special issue of newsletter. Completed Full draft to Committee leadership expected end of March Team formed; drafts submitted timely Spring edition imminently ready for publication

Status Last Period

Original Date

Other Developments Relevant for Council Review Significant resource – Compendium on Unilateral Conduct Cases – completed and posted on committee website.

Successfully revamped and reinitiated monthly weekly updates. New format covers U.S. and dominance cases globally.

Current Date

Memorandum

To:

Council, ABA Antitrust Section

From:

Agriculture and Food Committee

Date:

March 29, 2016

Re:

Agriculture and Food Committee Spring 2016 Report to the Council

This report highlights discusses the recent activities of the Agriculture and Food Committee and compares these activities and accomplishments with the goals the Committee set forth in its Long-term Plan and Annual Plan. I.

Committee Overview

The Committee is now in its sixth year and has made progress towards the long term goals set in 2013, increasing dialogue and understanding in the following areas. The agriculture and food industries have many unique aspects that continue to make them relevant for special focus, learning, and education. They include different laws governing competition (e.g. Capper Volstead), a large web of regulatory oversight (e.g., FDA, USDA, United States Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, state agencies), and rapid technological change (e.g. organics, GMOs, changes in food processing). Additionally, competition in agriculture and food, unlike many industries, often highlights tradeoffs of welfare concerns between two important groups: growers and consumers. Consumer protection issues are raised frequently in the production, sale and labeling of agriculture and food products. Moreover, international markets for food coupled with consumer interest in food ingredients and health has led to many recent consumer protection issues in agriculture and food. Because our Committee focuses on antitrust and consumer protection issues that arise in the ag and food industries (as well as the regulatory frame of these industries) the Committee’s frequently co-sponsors presentations with other committees and also works with other committees on publications.

II.

Membership A. Membership • •

232 Members and growing – our membership has increased by 44 new members since last year, surpassing the goal we set in our long range plan. We took a variety of approaches to increase membership including

•

•

Committee leaders reached out to people we personally knew that were interesting in food and ag issues in September of 2015. • Jamie Pizzirusso and Adrian Fontecilla headed an Ag & Food membership campaign on behalf of the leadership in March 2016. Currently our membership is diverse along many dimensions and represents all aspects of the agriculture antitrust bar. Our committee programs have included academics, government practitioners and private practitioners. Members and panelists represent both producers and agribusiness companies and we have a number of members from the legal departments of the various industry participants.

B. Growth Opportunities • •

III.

The committee leaders are continuing membership outreach efforts and are putting together new strategies. Two important ones will be • Networking with other ABA AT committees with complementary focus (e.g., Consumer Protection; Distribution; Advertising; Trade, Sports and Professional Association; International) • Coordinated outreach to other target groups including USDA, FDA, DOJ, FTC as well as lawyers involved in consumer food cases and general counsel of major food companies, agricultural producers, cooperatives, and food/ag trade groups.

Programs A. Spring Meeting Panels (our goal was one, so we were very pleased) Seven strong Agriculture and Food proposals were submitted, along with 2 co-proposals with the Consumer Protection Committee. The following three Ag & Food Committee proposals were accepted: •

•

“TECHNOLOGY, BIG DATA AND JURIES: WHAT PERSUADES?” on Wednesday, April 6 (1:45 – 3:15 pm) will explore what persuades juries when presenting antitrust cases in the court room. Is it flashy technology with big data or simple oral argument with a few props? Top attorneys and a psychologist will hash out different ways to best prove a single argument in a hypothetical price-fixing case in the agriculture industry. You choose the winner using voting technology. “MARIJUANA, TWENTY THREE STATES AND COUNTING” on Wednesday, April 6 (10:45-noon). Twenty-three states have legalized marijuana in some form in the U.S., four recreationally. This panel will smoke out the current status of state and federal laws and the constitutional,

•

competitive and consumer protection issues being raised as states legalize and create unique regulated distribution systems for selling medical and recreational marijuana. “TAMING THE BEAST - CORPORATE COUNSEL SPEAK” on Thursday, April 7 (8:30 – 10:00 am) - come hear experienced in-house counsel provide a frank discussion on what they face when managing complex antitrust litigation and investigations. Alex Madrazo from Dean Foods is one of the outstanding set of speakers.

B. Committee Programs (we have met our goal to this point in the year and are on track to surpass it) •

March 10, 2016: Agriculture & Food Litigation Roundup: Updates and Perspectives on Active Antitrust Cases in the Ag & Food Sectors.

-

Plan to repeat quarterly based on positive feedback and interest.

• •

May 19, 2016: Food Lion Class Certification Decision June 1, 2016: A program on ethics of counseling clients in the marijuana industry June 2016 (Exact date TBD): An Assessment of how “sell by” and “use by” dates impact consumers

•

IV.

Publications A. Agriculture and Food Handbook (plan publication Summer 2016) •

•

•

This handbook would be the first version to ever be published by the ABA, providing extremely helpful materials for practitioners who are assessing competition issues in seed, dairy, beef and other key agricultural or food industries. The Committee had planned to send the Agricultural and Food Handbook draft to editorial review at Books and Treatises in January. But with review realized there were a few sections that needed more work. We plan to have the book published by the end of this summer (2016)

B. Newsletters (we are on track for this year) •

Two Agriculture and Food Newsletters have been submitted for this ABA year. The first focused on alcohol distribution and challenges to state distribution laws. The second, just recently submitted, focused on the current regulatory and legal issues happening in regard to legalizing marijuana at the state level Copies will be handed out at the marijuana panel and at the committee table.

C. ALD Updates •

ALD #8 has been submitted.

D. Connect Posts • • V.

We have posted 11 “Afternoon Snack: Recent News in Food and Agriculture” this year Other members have added posts highlighting news articles and advertising for committee programs.

Other A. Diversity •

•

VI.

August 2015: James Pizzirusso reached out to the Diversity Committee to discuss strategies, and participated in the Diversity Committee call on March 8, 2016. Our committee has had diverse panels and authors.

Summary

The committee has had a productive and interesting year so far, delivering on our goals and mission. We have grown our membership more than expected, have three great programs coming in the Spring meetings, have published two substantive and interesting newsletters and have been an early adopter and active user of Connect. We had a hiccup in terms of one of our scheduled committee programs in the Fall, and so did not have our first committee program until the Spring, which put us behind our planned schedule. That said, we have multiple committee programs scheduled and will more than meet our committee program goals. We have struggled with finishing the Ag and Food Handbook publication. This was in part due to lack of clear handoff of the project from those who led it at its inception and the current committee who must bring it over the finish line. It is also due to a lack of bandwidth by the committee leadership to deliver on the writing needed to make final edits. We have a clear plan on how to tackle this, led by our Vice Chair Dan McInnis and we have set a hard deadline to deliver the book to the membership by the end of the summer. An area where the committee could improve is in engaging our membership to offer more content so that not all the work feel on the committee leadership. This is something we will emphasize after the Spring meetings, and would love any feedback on things that have worked for other committees on this front.

Annual Plan 2015-2016

Agriculture and Food Committee I.

Leadership.

Who are the Committee Leaders? Chair

Vandy Howell and August Horvath

Vice Chair

Anthony Aaron Jamie Pizzirusso Dan McInnis

Young Lawyer Representative

Adrian Fontecilla

Responsible Council Member

Steve Cernak

Responsible Committee Operations Co-Chair

Adam Biegel

II.

Committee Organization.

Identify which person on the Committee Leadership team will have responsibility for the following Membership Recruitment and Involvement

Jamie Pizzirusso

Connect and other technology

Adrian Fontecilla

Committee Updates and Newsletters

Anthony Aaron/Adrian Fontecilla

Publications

Dan McInnis

Committee Programs

Vandy Howell/August Horvath

III.

Committee Communication. How will the Committee Leadership communicate?

Time of Monthly Conference call (e.g., first Third Tuesday, 10:30 Pacific / 1:30 Eastern time Tuesday of each month)

1

Annual Plan 2015-2016 November 2015

Will there be Committee Town Halls? If so, when?

Will there be a Committee Meeting at the Spring Attending leaders will meet face-to-face during the Spring Meeting. Meeting? IV.

Membership. Ensuring Member Involvement and Recruitment

What are the greatest challenges that the committee Identifying potential members that have a specific interest in food and agriculture. faces in recruiting new members? What are the greatest challenges that the committee Limited time of committee members, small committee. faces in engaging current members? Please identify at least three ways that you intend to recruit new members to your committee.

1. Include a reminder to join the committee in every post on CONNECT and in list-serve emails publicizing committee programs. 2. Authors submitting articles and blog posts to us for publication and speakers on panels we are sponsoring, will be asked to join the committee if they are not already members. 3. Cross-market to members of substantively related committees, e.g., distribution, consumer protection, in-house counsel.

Please identify at least three programs, publications or other projects that will provide volunteer opportunities for your committee members. 1. Write articles newsletter

for

Agriculture

&

Food

2. Write/compile posts for CONNECT Ag & Food blog (goal: 2x per month) 3. Help promote Committee events via CONNECT, and Twitter 4. Update/edit/finish the Food and Agriculture Handbook

2

Annual Plan 2015-2016 5. Preparing periodic substantive updates on antitrust or consumer protection cases involving food and agriculture issues. V.

Diversity Our Section’s goal is to ensure that our membership benefits by ensuring that people of different races, genders, sexual orientations, levels of experience, and career choices (e.g., working for the government, plaintiff-side representations, inhouse, small law firms) can and do participate (“Section Diversity”).

What are the greatest challenges that your Somewhat limited pool of parties involved in Ag/Food work. committee faces in ensuring Section Diversity? 1. We will tailor our marketing efforts to corporate counsel at food and agricultural companies and government lawyers where possible by the subject matter and scope of particular publications and programs. We will have some focus on food/ag related regulation in our writings and presentations.

Please describe at least three specific activities planned to increase participation by women lawyers, minority lawyers, young lawyers, corporate counsel, government lawyers, foreign lawyers, the plaintiffs’ bar, and/or non-lawyers.

2. Composition of telephonic and live panels will reflect gender diversity, racial diversity, and when appropriate, balance “plaintiff” and “defendant” points of view. 3. We will appeal to young lawyers by highlighting volunteer opportunities that are manageable and visible. 4. We are reaching out to the Harvard Food Law & Policy Clinic, as well as the UC Davis Agriculture Economics group, to involve professors and law students in Committee programs and activities. VI.

Committee Programs.

Please provide a schedule of planned programs and teleseminars for the upcoming year. As you complete this schedule, please consider the following: Type of Program. There are generally four types of programs that you should consider: •

Committee Programs, also known as brown bags, are generally one-hour programs on a particular topic of interest. Committee programs are free to Section Members, and are $25 for non-members.

3

Annual Plan 2015-2016 •

Committee Update programs are recurring programs in a subject matter area. These programs can occur monthly, quarterly, or at other intervals. Committee update programs are free to Section Members, and are $25 for non-members.

•

Teleseminars are programs where CLE credit is offered. There is generally more detail required and a more rigorous approval process. Teleseminars are generally [$] for Members and [$] for non-Members.

•

Town Hall programs are programs put on by committees to inform their membership about Committee activities, and to solicit involvement and volunteers. These Town Hall programs are free to Section Members, and are $25 for non-members.

General Subject Matter. If known, please indicate the program’s topic area. If a program is planned for some months in the future, please provide as much information as possible, and at a minimum indicate the general subject matter, such as whether the program will cover recent developments, fundamentals, surveys across jurisdictions or trends. Date. Please provide the approximate date for the program, which will be confirmed after the program, has been approved. Diversity Opportunity. Please indicate how the program will support Section Diversity among speakers or participants. If the program is to be scheduled with another ABA Section or organization, please consult your assigned Committee Operations co-chair for assistance on obtaining those approvals. Please see the sample schedule below.

Type of Program

General Subject Matter

Date

Diversity Opportunity

Committee Program

Recent FTC Consent

September 2015

We will include government speakers and there will be interest among plaintiffs’ firms.

Committee Program

Fundamentals of Antitrust October 2015 Writing

Town Hall

Update on Activities

Teleseminar

Using Economists in November 2015 developing your antitrust case.

We will seek to engage nonlawyer economists and seek cosponsorship from other ABA sections.

Committee Update

Developments in our December 2015 subject matter area in 2015

We will seek out diverse speakers from government and plaintiffs’ firms.

We plan to co-sponsor with the Young Lawyers’ Division.

Committee October 2015

4

Annual Plan 2015-2016

Type of Program

General Subject Matter

Date

Diversity Opportunity

Committee Program

GMO labeling update

Fall 2015

Female/minority/govt presenter

Committee Program

Marijuana ethics update

Winter 2015-16

Female/minority/govt presenter

Committee Program

Farm to Table

Spring 2016

Female/minority/govt presenter

Committee Program

Dietary supplement marketing update

Summer 2016

Female/minority/govt presenter

ABA Spring Meetings

Will propose 5-6 panels

VII.

Committee Updates and Newsletters

Please identify the newsletters and other regular updates that the committee provides to its members. Please include both newsletters and non-newsletter communication channels such as blogs or CONNECT. Newsletter/Update Name and Brief How many will be published? Description. 3 issues

Food and Ag Newsletter

Dates of Publication

Fall (Alcohol distribution articles), Winter, Spring

CONNECT blog posts “Afternoon 2-3 times per month Snack” Periodic substantive CONNECT

VIII.

posts

to Situation dependent

Book & Treatises Projects

5

As cases, or significant events in important cases or regulations, occur

Annual Plan 2015-2016

Project/Book Title

Brief Description

Agriculture & Food Handbook

Project Leaders

Date for Status Completion

Ian Conner/Vandy Howell

Before Spring Meetings 2016

Editing for Books & Treatise Committee

IX. Monitoring Developments. Describe how the committee will stay abreast of developments in the committee’s areas of interest, including new cases and agency actions, legislative proposals, and policy initiatives.

Substantive Area

How is it being monitored?

Responsible Person

Food and Agriculture Antitrust

Committee member monitoring Vandy Howell Food & Beverage Law360

Food and Beverage Consumer Protection

Committee member monitoring August Horvath Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI) publications, alerts and programs; FTC, NAD and FDA alerts and reporting services; class action dockets alerts.

X. Other Activities and Projects. Please identify any planned committee activities not described above, particularly if there are budgetary constraints.

Planned Activity/Project

Estimated Date

6

Any Support Needed?

Annual Plan 2015-2016

XI. Summary – Recap: Major Goals and Activities. Using the information provided above, please list the major projects, goals and dates for completion for the year Date

Planned Activity

September

Newsletter, Connect Updates

October

Committee Program, Connect Updates

November

Town Hall Meeting, Connect Updates

December

Connect Updates

January

Committee Program, Connect Updates

February

Newsletter, Connect Updates

March April

Spring Meeting Programs; Ag & Food Handbook to be published

May

Newsletter, Connect Updates

June

Committee Program, Connect Updates

July

Connect Updates

August

Committee Program

The Draft Annual Plan is due to Diane Odom ([email protected]) on or before July 31, 2015. Final Annual Plan is due to Diane Odom [email protected]) on or before August 28, 2015.

We confirm that: • our Committee’s Leadership has reviewed and discussed the above plan; • we have discussed our plan with the Responsible Council Member and a Committee Operations CoChair;

7

Annual Plan 2015-2016 • each of us understands and is committed to completing the assigned tasks and achieving the stated goals; and • we believe that the goals that we have listed are achievable.

Signed:

_________________________________ Committee Chair

_________________________________ Committee Chair

_________________________________ Committee Vice-Chair

_________________________________ Committee Vice-Chair

_________________________________ Committee Vice-Chair

8

MEMORANDUM TO:

Council, ABA Antitrust Section

FROM:

Matthew D. Kent, Nicholas G. Grimmer Co-Chairs of the Business Torts & Civil RICO Committee

DATE:

March 29, 2016

RE:

Competition Torts Committee Report for Spring Council Meeting

This report discusses the recent activities of the Competition Torts Committee (f/k/a the Business Torts & Civil RICO Committee) and compares those activities and accomplishments with the goals the Committee set forth in its long-term plan and annual plan. The report also identifies the challenges facing the Committee (recruiting and programming) and a plan for improvement. I.

Committee Background

The Competition Torts Committee focuses on competition law—both federal and state law—beyond the “traditional” antitrust statutes. Increasingly, counsel in disputes involving competitors and/or anticompetitive practices rely on a range of “business competition” torts—including unfair trade practices, interference with contractual relations, and fraud and civil RICO claims—often used as adjuncts to, or in lieu of, antitrust claims. Likewise, as states strengthen their consumer protection statutes, actions under those statutes are another common means outside of the “traditional” antitrust area for litigants to press claims and police competition practices. The current leadership of the Competition Torts Committee consists of: Matthew D. Kent and Nicholas G. Grimmer (Co-Chairs), and Vice-Chairs; Dean M. Harvey (plaintiff’s attorney, responsible for committee programs); Rachel Adcox (former DOJ Antitrust Division attorney, responsible for committee programs); Angelo M. Russo (defense attorney, responsible for newsletter); and James Eiszner (defense attorney, responsible for recruiting and publications). Marc Tobak is the Young Lawyer Representative, Al Pfeiffer is the Responsible Council Member, and Christie Thompson is the Committee Operations Representative. The Competition Torts Committee’s leadership is comprised of a diverse group of individuals (e.g., gender, sexual orientation) and perspectives (e.g., plaintiff’s bar, former government attorney). II.

Membership

The Competition Torts Committee has been successful in expanding its membership, and membership has grown from 266 members in February 2015 to 283 members currently. The Committee’s membership is diverse and includes attorneys from the defense bar, plaintiffs’ bar and government enforcers. We have also recruited several

Competition Torts Committee Report for Spring Council Meeting March 29, 2016 Page 2 law students who have assisted with drafting articles for the Committee’s newsletter. Last year, we were able to use the Spring Meeting to drive awareness about our Committee and significantly increased our membership. This year, we have established goals for each vice-chair to help recruit new members. In addition to working to grow our general membership, we are also working to target diverse members in three areas: (1) plaintiff/enforcers; (2) international; and (3) minority/women attorneys. We have targeted the first two categories through Committee programming. Specifically, we have had counsel from the antitrust plaintiff’s bar participate in almost every program. We have also sponsored programs targeting our international members (e.g., Cross-Border Business Torts). We see the most membership growth potential in these two areas. The third group, minority attorneys, is more difficult to target. We are working to grow this group by inviting minority attorneys to participate in our Committee’s programs. III.

Programming

Last fall our Committee sponsored two programs: (1) Preparing for an Antitrust Trial as an Associate; and (2) Multistate Indirect Purchaser Actions: Using the Consumer Protection Statutes of Illinois Brick Repealer. Both programs were well attended and had speakers from the plaintiff’s bar. Our first program was also co-sponsored with the young lawyers division. In 2016, we are sponsoring two programs at this year’s Spring Meeting: (1) Private Jury Trials: Reality or Reality TV; and (2) Rules of Conflicts: Considerations for Antitrust Practitioners. Both of these programs have unique characteristics that we hope will drive membership. The private jury trial program features a former federal judge (Judge Vaughn Walker), along with a jury consultant, and will provide the audience with an opportunity to consider cutting-edge methods of dispute resolution. And the conflicts of interest program provides coveted ethics credit. After the Spring Meeting, the Committee is well positioned to finish the 2016 year strong with a number of pre-planned programs, including: (1) Health Care & RICO (a yearly program we sponsor with the Health Care Committee); (2) ACPERA/RICO Update; and (3) “Debate: Should Employer-Employee Non-Compete Agreements Be Unlawful? Our Committee has struggled previously with planning and sponsoring programs that drive large attendance. Our most successful programs have been those that we cosponsor with other substantive committees (e.g., Health Care, International, etc). While brainstorming programs is not difficult (given our Committee’s broad mandate), the programs we plan are not always applicable to our audience because their particular practice areas are more narrowly focused.

LEGAL02/36281474v2

Competition Torts Committee Report for Spring Council Meeting March 29, 2016 Page 3 IV.

Publications

The Committee is scheduled to publish three newsletters this Section year. Our first newsletter was recently published and we will be distributing it at the Spring Meeting. We are also on track to publish the two remaining newsletters in May and August. Although, we have struggled over the last six months to obtain articles from members, we have secured authors for our next issue. A common theme that we have struggled with is an initial interest in drafting the articles, several of our authors have backed out due to work issues. One idea that we have had good success with is having young lawyers draft articles summarizing our Committee’s programs. We intend to use this during the Spring Meeting to help supplement the existing articles that will be drafted in our Newsletter. Our Committee is also working with the Books & Treatises Committee on the third edition of the “RICO State by State” publication. The previous edition of the book was popular and sold well. We intend to work towards publication in late 2017. John Floyd (Bondurant Mixson & Elmore) served as the principal drafter of the last edition and has agreed to assist us with this update. We do not currently have a chapter or section to update for ALD. V.

Connect / Listserv

We have successfully transferred our Committee’s communications from our listserv to Connect. We are struggling to drive members to post to Connect. In order to provide our members content, we have implemented searches to uncover new updates in civil RICO law and competition torts. We are working to recruit young attorneys to review the search results and make posts to Connect. VI.

Other

This year, we also successfully changed our name to the Competition Torts Committee. Although we “rebranded” our Committee, we are still committed to providing resources and programming on business torts, Civil RICO, and other claims. We saw two primary benefits to modifying our Committee’s name: (1) Increase Appeal to Antitrust Section Members. Given the Antitrust Section is primarily composed of antitrust and consumer protection attorneys, the reference to Civil RICO in our Committee’s name was an impediment to growing membership and interest in our Committee. Indeed, many attorneys viewed our Committee’s work as primarily relating to Civil RICO, a practice area that has less relevance with our audience. The new name also implies a direct relationship between the torts and competition which we hope will resonate with potential and existing members.

LEGAL02/36281474v2

Competition Torts Committee Report for Spring Council Meeting March 29, 2016 Page 4 (2) Broaden Scope of Covered Matters. The rebranding away from Civil RICO also allows us to broaden the scope of matters covered by our Committee and should lead to increased international membership. MDK:mdk cc:

Alfred C. Pfeiffer, Jr. Christie Grymes Thompson

LEGAL02/36281474v2

COMPETITION TORTS COMMITTEE: 2015-2016 ANNUAL PLAN I.

Leadership

Who are the Committee Leaders? Matthew D. Kent, Alston & Bird LLP, Atlanta, GA

Co-Chairs

Nicholas (Nick) G. Grimmer, McDermott Will & Emery, LLP; Houston, TX Angelo M. Russo, McGuireWoods, LLP, Chicago, IL

Vice Chairs

Dean Harvey, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, San Francisco, CA James Eiszner, Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, Kansas City, MO Rachel Adcox, Axinn, Washington, DC Young Lawyer Representative

Marc Tobak, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, New York, NY

Responsible Council Member

Al Pfeiffer, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA

Responsible Committee Operations Co-Chair

Christie Thompson, Kelly Drye, Washington DC

II.

Committee Organization

Identify which person on the Committee Leadership team will have primary responsibility for the following Membership Recruitment and Involvement

James Eiszner / Nick Grimmer

Connect and other Technology

Marc Tobak / Nick Grimmer

Committee Updates and Newsletters

Angelo Russo / Matthew Kent

Publications

James Eiszner / Nick Grimmer / Matthew Kent

1

Rachael Adcox / Dean Harvey

Committee Programs III.

Committee Communication

How will the Committee Leadership communicate? Regularly scheduled calls on the second Tuesday of each month at 12:30 pm EST.

Time of Monthly Conference Call (e.g., first Tuesday of each month)

Each vice-chair shall maintain a matrix of the current projects and activities in their area of responsibility and keep the same current using the matrix forms attached. One week prior to each leadership call, each vice-chair will submit to the chair a brief proposed agenda relevant to current and planned activities in the vicechair’s area of responsibility, along with an updated copy of that vice-chair’s matrix. The committee chair will provide a brief agenda (including the various updates) the day before the monthly leadership call. In addition, leadership is encouraged to meet one-onone when possible; for instance, informal phone calls and emails regarding ideas for committee activities and initiatives, meeting in person for coffee/lunch when in or traveling to a fellow leader’s city. In other words, we seek to increase committee leadership communication by encouraging opportunities outside of formal committee meetings and calls. n/a

Will there be Committee Town Halls? If so, when?

Will there be a Committee Meeting at the Spring Yes – we will organize a committee meeting at the Spring Meeting. Meeting?

IV.

Membership

Ensuring Member Involvement and Recruitment What are the greatest challenges Subject matter interest in business torts and civil RICO is limited, at 2

that the committee faces recruiting new members?

in least partially due to a lack of understanding of the relevance of our committee’s work. We need to ensure our programs and membership efforts drive Antitrust Section members to understand the importance of the subject area and the value of our activities to their practice. We also need to drive new membership to the Antitrust Section through working / developing relationships with other ABA Sections (e.g., Intellectual Property; Litigation), local bar associations, etc. We have historically suffered from a lack of brand recognition—we have not had the visual consistency of a logo and our committee name is cumbersome and not memorable. One challenge is to create a presence that will be recognizable to Section members. Our new committee name (Competition Torts), new logo, and concerted efforts in this area should make a difference.

What are the greatest challenges Ensuring our programs and content are relevant and interesting to that the committee faces in Antitrust Section Members and partnering effectively with other committees in our programming. engaging current members? Making sure our Committee members are aware of our committee and its mandate and aware of the various opportunities to contribute. Encouraging additional member involvement through non-traditional recruitment activities. Please identify at least three ways Record an “Introduction to the Committee” video to post on YouTube & that you intend to recruit new link to on our homepage and Connect. members to your committee. Continue to provide value for our members through high-quality content and programming; planning new programs that will allow for more firms to engage/ volunteer. Locating potentially-interested individuals through Connect / LinkedIn and google searches (e.g., for dual RICO and antitrust practitioners on law firm websites), and personally reaching out (by email) to explain the committee and solicit membership/contribution. Active presence at ABA Spring Meeting (tables, sessions). Offer members and nonmembers meaningful opportunities to participate in content generation and receive credit. Increase the presence of plaintiffs-side attorneys and enforcers on Committee panels—two sources of new members that may not be involved in the Section or the Committee. Where possible, data will be harvested from activities, programs and publications indicating non-members attending. We will develop a plan 3

for converting those nonmembers to members, and attempt to determine whether content focus needs to be altered to maximize member satisfaction and new member generation. Please identify at least three programs, publications or other projects that will provide volunteer opportunities for your committee members.

We will continue to seek out volunteers for Connect updates and our newsletter. We have successfully had members “quarterback” programming that had particular importance to them, and we will more aggressively advertise that our Committee, perhaps more than others because of its broad subject matter focus, has room for creative, wide ranging, or “niche” programming. Re-engage with our advisory board and expect that the board will also help with recruiting volunteers.

V.

Diversity

Our Section’s goal is to ensure that our membership benefits by ensuring that people of different races, genders, sexual orientations, levels of experience, and career choices (e.g., working for the government, plaintiff-side representations, in-house, small law firms) can and do participate (“Section Diversity”). What are the greatest challenges Ensure we have representatives from government (FTC, DOJ and State that your committee faces in Attorneys General). ensuring Section Diversity? Drive additional membership recruiting efforts with plaintiffs’ bar. Consider establishing greater non-antitrust attorney outreach program. Meeting the Section’s diversity targets for programming vis-à-vis gender, race, sexual orientation, as well as informal goals of fostering involvement of attorneys outside the NY/DC/CA/Chicago markets. Please describe at least three specific activities planned to increase participation by women lawyers, minority lawyers, young lawyers, corporate counsel, government lawyers, foreign lawyers, the plaintiffs’ bar, and/or non-lawyers.

Seek young lawyers out for committee activities (i.e., newsletters). Seek government and plaintiffs’ attorneys out for committee activities. Establish diverse speakers for each program by making more personal, individual contacts with diverse attorneys. Try to drive corporate counsel participation in programs.

4

VI.

Committee Programs

Please provide a schedule of planned programs and teleseminars for the upcoming year. As you complete this schedule, please consider the following: Type of Program. There are generally four types of programs that you should consider: 

Committee Programs, also known as brown bags, are generally one-hour programs on a particular topic of interest. Committee programs are free to Section Members, and are $25 for non-members.



Committee Update programs are recurring programs in a subject matter area. These programs can occur monthly, quarterly, or at other intervals. Committee update programs are free to Section Members, and are $25 for non-members.



Teleseminars are programs where CLE credit is offered. There is generally more detail required and a more rigorous approval process. Teleseminars are generally [$] for Members and [$] for non-Members.



Town Hall programs are programs put on by committees to inform their membership about Committee activities and to solicit involvement and volunteers. These Town Hall programs are free to Section Members, and are $25 for non-members.

General Subject Matter. If known, please indicate the program’s topic area. If a program is planned for some months in the future, please provide as much information as possible, and at a minimum indicate the general subject matter, such as whether the program will cover recent developments, fundamentals, surveys across jurisdictions or trends. Date. Please provide the approximate date for the program, which will be confirmed after the program has been approved. Diversity Opportunity. Please indicate how the program will support Section Diversity among speakers or participants. If the program is to be scheduled with another ABA Section or organization, please consult your assigned Committee Operations co-chair for assistance on obtaining those approvals. Please see the sample schedule below.

Type of Program

General Subject Matter

Date

Diversity Opportunity

Committee Program

ACPERA/RICO Update (M. Kent)

October ‘15

Plaintiff/Defendant perspectives; other diversity; potential cosponsorships

Committee Competition Torts: War Stories (R. November Program (plus Adcox) ‘15 newsletter articles)

Plaintiff/Defendant/Judge/Economist perspectives; other diversity; potential co-sponsorships

Committee Non-Competes: State By State (D. January Program (plus Harvey) ‘16 newsletter articles)

Plaintiff/Defendant perspectives; other diversity; potential cosponsorships (e.g., corporate

5

counseling, labor & employment section of ABA) Committee Program

Health Care & RICO (A. Russo)

Committee Program

Litigating with the Agencies (M. May ‘16 Kent)

Plaintiff/Defendant perspectives; other diversity; potential cosponsorships

Committee Program

[One of our program ideas submitted July ‘16 but rejected for the Spring Meeting]

Plaintiff/Defendant perspectives; other diversity; potential cosponsorships

VII.

March ‘16

Plaintiff/Defendant perspectives; other diversity; potential cosponsorships

Committee Updates and Newsletters

Please identify the newsletters and other regular updates that the committee provides to its members. Please include both newsletters and non-newsletter communication channels such as blogs or CONNECT.

Newsletter/Update Name and Brief How many Description. published?

BTCR LISTSERV/CONNECT UPDATES

20 – 60 per year

NEWSLETTER

3 per year

VIII.

will

be Dates of Publication Connect updates as “breaking news” happens + bi-weekly (or tri-weekly during slower legal news periods, e.g., holidays and late summer) collecting relevant news from each period November 2015; March 2016; July 2016

Book & Treatises Projects

Project/Book Title

Brief Description

Project Leaders

Date for Status Completion

RICO State by State (last published in 2011; we will submit a proposal for a new 2017 edition this year)

6

IX. Monitoring Developments. Describe how the committee will stay abreast of developments in the committee’s areas of interest, including new cases and agency actions, legislative proposals, and policy initiatives.

Substantive Area

How is it being monitored?

Civil RICO Commercial/business defamation Confidentiality contract/NDA (breach) Covenants not to compete (breach) Employee piracy Failure to defend/settle (bad faith) Fiduciary duty (breach) Fraud (civil) Misappropriation of trade secrets Negligent misrepresentation Tortious interference with contract Unfair competition

ALERTS (WITH SEARCH-TERM TRIGGERS)

- Legal databases and email alerts (e.g., Westlaw, Lexis, Bloomberg Law, Law360, Lexology, Google alerts)

Responsible Person - Marc Tobak / Nick Grimmer -- will recruit team of volunteers to monitor specific areas and post developments to Connect

- Mainstream media (e.g., Google News, Lexis Mega News) - Legislative/administrative sources (e.g., Lexis State/Fed. Net Bill Tracking, CQ, Regulations Tracking)

X. Other Activities and Projects. Please identify any planned committee activities not described above, particularly if there are budgetary constraints.

Planned Activity/Project

Estimated Date

Any Support Needed?

Committee Name Change/New Logo

August 2015

No

XI. Summary – Recap: Major Goals and Activities. Using the information provided above, please list the major projects, goals and dates for completion for the year

Date

Planned Activity

September 2015

Newsletter published; committee leadership call

October 2015

Committee leadership call; committee program (ACPERA/RICO Update)

November 2015

Committee leadership call; committee program (Competition Torts: War Stories)

December 2015

Newsletter published; committee leadership call 7

January 2016

Committee leadership call; committee program (Non-Competes: State By State)

February 2016

Committee leadership call

March 2016

Newsletter published; committee leadership call; committee program (Health Care & RICO)

April 2016

Committee leadership call

May 2016

Committee leadership call; committee program (Litigating with the Agencies)

June 2016

Newsletter published; committee leadership call

July 2016

Committee leadership call; committee program (one of our program ideas submitted but rejected for the Spring Meeting)

The Draft Annual Plan is due to Diane Odom ([email protected]) on or before July 31, 2015. Final Annual Plan is due to Diane Odom [email protected]) on or before August 28, 2015.

We confirm that:  our Committee’s Leadership has reviewed and discussed the above plan;  we have discussed our plan with the Responsible Council Member and a Committee Operations CoChair;  each of us understands and is committed to completing the assigned tasks and achieving the stated goals; and  we believe that the goals that we have listed are achievable. Signed: _/s/ Matthew Kent __________________ Matthew Kent, Committee Co-Chair _/s/ Nicholas Grimmer__________________ Nicholas Grimmer, Committee Co-Chair

8

_/s/ Rachel Adcox__________________ Rachel Adcox, Vice-Chair _/s/ James Eiszner___________________ James Eiszner, Vice-Chair _/s/ Dean Harvey___________________ Dean Harvey, Vice-Chair _/s/ Angelo Russo___________________ Angelo Russo, Vice-Chair _/s/ Marc Tobak_________________ Marc Tobak, Young Lawyer Representative

9

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Competition Torts Committee Long Range Plan The leadership of the Competition Torts (”Competition Torts”) Committee is pleased to present its long range planning objectives and goals for the next three to five years. I.

Committee Background

The current leadership of the Competition Torts Committee consists of: Matthew D. Kent and Nicholas G. Grimmer (Co-Chairs), and Vice-Chairs: Dean M. Harvey (plaintiff’s attorney; responsible for committee programs), Rachel Adcox (former DOJ Antitrust Division attorney; responsible for committee programs), Angelo M. Russo (defense attorney; responsible for newsletter), and James Eiszner (defense attorney; responsible for recruiting and publications). Marc Tobak is the Young Lawyer Representative, Al Pfeiffer is the Responsible Council Member, and Christie Thompson is the Committee Operations Representative. The Competition Torts Committee’s leadership is comprised of a diverse group of individuals (e.g., gender, sexual orientation) and perspectives (e.g., plaintiff’s bar, former government attorney). A.

Charter

The current charter reads: The Competition Torts Committee focuses on competition law -both federal and state law -other than the "traditional" antitrust statutes. In disputes involving business competition and anticompetitive practices, business torts (such as claims for unfair trade practices, interference with contractual relations, and fraud) and civil RICO claims are often used as adjuncts to, or in lieu of, antitrust claims. Likewise, as states strengthen their consumer protection statutes, actions under those statutes are another common means outside of the "traditional" antitrust area for litigants to press claims and police competition practices. The Committee Leadership believes the charter accurately reflects the Committee's appropriate focus in the Section, but has proposed minor changes below. The charter has not limited the Committee's activities. Specifically, the Committee's approved programs and newsletters in recent years have often confronted the substantive areas of the Committee charter through procedural, counseling or litigation based lenses that are common to all (or nearly all) traditional antitrust claims or issues. Examples of our broad purview can be found in the committee programs that we have developed over the last two years:     

Preparing for an Antitrust Trial as an Associate (August 2015) From High-Tech Labor to Sandwich Artists: The Law and Economics of Employee Solicitation and Hiring (March 2015) Bringing Value to Trade Association Clients: A Primer for Junior Lawyers (March 2015) Don’t Guess at Ethics (Spring Meeting 2015) What the Heck, Write a Check (E-Discovery Program at the Spring Meeting 2015)

We have also partnered with the International Committee to provide updates on business tort claims in other jurisdictions.

This diversification of the Committee's substantive charter area through different lenses provides benefit to the Committee members as well members of the Section generally. The Committee can accordingly offer value as the Committee of choice among those who have broadly varied practices where antitrust is an important, but not sole, revenue center. The Committee at times suffers from the lack of focus inherent in the claim of a broad mandate coupled with the previous focus of civil RICO (an area where there are few devoted practitioners). To create value to our members, we are going to focus on highlighting business tort claims that are brought in conjunction with, or in lieu of, antitrust claims. The Competition Torts Committee will also work to grow our presence with the plaintiff’s bar and with government antitrust enforcers. Over the next three years the Committee must strive to iterate a focused value proposition while retaining the positive aspects of a broad mandate. The Committee will achieve this goal by assessing the current grass roots common threads in its membership via improved membership outreach as further described below. B.

Interaction with Other Committees

The Committee has worked diligently over the last two years to increase its interaction with other Committees. We have co-sponsored programs with the Health Care Committee, International Committee, Agricultural Committee, Young Lawyer Division and Labor & Employment Division of the ABA. . The Committee is also seeking to grow its relationship with the Plaintiffs’ bar and intends to partner with the Civil Redress Committee to host telephonic programs about cutting-edge business tort issues. We also plan to collaborate with the State Enforcement Committee since state statutes and common law are generally the source of competition torts claims. We hope to energize our membership by inviting attorneys that may not otherwise be involved in the Antitrust Section. The Committee will also seek to target its outreach to other Committees by offering content as ancillary to the core antitrust practice as possible without being duplicative. The Committee will work to establish a more concrete identity as the go to source for all competition related legal education outside of traditional antitrust by leveraging the material its members find most useful. C.

Membership

The Committee membership grew over 10% last year and we currently have 280 members. We are working to grow our Committee through systematic contacts with Plaintiffs’ attorneys and RICO practitioners. We are also trying to increase our members’ involvement in the Committee by recruiting volunteers for upcoming programs and to draft articles in the Committee’s newsletter. Finally, we have embraced the Connect platform as the Committee’s preferred method of communication. We hope to increase posting rates on Connect and develop “real-time” content for our members through the use of Connect.

2

Over the next three years the Committee will seek to drive activity to Connect and determine additional ways to use Connect as a recruiting wedge for the Committee. D.

Recent Accomplishments

The Committee has an active annual agenda, including the issuance of at least three newsletters annually, the planning of at least four programs throughout the ABA year, and regular communications through the Connect. Each edition of the Committee’s newsletter highlights upcoming Committee events; features several articles on recent litigation and substantive developments of interest to the membership; and includes the Committee’s Civil RICO Issue Index, a unique and useful grid providing a quick reference on developments concerning over two dozen different RICO issues. The Committee also sponsors committee programs and other programs, independently and in conjunction with committees within and outside the Section, aimed at practical issues faced by practitioners in the area - on topics ranging from managing effective electronic discovery, to risk assessing of an unfair competition case, to the fundamentals of federal and state RICO statutes. Moreover, the Committee regularly puts on diverse, interactive, and informative live programs at the Spring Meeting - our programming has covered topics such as Settlement Offsets, Section 5 of the FTC Act, E-Discovery, Employee Non-Compete Agreements, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and Indirect Purchaser Settlements, as well as featured prominent government, plaintiff and defense advocates. The Committee leadership encourages its members to suggest activities that will enhance our collective learning and practice, as well as to suggest and submit newsletter articles for publication. The Committee also publishes its newsletter at least three times annually. The newsletter has grown in coverage and substance in the past few years. The Committee has continued to maintain its RICO grid, which is a user friendly resource to track recent developments in RICO jurisprudence. The Committee promptly updates its members on important developments in the relevant law via its members via Connect II.

Anticipated Policy Issues A.

Major Issues in Next 3-5 Years

We do not foresee any groundbreaking developments in RICO or business torts jurisprudence. However we have identified a number of issues that we believe will likely remain or become significant issues for our Committee membership. 1. International Business Torts. There have been a number of recent decisions in Canada, the U.K. and Australia that bear directly on the feasibility of business tort claims in foreign jurisdictions. The Competition Torts Committee has sponsored programs highlighting these developments and will continue to review these decisions to determine policy issues that may arise.

3

2. Healthcare third party payer practices. Recently a series of class actions has been brought against Aetna, UHC, and BCBS for their post payment audit practices. Antitrust and RICO and Section 502(a)(1)(B) ERISA claims are being asserted, and some large settlements have been reportedly reached. As the healthcare market remains likely to be one of the most interesting and dynamic markets in the near future, and as the implementation of Affordable Care Act continues to be of broad interest, the Committee will endeavor to leverage this public interest into new membership. 3. Section 5 of the FTC Act. One area that may see additional development is follow-on litigation under state laws from increased enforcement of Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibiting "unfair" methods of competition. Since a large number of states have Little FTC Act counterparts to Section 5, it is foreseeable that an increase in Section 5 enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission will lead to an expansion of similar claims under analogous state statutes. The FTC entered into a consent order on a Section 5 claim against Intel just under five years ago. At that time, a significant increase in state little FTC Act claims was predicted as a related consequence. How this prediction panned out, and why should be reviewed. 4. Multi-state unfair competition claim classes. As the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) continues to affect class action litigation and removal there is likely to be further development in the area of (a) certification of multi-state classes (and subclasses) under state unfair competition laws, and (b) limitations on punitive damages. 5. California Unfair Labor Practices. New claims are being brought against companies for unfair competition based on use of slave labor and/or other “unfair” labor practices. 5. “Cyber-torts”. Especially in the area of competitive torts involving employee poaching and/or trade secrets, plaintiffs are increasingly supplementing their claims with nontraditional claims involving private rights of action under various cyber-crime statutes, especially the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its state law analogues. This development has caused a tension between, on one side, law enforcement agencies and private companies interested in protecting computerized information and, on the other side, privacy organizations and courts that are concerned that these statutes may result in liability for merely surfing the Internet. Resolution of this tension will significantly affect the availability of these civil remedies for competitive torts occurring in a cyber-context.” B.

Plans to Address Anticipated Policy Issues

Both the use of RICO to address litigation related business torts and the issues surrounding the continuing healthcare business model wars could merit newsletter articles which could be repurposed into committee programs. This might naturally transition into a program or newsletter dedicated to a review of the heightened role of business torts and RICO in a post Chicago school world.

4

III.

Long Term Plans to Strengthen the Committee A.

Scope of Charter

We believe that the Charter should be modified as follows: The Competition Torts (f/k/a Business Torts and Civil RICO) Committee focuses on competition law beyond the “traditional” antitrust statutes. Increasingly, counsel in disputes involving competitors and/or anticompetitive practices rely on a range of “business competition” torts—including unfair trade practices, interference with contractual relations, and fraud, and civil RICO claims—often used as adjuncts to, or in lieu of, antitrust claims. Likewise, as states strengthen their consumer protection statutes, actions under those statutes are another common means outside of the “traditional” antitrust area for litigants to press claims and police competition practices.1 To strengthen the Committee’s presence, we will look for ways to make our charter better known and understood, both within the Section and outside the Section. We will achieve this through quality and timely programing, newsletters, and Connect posts. The Committee will strive to iterate a focused value proposition while retaining the positive aspects of a broad mandate. The Committee will achieve this goal by assessing the current grass roots common threads in its membership via improved membership outreach and greater responsiveness to member value choices. B.

Membership

Diversity (age, gender, ethnicity, plaintiff v. defendant, etc.) remains a key goal of the Committee with regard to its membership. The Committee has a great reputation for sponsoring diverse panels and we intend to continue that tradition. We hope to drive our membership to skew younger and inclusive of more plaintiff’s attorneys over the coming years. We aim to do this via (1) participation in publication efforts (beginning new people in newsletter and cite checking roles and developing a steady bench of reliable active members, giving people greater responsibility as they achieve milestones), (2) continued programming and recruiting efforts with the Young Lawyers Division and plaintiff’s attorneys, (3) targeted personal appeals from the Committee Leadership; and (4) consistent presentation of opportunities on Connect.

1

Below is a comparison of our proposed charter and our current charter: The Competition Torts (f/k/a Business Torts and Civil RICO) Committee focuses on competition law inside the United States (state and federal) and outside of the United States, as well as litigation beyond the “traditional” antitrust statutes. In Increasingly, counsel in disputes involving business competition competitors and/or anticompetitive practices, business torts (such as claims for rely on a range of “business competition” torts—including unfair trade practices, interference with contractual relations, and fraud), and civil RICO claims are —often used as adjuncts to, or in lieu of, antitrust claims. Likewise, as states strengthen their consumer protection statutes, actions under those statutes are another common means outside of the “traditional” antitrust area for litigants to press claims and police competition practices.

5

C.

Principal Impediments

A significant impediment to the implementation of the Committee’s objectives is increasing member involvement in Committee activities. We hope to continue to expand the use of Connect, our newsletter, and our programs to stimulate wider participation in Committee activities. D.

Ongoing Activities

1. CLE and programs: We are considering or planning a number of committee programs for the upcoming year, including programs on: (a) Competition Torts: War Stories; (b) ACPERA/RICO Update; (c) Non-Competes: State By State; (d) Health Care & RICO; (e) Litigating with the Agencies; (f) Business Torts Around the Globe; (g) Antitrust v. RICO: What’s the Difference?; (h) Competition Torts: Filling the Antitrust Gaps; (i) Class Action Settlements; (j) The FTC’s Section 5 Policy Statement and Consumer Protection; (k) Intentional Interference vs Vigorous Competition; (l) Competition Cyber-Torts. 2. Publications: “RICO State by State” was last published in 2011; the Committee will submit a proposal for a new 2017 edition this year. And our “Business Torts & Unfair Competition Handbook” was last published in 2014; we will likely propose an update in 2018 for publication in 2019 or 2020. The Committee will also issue three newsletters in the coming year, each with two or three substantive articles and the unique RICO case grid feature. 3. Technology: The Committee Leadership has begun to make greater use of Connect to distribute information about breaking case developments and programs of potential interest to members. We intend to make such notifications standard practice for legal developments in our Committee's area of focus. More importantly we will use Connect as a tool to recruit new active members to participate in Committee projects and activities and publications. 4. Joint Activities with Other Committees: The Committee will seek to target its outreach to other Committees by offering content as ancillary to the core antitrust practice without being duplicative. The Committee will work to establish a more concrete identity as the go-to source for all competition-related legal education outside of traditional antitrust by leveraging the material its members find most useful. The Committee will actively work to partner with the Advertising Disputes and Litigation Committees on consumer protection topics and encourage further Plaintiff participation. We also plan to work with the State Enforcement Committee to highlight potential state law business tort and competition claims.

6

ABA SECTION OF ANTITRUST LAW TRADE, SPORTS, AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS COMMITTEE COUNCIL REPORT

April 5, 2016

Chair: Ryan Tisch Vice Chairs: Bob Hubbard Mark Katz Gary Kubek Creighton Macy Kimberly Scott Gail Slater Denes Rothschild (YLR)

DCACTIVE-35622615.1

The Trade, Sports, and Professional Associations Committee is, so to speak, at the end of the beginning. As our periodic reporting to the Counsel reflects, the Committee has gone in the past 18 months from being moribund to producing substantial programming, written content, and legal updates for its membership and the broader Section community. We have an excellent lineup of vice chairs, our collaboration with other parts of the Section are growing, and membership is up. And while reinvigorating our newsletter, brown bag calendar, Spring Meeting programs, and Connect presence were our first priorities, we are now turning our focus to bring new life to the Committee’s publications. TSPA is most proud of its rich programming. Where just two years ago we were lucky to get a program a quarter off the ground, we are now producing nearly a program a month, with six separate lunchtime committee programs since October. We will again be featured in the Spring Meeting, where we are presenting “Play Ball: What Rules are Reasonable,” a panel focused on the array of cases involving the NCAA. Post-Spring Meeting programming is already taking shape at the same busy pace, with programs planned for May and June. All this programming is far more representative of our broad associations mandate than our fare has historically been. In the old days our panels tended to focus on sports issues, both because our audiences responded to that and because sports associations provided charismatic, interesting speakers. That is still true, but with major developments in the professional association world (N.C. Dental, the FTC’s consent decrees with piano teachers, skating instructors, etc.) and a call from our membership to “teach the basics,” we have renewed our emphasis on the “T” and “P” in our acronym. In the past six months we have included a panel giving an in-house perspective on advice for trade associations, a panel rounding up international developments in trade association antitrust risk management, and a panel on technology-focused trade associations. And far from catering only to major-league sports issues, we threw in a panel focused on exciting developments from the less-heralded leagues: rodeo, ultimate fighting, fantasy football, and Canadian sports. We have focused on developing both long- and short-form original written content, resurrecting our defunct newsletter and publishing 2 annual editions. While our original hope was to make the newsletter quarterly, we are finding that volunteer interest and developments seem to dictate this twice-yearly approach. We would be very interested in the Council’s advice on whether that frequency is sufficient or warrants more investment. Similarly, we have thrown ourselves into the Connect platform, with extremely frequent updates and broad-based participation by leadership and other contributors. We have a large

DCACTIVE-35622615.1

number of ongoing discussions in Connect – 151 at last count – which we think compares favorably to activity in other Committees. 26 of those discussions are marked “1 month ago” or more recent, and those 26 discussions were started by 8 different authors, reflecting broad-based participation on our board. Our membership continues to rise gradually, and at our last quarterly report stood at 375 members, or about 6% more than last year. We would like to consider additional ways to increase our membership numbers and would welcome Council guidance on that point. Finally, while we timely contributed our portion to the update of Antitrust Law Developments 8, we have not launched any new or updated publications since 2014’s Sports and Antitrust Law. We have a current project underway to update our other major publication, the Antitrust and Associations Handbook, and anticipate publication next year. We would also welcome guidance from the Council on any other publications opportunities we should be pursuing. The TSPA Committee leadership is now a cohesive group making uniform contributions to the business of the Committee and the Section. I have made clear in the appointments process that I hope for a final year as Committee Chair to continue to implement our plan, and that I hope to retain the same group of Vice Chairs to continue their excellent work. We are grateful for this chance to serve the Section and our members, and look forward to doing so in the future.

DCACTIVE-35622615.1

Annual Plan 2015-2016

TRADE, SPORTS, AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS COMMITTEE I.

Leadership.

Who are the Committee Leaders? Chair

Ryan Tisch

Vice Chair

Mark Katz Creighton Macy Gary Kubek Bob Hubbard Gail Slater Kimberly Scott

Young Lawyer Representative

Denes Rothschild

Responsible Council Member

Steve Cernak

Responsible Committee Operations Co-Chair

Amy Manning

II.

Committee Organization.

Identify which person on the Committee Leadership team will have responsibility for the following Membership Recruitment and Involvement

Mark Katz

Connect and other technology

Gail Slater

Committee Updates and Newsletters

Gary Kubek

Publications

Kimberly Scott

Committee Programs

Creighton Macy/Bob Hubbard

1 DCACTIVE-32899859.1

Annual Plan 2015-2016 III.

Committee Communication. How will the Committee Leadership communicate?

Time of Monthly Conference call (e.g., first First Thursdays, 10AM Eastern Tuesday of each month) 1 Town Hall – mid-September

Will there be Committee Town Halls? If so, when?

Will there be a Committee Meeting at the Spring Yes per our historic practice. Meeting? IV.

Membership. Ensuring Member Involvement and Recruitment

What are the greatest challenges that the committee Identifying sufficient quantity of interested practitioners, including diverse new members. faces in recruiting new members? What are the greatest challenges that the committee We have substantially increased our volume of official and informal communications to members through faces in engaging current members? Connect, and have also increased programming. Our next frontier will be additional networking and intramember contact. Please identify at least three ways that you intend to Social events recruit new members to your committee. Law school outreach Persistent reminders at programming Please identify at least three programs, publications Newsletter (already our best volunteer opportunity) or other projects that will provide volunteer opportunities for your committee members. Young practitioner panels/sports focused speaking opportunities Running a social/networking event Antitrust Guide for Trade Assoc. Professionals & Members V.

Diversity Our Section’s goal is to ensure that our membership benefits by ensuring that people of different races, genders, sexual orientations, levels 2

DCACTIVE-32899859.1

Annual Plan 2015-2016 of experience, and career choices (e.g., working for the government, plaintiff-side representations, inhouse, small law firms) can and do participate (“Section Diversity”). What are the greatest challenges that your Our diversity issues parallel those of the Section generally, although our membership is already committee faces in ensuring Section Diversity? relatively diverse; one issue will be breaking out of traditional “sports” topics to touch a more diverse audience. We are currently planning a panel consisting of (primarily) female GCs of trade associations and female GCs of sports organizations as a short “A Day In the Life” presentation followed by a social forum, and targeting that toward young/diverse potential members.

Please describe at least three specific activities planned to increase participation by women lawyers, minority lawyers, young lawyers, corporate counsel, government lawyers, foreign lawyers, the plaintiffs’ bar, and/or non-lawyers.

We will use our recruitment of authors of potential Connect update and newsletter to target diverse new members. We will recruit diverse authors for our publication this year (“An Antitrust Guide for Trade Association Professionals and Members”). VI.

Committee Programs.

Please provide a schedule of planned programs and teleseminars for the upcoming year. As you complete this schedule, please consider the following: Type of Program. There are generally four types of programs that you should consider: •

Committee Programs, also known as brown bags, are generally one-hour programs on a particular topic of interest. Committee programs are free to Section Members, and are $25 for non-members.

•

Committee Update programs are recurring programs in a subject matter area. These programs can occur monthly, quarterly, or at other intervals. Committee update programs are free to Section Members, and are $25 for non-members.

•

Teleseminars are programs where CLE credit is offered. There is generally more detail required and a more rigorous approval process. Teleseminars are generally [$] for Members and [$] for non-Members.

•

Town Hall programs are programs put on by committees to inform their membership about Committee activities, and to solicit involvement and volunteers. These Town Hall programs are free to Section Members, and are $25 for non-members.

General Subject Matter. If known, please indicate the program’s topic area. If a program is planned for some months in the future, please provide as much information as possible, and at a minimum indicate the general

3 DCACTIVE-32899859.1

Annual Plan 2015-2016 subject matter, such as whether the program will cover recent developments, fundamentals, surveys across jurisdictions or trends. Date. Please provide the approximate date for the program, which will be confirmed after the program, has been approved. Diversity Opportunity. Please indicate how the program will support Section Diversity among speakers or participants. If the program is to be scheduled with another ABA Section or organization, please consult your assigned Committee Operations co-chair for assistance on obtaining those approvals.

Type of Program

General Subject Matter

Date

Diversity Opportunity

Committee Program

International trade September 2015 association developments

Opportunity for academic and government involvement.

Town Hall

Discussion of Committee September 2015 Services and Activities/Special Focus on Technology/Social Media Training

See above re new members diversity opportunities

Committee Program

Marshall v. NCAA: Further October 2015 developments after O’Bannon

Young Lawyers involvement

Committee Program

American Needle Five October 5, 2015 Opportunity for academic and Years Later: How the (already government involvement. Decision Continues to scheduled) Affect Professional Sports Leagues

the November 2016 Networking/Social and Counseling Association: A Chat with Committee Program Three Trade Association GCs

We expect this panel to be heavily female, and that we will lean toward young lawyers as attendees.

Committee Program

"What Every Tech Trade November 2015 Association Attorney Needs to Know About Antitrust."

At least one female panelist already identified.

Committee Program/Teleseminar

Competition Policy Deep January 2016 Dive (Identifying an association, possibly in tech industry, that has engaged in extensive competition policy

4 DCACTIVE-32899859.1

Annual Plan 2015-2016 lobbying in U.S./foreign jurisdictions to discuss industry driven policy work). the February 2016 Networking/Social and Counseling Association: A Chat with Committee Program Three Sports Association GCs Teleseminar

Le v. Zuffa: Antitrust Fall 2015 Concerns Catch Up with Ultimate Fighting

Spring Meeting

Submitting 5 proposals

We expect this panel to lean toward young lawyers as attendees.

We hope this panel will attract ultimate fighters.

Spring 2016

5-6 Additional Programs through course of year. VII.

Committee Updates and Newsletters

Please identify the newsletters and other regular updates that the committee provides to its members. Please include both newsletters and non-newsletter communication channels such as blogs or CONNECT. Newsletter/Update Name and Brief How many will be published? Description.

Dates of Publication

Ass’n: The Newsletter of the Trade, 2 Sports, and Professional Associations Committee

October 31; Meeting

Multiple Connect Updates

VIII.

40-50

eve

3-4 Monthly

Book & Treatises Projects

Project/Book Title

Brief Description

Project Leaders

5 DCACTIVE-32899859.1

Date for Status Completion

of

Spring

Annual Plan 2015-2016 An Antitrust Guide Short hornbook on antitrust Kimberly Scott for Trade issues for trade associations. Association Professionals & Members ALD

New edition of treatise

Kimberly Scott

2016

2016

IX. Monitoring Developments. Describe how the committee will stay abreast of developments in the committee’s areas of interest, including new cases and agency actions, legislative proposals, and policy initiatives.

Substantive Area

How is it being monitored?

Responsible Person

Current system is ad hoc but working well; need to discuss potential for rotating or topically oriented system for 2015-2016 year

X. Other Activities and Projects. Please identify any planned committee activities not described above, particularly if there are budgetary constraints.

Planned Activity/Project

Estimated Date

6 DCACTIVE-32899859.1

Any Support Needed?

Annual Plan 2015-2016

XI. Summary – Recap: Major Goals and Activities. Using the information provided above, please list the major projects, goals and dates for completion for the year Date

Planned Activity

September

Town Hall meeting Committee Program: International trade association developments

October

Committee Program: American Needle Five Years Later: How the Decision Continues to Affect Professional Sports Leagues Teleseminar: Le v. Zuffa: Antitrust Concerns Catch Up with Ultimate Fighting Committee Program: Marshall v. NCAA: Further developments after O’Bannon

November

Committee Program: Counseling the Association: A Chat with Three Trade Association GCs

December

TBD

January

Committee Program/Teleseminar: Competition Policy Deep Dive

February

Committee Program: Counseling the Association: A Chat with Three Sports Association GCs

March

Newsletter Publication

April

Spring Meeting Panel(s)

May

TBD

June

TBD

July

TBD

7 DCACTIVE-32899859.1

Annual Plan 2015-2016 August

TBD

The Draft Annual Plan is due to Diane Odom ([email protected]) on or before July 31, 2015. Final Annual Plan is due to Diane Odom [email protected]) on or before August 28, 2015.

We confirm that: • our Committee’s Leadership has reviewed and discussed the above plan; • we have discussed our plan with the Responsible Council Member and a Committee Operations CoChair; • each of us understands and is committed to completing the assigned tasks and achieving the stated goals; and • we believe that the goals that we have listed are achievable.

Signed:

____/s/ Ryan C. Tisch____________________ Committee Chair

_________________________________ Committee Vice-Chair

_________________________________ Committee Vice-Chair

_________________________________ Committee Vice-Chair

8 DCACTIVE-32899859.1

Annual Plan 2015-2016

_________________________________ Committee Vice-Chair

9 DCACTIVE-32899859.1

DRAFT ONLY: December 15, 2015

ABA SECTION OF ANTITRUST LAW TRADE, SPORTS, AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS COMMITTEE LONG RANGE PLAN

December 15, 2015

Chair: Ryan Tisch Vice Chairs: Bob Hubbard Mark Katz Gary Kubek Creighton Macy Denes Rothschild (YLR) Kimberly Scott Gail Slater

DCACTIVE-34607478.1

DRAFT ONLY: December 15, 2015

I.

COMMITTEE BACKGROUND A.

B.

C.

Scope of Current Charter •

The TSPA Committee provides the primary forum for SAL members to locate content and interact with one another on issues that have to do with association antitrust issues.

•

This includes, specifically, cartel and other joint conduct issues arising from association activity, antitrust consequences of association formation and governance, and industry-specific antitrust policy (i.e. sports exemptions and the interaction between antitrust and labor law in professional sports leagues and players’ associations).

•

TSPA benefits from strong overlaps with the mandates of other SAL committees, including Exemptions and Immunities, Mergers and Acquisitions, and Joint Conduct. This has led to a large quantity of cosponsored programming and content creation in recent years.

Interaction with Other Committees •

As noted above, TSPA has successfully co-sponsored Spring Meeting panels, brown bags, and other committee programming with a number of other SAL committees. Specifically, we have traditionally been close with Exemptions and Immunities, but we continue to look for other opportunities to work with other committees.

•

We continue to work with Books & Treatises to update relevant portions of the ALD, and to advance our update of the ABA Antitrust and Associations Handbook.

Membership •

II.

The Committee currently has 365 members, which is in line with our expectations. Active members have increased significantly, as evidenced by the larger roster of authors in our newsletter and the number of participants in our Connect discussions.

ANTICIPATED POLICY ISSUES A.

Identification of Major Trends and Policy Issues within the TSPA Charter Likely to Arise in the Next 3-5 Years

DCACTIVE-34607478.1

DRAFT ONLY: December 15, 2015

B.

III.

•

Continued antitrust issues surrounding player rights and controversies between player classes and associations and the professional sports leagues;

•

Continued antitrust issues related to sports player amateurism, likeness rights, and injuries and the college sports associations (primarily the NCAA);

•

Additional controversies between upstart sports leagues and establishment associations (for example the Elite Rodeo Athletes/Professional Rodeo Cowboy Association controversy);

•

Controversy between localities and professional sports leagues;

•

Continued development of state action immunity doctrine as it relates to professional licensing boards and other associations with partial state oversight;

•

Antitrust investigations of professional association governance, including restrictive rules on client poaching, pricing, and membership;

•

Ongoing involvement of trade associations in antitrust conspiracies; and

•

Involvement of associations in IP-related issues such as standard setting.

Plans to Address Anticipated Policy Issues •

The Committee plans to continue its development of targeted written and program content to address major developments in state action immunity and sports association law, and to develop new content targeted to other areas.

•

The Committee plans to continue to develop strong rosters of speakers in the tight-knit communities affected by anticipated policy developments, particularly in professional sports leagues, the largest national commercial trade associations, and in state level professional licensing groups.

•

The Committee plans to develop further its growing roster of expert authors in anticipated areas of policy development.

LONG TERM PLANS TO STRENGTHEN THE COMMITTEE A.

Scope of Charter •

DCACTIVE-34607478.1

Should the Charter of the Committee be modified, and if so, how?

DRAFT ONLY: December 15, 2015

 •

If so, how will modification of the Charter impact other Section Committees? 

•

N/A

If so, what steps will the Committee take to implement modification of its Charter? 

B.

The Committee does not see a need to modify the Charter at this time.

N/A

Membership: Identify plans to strengthen/expand Committee membership •

The Committee plans to expand official membership by numbers by at least 25% in the next 3-5 years, and to be able to represent that 50-75 of its official members are active in Committee work at any given time.

•

Key efforts will include:

DCACTIVE-34607478.1



Expanding our existing, highly successful personal outreach efforts to build our roster of junior lawyers willing to work on programming and written content;



Formation of a pilot law student “working group” for sports association law, in conjunction with sports law groups at key schools;



Continue to develop our roster of regular speakers engaged on key topics (building on very successful efforts in the last 2 years to identify and cultivate expert speakers in the ongoing sports cases and the N.C. Dental case);



Engage in coordinated outreach to general counsels of trade associations, via speaking invitations and invitations to provide written content, with the aim of creating an “association counsel” panel within the Committee;



Extend efforts to use the YLR and related young lawyers’ events and programming to expand membership among young lawyers; and



Mandate annual town halls to promote identification of unfulfilled demand for programming and other content.

DRAFT ONLY: December 15, 2015

C.

D.

Principal weakness or impediment limiting Committee progress in the past, and how the Committee plans to address •

The Committee came out of a less-active period during the last 12-18 months, partly due to a relative paucity of exciting developments in its core subject matter.

•

That period is over. In the past 18 months, the Committee has produced a higher amount of content and programming than during any other recent timeframe, driven by fast-paced developments in sports, state action immunity, and association governance issues.

•

We plan to continue our excellent momentum and use it to build a bigger, more comprehensive committee over the next five years.

Ongoing activities: Identify plans to strengthen the Committee’s ongoing activities for the next several years and how the Committee leadership is organized to accomplish these goals •

•

DCACTIVE-34607478.1

CLE and non-CLE Programs 

The Committee has presented or co-sponsored at least two programs at each of the last 2 Spring Meetings, and has consistently proposed 4-5 high-quality Spring Meeting programs each year of the last Long Term Plan period. We will continue to do so and anticipate continued success.



The Committee has substantially increased the volume of its live programming (brown bags, teleseminars) over the past 12-18 months, and will continue to do so, aiming for roughly a dozen Committee-sponsored programs per year (exclusive of Spring Meeting content).

Publications (all Committees should check Section Long Range Publications plans to identify publications that may be coming up for a new edition) and newsletters 

The Committee has revived Ass’n, its twice-annual newsletter, and used the opportunity to draw in additional members to active Committee participation; the goal is to continue publishing two editions of Ass’n annually.



The Committee is currently working on two publications that will take it through at least half of this Long Range Plan: the next edition of Antitrust and Associations and ALD 8.

DRAFT ONLY: December 15, 2015



•

•

DCACTIVE-34607478.1

The Committee is undertaking a review of existing literature to determine whether any new publications should be planned to augment its current offerings.

Technology and other innovative forms of delivering value to members 

TSPA has fully transitioned its online offering to Connect and has one of the most active Connect discussion sites of any SAL committee, with over 120 active discussions posted. That figure far surpasses our short term goals and offers valuable information to our membership. We hope to further expand the group of leaders and members who actively communicate on key developments via Connect and believe that a healthy level of activity would have 3-5 updates/discussions posted weekly.



We have toyed with the idea of a “wiki” resource that sources key information and analysis on foundational caselaw and significant developments, to be hosted on Connect, but have not in the past found a workable formulation for such a project. The Committee will designate a task force to consider whether such an effort should be undertaken and to plan to do so if the answer is yes.

Joint activities with other Committees 

The Committee plans to continue working with other Committees, in particular E&I and M&A, to create written and program content. We also plan to expand our reach to include more active joint programming with Joint Conduct and the Young Lawyers.



We hope that other issues will call for increased collaboration with subject matter committees like International, Media & Technology, and International.

MEMORANDUM March 18, 2016

TO:

SAL Officers and Council

FROM:

Thomas F. Zych

RE:

Consumer Protection Officer Report –March 2016

The Section’s consumer protection initiatives proceed at a robust pace. Work is well along on the strategic projects designed to make the Section the compelling destination for practitioners, enforcers and academics involved in the full range of consumer protection disciplines. The outline of the underlying strategy was reported at the last Officer and Council meetings. This report is an update on progress in these activities. OUTREACH The principal CP committees are actively engaged in implementing targeted outreach to key consumer protection constituencies, namely: •

State enforcers

•

In-house counsel

•

CP plaintiff’s counsel

•

International CP professionals

•

Academics

The Committees have created and now distribute targeted substantive updates to these constituencies, including regular updates directed at state CP enforcers and practitioners and inhouse counsel. The CP Committee has launched solicitations for an upcoming issue of its regular newsletter featuring young lawyer, law student and academic authors. The CO Committee also has agreed to be the designated Section Committee to spearhead the ABA’s “Get a Member” Campaign that will assist the CP initiatives in recruiting new members to the Section, particularly from among constituencies now associated with narrow, specialized CP organizations as well as in-house counsel and enforcers. The Committees also are actively

[email protected] Fax: 216.566.5800 Phone: 216.566.5605

sf 11963224.1

March 18, 2016 Page 2 planning ‘WHY CP” programs at law schools, coordinating with the parallel “Why Antitrust” programs. PUBLICATIONS Work is complete on the second edition of Consumer Protection Law Developments, which we anticipate being available for purchase at the Spring Meeting. The Claims Substantiation Handbook also is nearing completion. The Committees are developing a proposal for a desktop reference on consumer protection basics, within-house counsel as a particular target audience. PROGRAMMING This year’s CP Spring Meeting consumer protection track is both larger and more diverse than in previous years. The full range of consumer protection disciplines is represented, with particularly timely programs on privacy and data security. The Tuesday evening CP cocktail hour is being marketed aggressively and we anticipate a strong turnout. Planning for the 2016 CP Conference is underway. As with other focused stand-alone Section programs, this year’s conference will require fresh thinking and a willingness to break from tradition to reclaim growth. All of those efforts involve conventional blocking and tackling, but a renewed emphasis on strategic initiatives will be the foremost focus both for the balance of the Section year and moving forward. T.F.Z.

DATE:

April 5, 2016

TO:

Officers and Council

FROM:

Kevin O’Connor

RE:

Finance Officer Report

The following are recent financial activities and results: 1. Monthly Operating Report The monthly operating report for March 15, 2016 is attached as Attachment A. The Section’s revenues and expenses for the first six months of FY2016 appear to be on track as compared to budget. 2. Long Term Investments As of March 21, 2016, the value of the Section’s long term investment funds was $11,419,583.97, of which 62.8% was in equities and the balance in bond funds. The Section also had $436,523.24 in short term money market account as of March 16, 2016. Thus, the total value of long term and short term investment funds was $11,856,107.21. 3. Advisory Board on Section Reserves Attachment B summarizes the Section’s policies governing Reserve Board spending. Based on these policies and the reserves of the Section, there is available $653,248 for reserve projects in FY2017. The Reserve Board recommends Council approval of three new proposals and eight existing proposals that are up for renewal. In addition, there are seven ongoing projects that have received Council approval in prior years and do not need Council approval this year. These ongoing projects, the Reserves Projects Budget Tracker, and the RCM Dashboard of all active FY16 Reserves Projects are summarized in Attachment C. In addition, the proposals for new projects and the renewal projects and evaluations are included in the Council agenda materials. If all of these projects and proposals are approved by the Council, the total amount of authorized spending on reserve projects would be $628,000 for FY2017.

The proposals up for Council consideration and approval include: 1. New FY17 Proposals up for Council Approval at Spring Meeting a. Trial Practice Electronic Library Would create a library on the Trial Practice Committee's website/CONNECT site of transcripts of expert testimony from recent (last 5 years) antitrust trials and thereafter and supplement the library with testimony from recent trials as it becomes available. b. Best Practices for Antitrust Procedure (Lipsky/Tritell) International Task Force proposal for funding for research into topics that may be identified as particularly likely to produce information that would enhance the quality of debate regarding best practices for antitrust procedure. Proposal builds on ITF Report submitted at the start of the 2013-2014 year. Will be administered by the SAL Research Institute. c. IP Student Essay Contest The Research Institute recommended and the Reserve Board approved the proposal to sponsor a student essay contest focused on intellectual property over four years at $4,000 per year. 2. FY17 Renewal Project Proposals (details in the agenda materials) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Connect Funding Judicial Intern Opportunity Program Oral History Task Force Interviews Profiles of Women in Leadership Video Series Source Mobile App Steiger Fellowship Project YLD Programming Series Foreign Enforcers at Spring Meeting

2

ATTACHMENT A ABA LOB Summary Report (3 Year Historical - B1) Fiscal Year: 2016 Period: MAR-16 ABA Fund: B3: SECTION FUNDS ABA Resp: 15030: ANTITRUST LAW

FY2014 Actual 428,212 1,851,515 1,851,515 777,239 6,937 23,565 1,693 809,434 538 634,865 0 635,403 265,708 265,708 57,005 57,005 0 0 8,525 8,525 4,055,802

FY2015 Actual

MAR-15 YTD Actual Line Of Business REVENUE 405,393 228,081 DUES 03ABMTG: MEETINGS 2,204,150 1,750 0305MTG:SPRING MEETING 2,204,150 1,750 03ABMTG:MEETINGS Total 10ABPUB: PUBLICATIONS 626,056 315,937 1001PUB:BOOKS 11,686 10,650 1011PUB:MAGAZINES 25,743 4,111 1016PUB:JOURNALS (131) (267) 1023PUB:WEB BASED PUBLICATIONS 663,354 330,431 10ABPUB:PUBLICATIONS Total 20ABCLE: CLE 672 0 2000CLE:CLE GENERAL ACTIVITY 393,278 309,379 2006CLE:CLE SEMINARS 0 398 2011CLE:CLE OTHER PROGRAMS 393,950 309,777 20ABCLE:CLE Total 303AGEN: GENERAL & ADMINISTRATION 217,747 97,502 3031GEN:G&A GENERAL ACTIVITY 217,747 97,502 303AGEN:GENERAL & ADMINISTRATION Total 306AGOV: GOVERNANCE 43,669 13,174 3062GOV:SECTION GOVERNANCE 43,669 13,174 306AGOV:GOVERNANCE Total 40ABPRJ: SPECIAL PROJECTS 0 0 4008PRJ:SECTION RESERVE PROJECTS 0 0 40ABPRJ:SPECIAL PROJECTS Total 70ABCOM: COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS/COUNCILS 6,555 5,060 7003COM:SECTION COMMITTEES 6,555 5,060 70ABCOM:COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS/COUNCILS Total 3,934,819 985,775 REVENUE TOTAL EXPENSE 03ABMTG: MEETINGS

MAR-16 Period Actual

MAR-16 YTD Actual

0

182,152

384,000

0 0

625 625

2,483,700 2,483,700

Page 1 of 3

FY2016 Budget

0 0 0 0 0

190,368 7,880 21,662 (136) 219,773

617,585 2,000 30,100 300 649,985

0 0 0 0

0 640,530 0 640,530

100 728,300 0 728,400

0 0

91,010 91,010

262,938 262,938

0 0

8,970 8,970

38,700 38,700

0 0

35 35

0 0

0 0 0

3,135 3,135 1,146,230

5,000 5,000 4,552,723

3/30/20169:20 AM

ABA LOB Summary Report (3 Year Historical - B1) Fiscal Year: 2016 Period: MAR-16 ABA Fund: B3: SECTION FUNDS ABA Resp: 15030: ANTITRUST LAW

FY2014 Actual 728 0 874,689 875,416 364,962 194,437 237,018 58,213 15,951 870,581 13,843 687,559 (17,717) 683,684 639,133 639,133 0 524,726 524,726 26,479 26,479 11 122,961 7,176 344,894 475,041 81,451

FY2015 Actual 1,378 0 902,639 904,017

MAR-15 YTD Actual Line Of Business 0 0301MTG:ANNUAL MEETINGS 0 0302MTG:PRIOR ANNUAL MEETING 95,817 0305MTG:SPRING MEETING 95,817 03ABMTG:MEETINGS Total 10ABPUB: PUBLICATIONS 202,935 109,676 1001PUB:BOOKS 217,260 89,636 1011PUB:MAGAZINES 224,709 126,295 1016PUB:JOURNALS 54,155 29,526 1023PUB:WEB BASED PUBLICATIONS 14,843 431 1024PUB:OTHER PUBLICATIONS 713,902 355,564 10ABPUB:PUBLICATIONS Total 20ABCLE: CLE 33,715 1,613 2000CLE:CLE GENERAL ACTIVITY 345,840 286,635 2006CLE:CLE SEMINARS (11,456) (15,175) 2009CLE:CLE CONFERENCES 368,098 273,073 20ABCLE:CLE Total 303AGEN: GENERAL & ADMINISTRATION 683,433 380,485 3031GEN:G&A GENERAL ACTIVITY 683,433 380,485 303AGEN:GENERAL & ADMINISTRATION Total 306AGOV: GOVERNANCE 0 39 3061GOV:GOVERNANCE GENERAL ACTIVITY 563,705 233,872 3062GOV:SECTION GOVERNANCE 563,705 233,911 306AGOV:GOVERNANCE Total 30ABMEM: MEMBERSHIP 25,027 14,188 3003MEM:MEMBERSHIP DEVELOPMENT 25,027 14,188 30ABMEM:MEMBERSHIP Total 40ABPRJ: SPECIAL PROJECTS 0 0 4001PRJ:SPECIAL PROJECTS GENERAL ACTV 196,415 37,805 4006PRJ:OTHER PROJECTS 31,347 3,937 4007PRJ:SECTION SPECIAL PROJECTS 427,813 86,211 4008PRJ:SECTION RESERVE PROJECTS 655,576 127,952 40ABPRJ:SPECIAL PROJECTS Total 70ABCOM: COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS/COUNCILS 96,166 43,089 7003COM:SECTION COMMITTEES

MAR-16 Period Actual 0 0 8,360 8,360

MAR-16 YTD Actual 0 338 149,511 149,849

FY2016 Budget 8,100 200 1,092,600 1,100,900

0 (4,538) (100) 770 0 (3,868)

91,782 77,705 121,981 27,296 1,020 319,783

191,282 201,400 285,500 61,000 15,000 754,182

0 (223,680) 0 (223,680)

4,096 337,541 (9,892) 331,744

26,400 858,599 0 884,999

(11,212) (11,212)

389,449 389,449

812,219 812,219

0 62,361 62,361

359 173,728 174,087

0 573,100 573,100

0 0

4,740 4,740

50,000 50,000

0 8,931 0 7,267 16,198

0 41,804 1,000 52,199 95,003

0 149,400 17,400 727,000 893,800

0

29,891

80,900

Page 2 of 3

3/30/20169:20 AM

ABA LOB Summary Report (3 Year Historical - B1) Fiscal Year: 2016 Period: MAR-16 ABA Fund: B3: SECTION FUNDS ABA Resp: 15030: ANTITRUST LAW

FY2014 Actual 81,451 4,176,513 (120,711) 1,359,660 1,238,948 1,238,948

FY2015 MAR-15 YTD Actual Actual 96,166 43,089 4,009,924 1,524,080 (75,105) (538,305) (277,007) 174,796 (352,112) (363,509) (352,112) (363,509)

Line Of Business 70ABCOM:COMMITTEES/COMMISSIONS/COUNCILS Total EXPENSE TOTAL NET REVENUE OVER/(UNDER) EXPENSES NON-OPERATING TOTAL NET CHANGE IN UNRESTRICTED NET ASSETS NET CHANGE IN TOTAL ASSETS

MAR-16 MAR-16 YTD Period Actual Actual 0 29,891 (151,842) 1,494,546 151,842 (348,316) 0 (335,005) 151,842 (683,321) 151,842 (683,321)

Page 3 of 3

FY2016 Budget 80,900 5,150,101 (597,378) 0 (597,378) (597,378)

3/30/20169:20 AM

ATTACHMENT B APRIL 2016 RESERVES BOARD REPORT CONSTRAINT ON SPENDING FROM SECTION RESERVES

In January of 2003, the Section adopted policies that limit the amount of money that the Council is authorized to appropriate from Section Reserves each fiscal year to fund special projects not included in the operating budget. I.

POLICIES GOVERNING SECTION RESERVES A.

Requirement to Maintain Specified Amount of Section Reserves "At the time the annual budget is prepared for the next Section year, Section Reserves should be no less than 2 times the amount required to meet the shortfall if projected revenues in that budget declined by 33% and projected expenses increased by 25%."

B.

Limitation on Spending in Any One Fiscal Year No more than I 0% of the unrestricted reserves can be spent during any one fiscal year.

II.

DETERMINATION OF MAXIMUM AMOUNT THE COUNCIL IS AUTHORIZED TO APPROPRIATE FROM SECTION RESERVES DURING FY2016-2017 Current Market Value of Section's Assets:

$11,856, 107

Restricted Reserves:

$ 5,327,63*

Unrestricted Reserves:

$ 6,532,475

10% of Unrestricted Reserves:

$ 653,248

* [one-third of projected revenues) + (one-fourth of projected expenses)] x 2 = Restricted Reserves [(one-third of $4,552,723) + (one-fourth of $4,584,969] x 2 = Restricted Reserves [$1,517,574] + [$1,1,146,242] x 2 = Restricted Reserves [$2,663,816] x 2 = Restricted Reserves [$5,327,632] = Restricted Reserves These amounts are based on the FY2016 Budget (less reserve spending budgeted).

ATTACHMENT C: ONGOING RESERVES PROJECTS

Proposal Name

International Scholar-inResidence

State Enforcer Participation Enhancement Grants Program (SEPEG)

SAL Research Institute

SAL Institute Project: ABA Antitrust Section Economics Grant Program (AASEGP)

Membership and Diversity Ambassador Pilot

Person/Group Submitting Request

Harry First

Victor Domen and Tracy Wertz/State Enforcement committee.

Reserves Advisory Board

Who will Oversee

Andy Gavil

Co-Chairs of State Enforcement Committee

Benefits

Board of Governors Approval Required

To support the work of aspiring but well-developed antitrust scholars from abroad and provide them with an in-person introduction to the American Antitrust community and the work of the Section.

$25,000

$25,000 to cover expenses for two qualified candidates for three months and attend Spring Meeting. $10,000 for each grantee, plus additional $5000 to allow for additional support and expenses, especially for additional "side trips" in support of our scholars research.

FY17

Provide extremely valuable and hard to come by opportunities for study to developing competition policy scholars. Raising the Section's profile with those scholars, generating opportunities for life-long engagement with Section activities.

Yes, Approved thru FY17

SEPEG is geared toward attorneys working in State AG's offices with responsibilities for antitrust enforcement or consumer protection. The program covers the cost of the grantee's attendance at the Spring Meeting and one other Section sponsored CLE program.

$4000 per grantee to cover Spring Meeting attendance and $40,000 one other Section sponsored CLE program.

FY18

Expand active participation in the No Approval Section by individuals working in Required State AG's offices

All specific projects that Research Institute deems $70,000 appropriate to fund will be brought individually to the Section Council for approval.

FY18

The ultimate evaluation of the Institute's performance would be the quality and quantity of the output realized.

Proposal Summary

Ted Voorhees Established to vet and administer and Bill Kolasky research and writing proposals.

Representative from the Economics Committee Economics Committee

Eugene J. Benick/Membership and Diversity Committee

Final Year of Approved Funding

Eugene J. Benick

FY17 Funding

Funding Detail

This project provides funding for original empirical economic research that explores topics relevant to domestic and/or foreign antitrust and consumer protection law and policy, and is available to lawyers and economists who conduct original empirical economic research.

$15,000

A Diversity grant program to defray the costs of Section membership for individuals willing to commit to the further diversification of the membership of the ABA's Section of Antitrust Law.

$3919 to each recipient (6 recipients total) to cover admission to the SAL's Spring Meeting, travel stipend of $2500 to cover transportation, lodging, $25,000 and food costs. An Additional $1,486 total to cover unknown price increases to pay for the ABA and SAL dues for one full bar year.

Funding would cover research costs.

FY18

FY17

Regular reports regarding the expenditure of funds and results obtained would be generated. It may be difficult to monetize or even quantify the benefits of such research, the SAL membership is equipped to evaluate the quality of the output from the initiative.

To attract diverse individuals to the section, show them the benefits the section has to offer, and encourage them to reach out to similarly diverse attorneys to join the section.

No Approval Required

Yes, Approved thru FY18

No Approval Required

ATTACHMENT C: ONGOING RESERVES PROJECTS

Proposal Name

Public Service Project

State Enforcers Training Initiative

Person/Group Submitting Request

Allan Van Fleet

Kevin O'Connor

Who will Oversee

Proposal Summary

This project affords Section leaders Current and an opportunity to provide public future Section service and outreach in the Chairs and communities selected for its Finance Officers principal leadership meetings.

Co-Chairs of State Enforcement Committee

FY17 Funding

Funding Detail

$5,000

$5,000 to supplement the Section's Public Service Project at Midwinter and/ or Post-Annual Meetings.

Resources to allow state antitrust and consumer protection enforcers The out-of-pocket costs of to receive training in merger review sending ten people to a weekin conjunction with the SAL Merger long training course presumable Training Conference and possibly $30,000 in Washington D.C. would with and from the federal probably be in the range of enforcement agencies including the $30,000 to cover travel expenses. FTC, the Antitrust Division, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and, other entities.

Final Year of Approved Funding

Recurring

FY18

Benefits

Section leaders have an opportunity to provide public service and outreach in the communities selected for its principal leadership meetings.

Board of Governors Approval Required

No Approval Required

Attendance numbers would be an indication that the program had merit. Secondly, evaluations of No approval the experience by both students required and faculty would be expected (e.g. the Steiger Fellowship program).

ABA SECTION OF ANTITRUST LAW RECOMMENDED FUNDING FROM SECTION RESERVES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

RESERVES BOARD'S BUDGET TRACKING

APPROVED FOR FY2015

APPROVED RECOMMENDED FOR FOR FY2016 FY2017

BOARD OF GOVERNORS APPROVAL REQUIRED

NOTES

GOVERNMENT OUTREACH 1. Janet D. Steiger Fellowship Project

Yes, approved thru 2017

$250,000

$290,000

$250,000

2. Judicial Internship Opportunity Program

$25,000

$25,000

$25,000

3. State Enforcers Participation Enhancement Grant (SEPEG)

$40,000

$40,000

$40,000

No

N/A

$30,000

$30,000

No

4. State Enforcers Training Program

Yes

INTERNATIONAL GROWTH 5. Foreign Antitrust Enforcement Officials at Spring Meeting

$50,000

$50,000

$50,000

No

6. China Consumer Protection

$50,000

$35,000

N/A

No

7. International Scholars-in-Residence Program

$25,000

$25,000

$25,000

Yes, approved thru 2017

DIVERSITY AND PUBLIC SERVICE N/A

$25,000

$25,000

No

$5,000

$5,000

$5,000

No

10. Profiles of Women in Leadership TECHNOLOGY

$10,000

$10,000

$10,000

No

11. Antitrust Source Mobile App

$10,000

$25,000

$25,000

No

8. Membership and Diversity Ambassador Pilot 9. Public Service Outreach Projects

No 12. "CONNECT" Committee Collaboration Tool 13. Trial Practice Electronic Library (NEW) RESEARCH AND WRITING-SAL INSTITUTE 14. SAL Research Institute

$32,000

$32,000

*$32,000

N/A

N/A

$10,000

No

N/A

$70,000

$70,000

No

$25,000

RESEARCH $15,000 INSTITUTE: $15,000

16. IP Committee Student Essay Contest (NEW)

N/A

RESEARCH N/A INSTITUTE: $4,000

17. Connor Database APPROVAL PENDING

N/A

N/A

N/A

Yes

18. "Big Data" Competition Research ($50,000) APPROVAL PENDING

N/A

N/A

N/A

Yes

19. Antitrust Pulitzers ($25,000) APPROVAL PENDING

N/A

N/A

N/A

Yes

20. Albert Foer ($25,000) APPROVAL PENDING

N/A

N/A

N/A

Yes

21. Richard Steuer APPROVAL PENDING

N/A

N/A

N/A

Yes

22. Student Moot Court Writing Contest ($6000) APPROVAL PENDING

N/A

N/A

N/A

Yes

15. Empirical Research Project (AASEG)

23. Research to Support Analysis of Best Practice for Antitrust Procedure (NEW) 24. ICN Curriculum Project

N/A $14,000

25. Morawetz 26. Retrospective

N/A $14,000

MEMBER SERVICE

RESEARCH N/A INSTITUTE: $50,000 N/A N/A RESEARCH INSTITUTE: $5,000 N/A $14,000 N/A

27. Oral History Interview Project

$20,000

$20,000

$25,000

28. Oral History Documentary Project

$32,500

N/A

N/A

$6,000 $608,500

$16,000 $727,000

$6,000 $628,000

29. YLD Programming Series TOTALS:

Yes, approved thru 2018 Yes, June 2016

Yes Yes

*Anthony asked that we earmark an additional $48K in case a master contract with Higher Logic and the ABA does not provide additional ongoing community management support. We also have a new staff member who is now responsible for

Part of $70k RI Budget Part of $70k RI Budget

Part of the $70k RI Budget

No

No No No

Pending YLD Director confirmation. $6k is part of $628k total.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Reserve Projects Tracking Chart Dec. 1, 2015

ABA Antitrust Section Economics Grant Program (“AASEGP”) Chair or Contact Person

Vice Chairs or Other Contacts

Joanna Tsai

RCM Tara Koslov

Key Staff of Operations Contacts Julianna Theberge

Leadership

Brief Description of Project The grant will be available to lawyers and economists who conduct original empirical economic research that explores a topic relevant to domestic and/or foreign antitrust and consumer protection law and policy. Maximum Authorized Amount for FY 2016 $15,000 Key Projected Events, Dates, Deadlines & Disbursements Description 12/1/2015: Post and circulate request for proposal within the ABA, and in other research networks 2/29/2016: Application materials due 2/29-4/15/2016: Selection Committee reviews application materials and selection one or more proposals for award (not to exceed $15,000 per year). The Selection Committee will be chaired by the Chair of the Antitrust Section or his/her delegate, one of the Co-Chairs of the Economics Committee, and one member from each of the following Section committees: Consumer Protection, Economics (who should be a practicing economist); International; Mergers & Acquisitions; and Unilateral Conduct. 4/29/2016: Awards announced (disbursement schedule will depend on timing of the milestones reached)

Amount $

Required ABA Approvals ABA Board of Directors approved the funds for three fiscal years, starting with the current fiscal year.

Actual Events & Outcomes

Disbursements

TBA

Assessment of Benefits The purpose of the AASEGP is to support original empirical economic research that explores topics relevant to domestic and/or foreign antitrust and consumer protection law and policy. By helping to fund research into such topics (particularly those that have not been addressed in the existing literature), the Section hopes to contribute to the creation of a body of relevant empirical data that may guide academics, policy makers, judges and practitioners considering significant issues in antitrust and consumer protection law. 14177270.1

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Reserve Projects Tracking Chart January 11, 2016

“Connect” Committee Collaboration Tool Chair or Contact Person Anthony Chavez Leadership

Vice Chairs or Other Contacts

RCM Subrata Bhattacharjee

Key Staff of Operations Contacts Joanne Travis

Brief Description of Project As you know, the Section has chosen Connect as its next generation interactive tool to promote discussion and facilitate communication and content between members. In the last year, Connect has been steadily implemented by the Section’s committee structure, though it remains the case that work needs to be done to (1) facilitate the transition and (2) ensure that members are aware of the features of the platform. For a summary of the latest status of the project, please refer to Anthony’s most recent report to Council. However, Anthony believes that the implementation of Connect has been hampered somewhat by personnel changes and the limited nature of the support package under the Section’s current arrangement with Higher Logic (supplier of the Connect platform). His belief is that the Section will be better served by moving to a more intensive support package that will allow for more prompt and comprehensive responses to identified problems, and there is an increased cost to this (discussed below) Maximum Authorized Amount for FY 2016 $32,000 (FY 2016 budget) Key Projected Events, Dates, Deadlines & Disbursements Description The more intensive Higher Logic support package would require an additional monthly expenditure of $2,500.00

Amount $ $30,000 (in addition to currently budgeted amount above)

Required ABA Approvals The additional amount would be subject to Council Approval.

Actual Events & Outcomes Depending on Council’s decision, the benefit of the higher level of support would be measured over the next year to see if it increases use of the platform

Disbursements

Assessment of Benefits Given the commitment of the Section to exploring improved means of communication with members as well as promoting its activities, efforts to assist in further implementation will be useful. 14177270.1

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Reserve Projects Tracking Chart November 11, 2015

International Scholars in Residence Program Chair or Contact Person Leadership

Professor Andrew Gavil

Vice Chairs or Other Contacts Harry First Ned Cavanagh Alison Jones Sebastian Peyer

RCM

Fiona Schaeffer

Key Staff of Operations Contacts Julianna Theberge

Brief Description of Project The program provides an opportunity for antitrust scholars from around the world to spend time in the U.S. to pursue their antitrust research and allows the Section to be involved in important research in the field and connect Scholars with leading academics, government lawyers, practitioners and economists in the U.S. Maximum Authorized Amount for FY 2016 $25,000

• •

Key Projected Events, Dates, Deadlines & Disbursements Description Received 15 applications for two scholarships in the Spring of 2016 Selection Committee decided to award the scholarships for 2016 to: Baskaran Balasingham Laura Guttoso

•

Amount $ $10,000 per scholar with the ability to apply for additional support for research visits within the US.

Andy Gavil will work with successful applicants to plan their visit. Scholars will come to D.C. for two to three months and will attend the Spring Meeting and meet with government lawyers, academics, practitioners and economists who can contribute to their field of research.

Required ABA Approvals None

Actual Events & Outcomes The program provides an opportunity for the Section to be involved in antitrust research projects relating to the U.S. and international practice. Andy Gavil has devoted a significant amount of time connecting Scholars with leading academics, government lawyers, practitioners and economists to provide input to their research. Scholars also are asked to acknowledge the support of the ABA in their research publications.

Disbursements None

Assessment of Benefits

The International Scholar-in-Residence Program provides valuable and hard to come by

Assessment of Benefits

opportunities for developing competition policy scholars to pursue important research projects in the field. All of our scholars have remarked that the opportunity to meet with and network with U.S. antitrust lawyers and economists has significantly contributed to their research and publications. Consistent with its original goals, the program is raising the Section’s profile with those scholars, generating opportunities for life-long engagement with Section activities, and injecting into their experiences an example of private-academic partnership that they will take home. All of them have become enthusiastic proponents of the program and have assisted with publicizing it and in recruitment. Their participation in the program has been noted in their published work 1 and in their Ph.D. theses.

14177270.1

1.

1

See, e.g., Urska Petrovcic, Patent Hold-Up and the Limits of Competition Law: A Trans-Atlantic Perspective, 50 COMMON MKT. L. REV. 1363 (2013).

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Reserve Projects Tracking Chart Sept. 1, 2015 RESERVES-FOREIGN ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AT SPRING

Chair or Contact Person

Leadership

Jonathan Gleklen, International Officer

Vice Chairs or Other Contacts

Section Chair

Key Staff of Operations Contacts

RCM

Jonathan Gleklen, International Officer

Margaret Stafford

Brief Description of Project Funding to encourage participation for foreign enforcement officials at the Spring meeting to enhance relationships with the Section. A limited number of travel stipends are rotated to new jurisdictions, those with emerging economies or regions we are doing a target outreach. Maximum Authorized Amount for FY 2016 $50,000 Key Projected Events, Dates, Deadlines & Disbursements Description Spring Meeting: Attendance, Section Luncheon & Section Dinner for top enforcers Spring Meeting: Tuesday Enforcers Reception Spring Meeting: Travel Stipends for 5-10 enforcers

Amount $ $10,000 $20,000 $20,000

Required ABA Approvals Draft Budget approval by Chair, International Officer, Section Director Budget submitted with Section budget for Council Approval Actual Events & Outcomes 2015 2014

Disbursements $41,940.00 $38,200.00

Assessment of Benefits We have seen growth in participation through this project at Spring as well as increased attendance from agencies paying to attend other Section conferences. 14177270.1

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Reserve Projects Tracking Chart December 22, 2015, 2015

Judicial Intern Opportunity Program Chair or Contact Person

Leadership

Jan McDavid and Litigation Section

Vice Chairs or Other Contacts Gail Howard

RCM

Christine Sommer

Key Staff of Operations Contacts Julianna Theberge

Brief Description of Project This program provides opportunities to promising college students of traditionally underrepresented racial and ethnic groups in summer (or school-year) judicial internships. The program also provides opportunities to students with disabilities, students who are economically challenged, and students who identify as LGBT.

Maximum Authorized Amount for FY 2016 $25,000 Key Projected Events, Dates, Deadlines & Disbursements Description Deadline for applications is 1.8.16

Amount $

Required ABA Approvals No Board of Governors Approval required.

Actual Events & Outcomes Application went live 12.8.15

Disbursements

Assessment of Benefits Expose promising undergraduates to the possibility of a career in law, where they might not otherwise consider a legal career.

14177270.1

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Reserve Projects Tracking Chart March 1, 2016

Membership and Diversity Ambassador Pilot Program Chair or Contact Person

Leadership

April Tabor and Scott Pearlman (cochairs of Membership and Diversity Committee)

Vice Chairs or Other Contacts

Eugene J. Benick (vice chair responsible for program)

RCM

Gail Levine

Key Staff of Operations Contacts

Julianna Theberge

Brief Description of Project The diversity stipend is a new initiative of the Membership and Diversity Committee that seeks to offer a fully paid ABA membership (with travel and attendance at the Spring Meeting) in exchange for the recipient conducting at least one in person and one telephonic outreach event in a given year with the emphasis on attracting additional diverse attorneys to join the SAL. The Goal is to attract diverse individuals to the Section, showing them all of the benefits the Section has to offer, and encourage them to reach out to similarly diverse attorneys to join the section. Accordingly, an emphasis is placed on individuals that already have demonstrated ties to other organizations and well thought out ideas on conducting outreach efforts. At the moment the application process for the pilot program is live, and we have received one application. The Membership and Diversity Committee will be ramping up person-to-person marketing efforts to encourage potential eligible candidates to apply. Maximum Authorized Amount for FY 2016 $25,000 Key Projected Events, Dates, Deadlines & Disbursements Description March 2016-Rollout of social media and advertising efforts; Julianna Theberge contacting organizations the Section has working relationships with for outreach. Disbursements to be made on a rolling basis as candidates are accepted.

Amount $

Required ABA Approvals Potential modification of the program to: 1. Allow for rollover of funds from approved FY2016 to FY2017 to account for late rollout of program in 2016. At this point in the year it is unlikely the full $25,000 will be disbursed. 2. Have some or all accepted candidates start their year in the program as of FY2017, depending on when they apply and are accepted, as some candidates may not have sufficient time to fulfill their obligations to the program before August 2016. This may require us to pay for the candidate’s prorated membership for the remainder of FY2016, as well as for FY2017.

Actual Events & Outcomes December 22, 2015-Approval of launch of program by ABA General Counsel’s office. Late January-Early February 2016-Launch of application for program; advertising on Section website and Connect. February 4 to February 10, 2016-Advertising of launch of program at Mid-Year Meeting. Assessment of Benefits As the program is still in its rollout phase, it is too early to assess the benefits of the program. 14177270.1

Disbursements

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Reserve Projects Tracking Chart Sept. 1, 2015

Victor Morawetz Historical Project (Professor Marc McClure) Chair or Contact Person Leadership

Ted Voorhees

Vice Chairs or Other Contacts Mark Popofsky

RCM

Tara Koslov

Key Staff of Operations Contacts Julianna Theberge

Brief Description of Project Professor McClure (at George Washington University) requests funding to research Victor Morawetz’s contributions to the development of antitrust law in the early 20th century. Professor McClure requests funding for travel to archives and for relief from his summer class, so as to have time to complete the project. Maximum Authorized Amount for FY 2016 $5,000 : $1,500 for research/travel; $3,500 for relief from summer class to undertake writing. Key Projected Events, Dates, Deadlines & Disbursements Description 8/16 Draft of Work Product. 10/16 Submission for Publication.

Amount $

Required ABA Approvals Approval sought from the Reserve Board calendar year 2016.

Actual Events & Outcomes

Disbursements

Assessment of Benefits The Research Institute believes it is important to fund research into the “founding generation” of antitrust that otherwise might not be pursued, or pursued in a timely manner. Mr. Morawetz’s contributions are important but not widely known (in contrast to those of Brandeis, Handler, and others). The Research Institute accordingly believes it is valuable for the section to fund this effort. Professor McClure has written on other aspects of Mr. Morawetz’s career and thus is poised to complete the project. 14177270.1

Project: Oral History Task Force Interviews Key Contacts: Ed Biester and Jessica Hoke VanDerMiller (Public Education and Oral History CoChair and Vice Chair) Program Description: A series of oral history interviews of international antitrust enforcers in Washington D.C. during the Spring Meeting, possibly at major international Section events.

Funding Amount for FY16: $20,000 to cover the following expenses: production expenses (studio rental, recording, editing and other supplies), travel and lodging for staff and international interviewees (as necessary) and other miscellaneous expenses. Key Updates: 1. Jessica has reached to Randy Tritell to get suggestions on interview subjects. 2. We have four interviewees lined up for Wednesday, April 6th. Required ABA Approvals: This program is up for renewal. Evaluation and request have been submitted. .

Benefits: Success of this project can be measured by quality of interviews.

Project: SAL Antitrust and Consumer Research Institute (SAL Institute) Key Contacts: Ted Voorhees and Bill Kolasky (Co-Chairs)

Program Description: Institute houses and provides funding to research and writing projects and grant programs. Funding Amount for FY16: $70,000 Key Updates: 1. The Institute is reviewing 11 projects. Of the 11, three have been approved for funding so far: AASEGP, IP Student Essay Contest, and Biography of Morawetz. Required ABA Approvals: Council Approval through FY18. Board of Governors approval not required. Benefits: Projects and initiatives explore topics relevant to antitrust and consumer protection law and policy.

Project: State Enforcers Training Grant Program Key Contacts: Vic Domen and Tracy Wertz (State Enforcement Co-Chairs)

Program Description: The State enforcer Training Program is intended to provide resources to allow state antitrust and consumer protection enforcers to receive training in merger review, conduct enforcement and other areas of antitrust and consumer protection practice. Funding Amount for FY16: $30,000 to be used to fund one training for 10 recipients. Key Updates: 1. Program announcement (with training selections) and application were distributed to State AG offices on 1/29/16 2. Selections of recipients were made on 2/11/16 3. Recipients received notification letters from Roxann on 2/19/16 4. Staff now working on letter with training registration and travel details. First training is May 12th, the Antitrust in Healthcare Conference. Required ABA Approvals: None, this program has Council approval through FY18.

Future Trainings: ABA Masters Course and ABA Merger Workshop Benefits: First, actual attendance numbers would be an indication that the program had merit. Second, evaluations of the experience by both students and faculty would be expected.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Reserve Projects Tracking Chart January 7, 2016

State Enforcer Participation Enhancement Grant (SEPEG) Chair or Contact Person

Leadership

Vice Chairs or Other Contacts

RCM

Vic Domen Tracy Wertz Co-Chairs of the State Enforcement Committee

Key Staff of Operations Contacts Julianna Theberge

Brief Description of Project The State Enforcement Participation Enhancement Grant (SEPEG) Program is designed to facilitate active involvement by state enforcers in the Antitrust Section’s activities. The SEPEG program provides grantees with funds to cover the costs to attend the Spring Meeting and one other Section program in a two year period. Recipients commit to work on certain Committee projects during the two year period, including contributing articles to the Committee’s newsletters, assisting with publications and organizing programs. The SEPEG program has been successful in getting state enforcers to be more active Section Members. Many of the Committee’s current leadership would not be as involved in the Section absent their receipt of the SEPEG. Maximum Authorized Amount for FY 2016 $40,000 Key Projected Events, Dates, Deadlines & Disbursements Description By June 15, 2016, Co-Chairs of the State Enforcement Committee will solicit state enforcer applications with a deadline of July 15, 2016 for receipt of applications. By August 1, 2016, Co-Chairs will review SEPEG applications and recommend specific applicants for ten SEPEG grants to the Section Chair and staff. By August 29, 2016, Section leadership will review Co-Chairs recommendations and award SEPEGs to recipients. Section Leadership will provide letters to recipients advising they have been selected for a SEPEG with the details of the programs SEPEG recipients may attend.

Amount $

Required ABA Approvals Section Leadership reviews and approves Co-Chairs recommendations of applicants to receive SEPEGs.

Actual Events & Outcomes SEPEG recipients contribute to Section activities and attend the Spring Meeting and one other Section program in a two year period. Section Leadership monitors annual expenditures for the SEPEG program.

Disbursements

Actual Events & Outcomes

Disbursements

Assessment of Benefits By July 1, 2017, Co-Chairs provide evaluations of prior year’s SEPEG recipients to ensure they have fulfilled their commitments to undertake Committee projects during the year. Co-chairs will also assess the expenditures made for the SEPEG program to ensure adequate funding and assess the number of grants available for 2017.

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Reserve Projects Tracking Chart January 11, 2016

“Connect” Committee Collaboration Tool Chair or Contact Person Anthony Chavez Leadership

Vice Chairs or Other Contacts

RCM Subrata Bhattacharjee

Key Staff of Operations Contacts Joanne Travis

Brief Description of Project As you know, the Section has chosen Connect as its next generation interactive tool to promote discussion and facilitate communication and content between members. In the last year, Connect has been steadily implemented by the Section’s committee structure, though it remains the case that work needs to be done to (1) facilitate the transition and (2) ensure that members are aware of the features of the platform. For a summary of the latest status of the project, please refer to Anthony’s most recent report to Council. However, Anthony believes that the implementation of Connect has been hampered somewhat by the limited nature of the support package under the Section’s current arrangement with Higher Logic (supplier of the Connect platform). His belief is that the Section will be better served by moving to a more intensive support package that will allow for more prompt and comprehensive responses to identified problems, and there is an increased cost to this (discussed below) Maximum Authorized Amount for FY 2016 $32,000 (FY 2016 budget) Key Projected Events, Dates, Deadlines & Disbursements Description The more intensive Higher Logic support package would require an additional monthly expenditure of $2,500.00

Amount $ $30,000 (in addition to currently budgeted amount above)

Required ABA Approvals The additional amount would be subject to Council Approval.

Actual Events & Outcomes Depending on Council’s decision, the benefit of the higher level of support would be measured over the next year to see if it increases use of the platform

Disbursements

Assessment of Benefits Given the commitment of the Section to exploring improved means of communication with members as well as promoting its activities, efforts to assist in further implementation will be useful. 14177270.1

ABA Section of Antitrust Law Reserve Projects Tracking Chart Sept. 1, 2015

Janet D. Steiger Fellowship Project Chair or Contact Person Leadership

Robert M. Langer

Vice Chairs or Other Contacts Wendy K. Arends Lesley Fair Milton A. Marquis Nicholas Weilhammer

RCM Christine Sommer

Key Staff of Operations Contacts Deborah Morgan

Brief Description of Project A consumer protection outreach initiative begun in 2005 in which rising 1Ls and 2Ls are placed each summer in the consumer protection departments of state and territorial offices of attorneys general and other state consumer protection agencies. The students receive a stipend (currently $6,000 for 8 weeks), plus an optional travel/housing allowance for those students not living at home during the summer. Maximum Authorized Amount for FY 2016 $290,000 in total; $240,00 in increments of $6,000 stipends; $40,000 optional travel/housing allowance; $10,000 administrative expenses Key Projected Events, Dates, Deadlines & Disbursements Description State and territorial jurisdictions’ applications were due – 10/14/15; student applications are due – 1/15/16; interview period – 2/8 to 3/4/16; jurisdictions select Steiger Fellows 3/14/16; stipends disbursed to jurisdictions and travel/housing allowances disbursed to students following the student selection process. Students to intern during the summer of 2016.

Amount $

N.B. The Chair or one of the Vice Chairs of the Project participates in every student interview. Over a 30 day period, this usually comes to about 175 interviews. The Section’s representative spends about 5-7 minutes at the beginning of each interview explaining why the Section’s leadership has committed so much time, effort and resources to the Project and why the Project has been named in memory and in honor of Chairman Steiger. The Section representative also encourages every student to consider joining the Section, if that student has not already done so.

Required ABA Approvals ABA Board of Governors approval is required, which was both requested and approved through 2018. ABA General Counsel’s Office must approve both the announcement and application, which has already occurred. ABA General Counsel’s Office must approve the Letter of Agreement for each participating student, which will be completed once the students have been selected by the various jurisdictions.

Actual Events & Outcomes

Disburse ments

Disburse ments

Actual Events & Outcomes The thirty-six locations that will receive Steiger Fellows during the summer of 2016 are: %Montgomery, Alabama

%Des Moines, Iowa

%Las Vegas, Nevada

^Phoenix, Arizona

^Topeka, Kansas

*Concord, New Hampshire

^Little Rock, Arkansas

^Frankfort, Kentucky

^Newark, New Jersey

^Hartford, Connecticut

%Baltimore, Maryland

^New York, New York

^Wilmington, Delaware

^Boston, Massachusetts

^Columbus, Ohio

^Fort Lauderdale, Florida

%Lansing, Michigan

%Portland or Salem, Oregon

*^Atlanta, Georgia

%Jackson, Mississippi

^Harrisburg, Pennsylvania

^Honolulu, Hawaii

^Helena, Montana

*#^ San Juan, Puerto Rico

^Indianapolis, Indiana

%Lincoln, Nebraska

%Pierre, South Dakota

*Note: *Will only accept 2Ls #Fluency in Spanish required %10 Week Term of Service ^8 Week Term of Service

Assessment of Benefits The Project, since its inception, has made significant strides in reaching more and more law schools and in alerting the law schools, their career counselors, law professors who teach either consumer protection or antitrust, and, of course, the law students, themselves, to the unique value of the Project, and to fact that the home for consumer protection within the ABA is the Section of Antitrust Law. Each state and each student, each year, evaluates the Project and shares its evaluation with both Bob Langer and Deborah Morgan. The many jurisdictions and the students during the twelve (12) years of the Project’s existence have uniformly evaluated the Project in a very positive manner. N.B. Importantly, the Project has permitted students interested in sampling public service while still in law school, but who are not in a position financially to volunteer their services, to do so because we provide a decent stipend and the optional travel/housing allowance for the those students not living at home during the summer. The jurisdictions have praised the very talented students who have assisted them in fulfilling their consumer protection mission, and the students have found the experience to be extremely rewarding. Several jurisdictions have told us that many of the most productive students ever to have interned with them have been Steiger Fellows. Moreover, an increasing number of former Steiger Fellows have sought careers in public service, and have informed us that the reason for them doing so is directly attributable to their fellowship experience. For example, assistant attorneys general in both Montana and Washington State, who are former Steiger Fellows, have for many years served as our principal contacts in administering the Project in each state. Other former Steiger Fellows serve in a wide variety of public service positions, including assistant attorneys general in Alaska, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and Texas. We do intend to increase our efforts on both recruiting and retaining former Steiger Fellows as members of the Section. Under any measure, quantitative or qualitative, the Fellowship Project has been very successful. The 2015 evaluation submitted by Tennessee and the 2015 evaluation submitted by the New Jersey Steiger Fellow,

Assessment of Benefits Robert Holup, are linked below. They are both typical of the evaluations we receive each year.

Steiger Fellow Review - Tennessee -

Steiger Fellowship Evaluation_Holup.docx

10423/19/3392188.1

ABA Antitrust Section Reserves Project Evaluation/Renewal Request Project Name: Connect from Higher Logic Project Sponsor(s)/Contact(s): Secretary and Communications Officer J. Anthony Chavez Date: January 31, 2016 QUESTIONS 1. Has the Project been a success? Explain why or why not, including your basis for assessing success. The use of Connect for Committee communications is preferable to the use the earlier listserve system for Committee communications in that it allows members to easily access earlier committee communications without searching through old emails. Communications are in one centralized, searchable location. Any attachment will be automatically cataloged in the Committee’s library page. The system provides for improved search functionality over the current ABA website. The goal is to create a connected community while protecting member-only content. See my reports to Council for additional information (2016 Midwinter Council Meeting, 2015 Fall Council Meeting, 2015 PAM Council Meeting, and earlier reports). We encountered a number of challenges in using this platform for Committee communications and collaboration. Over the past year, we instituted a number of changes to facilitate the use of Connect and increase the number of Committees using Connect as the primary means for communicating with members. These changes include: introduction for a single sign-on for ABA and Connect, development of instructional videos for SAL Leadership, adjustment of system settings to reduce the stripping of formatting from posted messages (Committee banners and footers), changing the default setting to real time notices for most Committees phasing out their existing listserves, introduction of the ability to post by sending an email, limiting postings on Open Forum, and to facilitate the delivery of Committee content

to Section members, periodically posting notes on the Open Forum with links to recent Committee Newsletters and periodic summaries. 2. How has the project benefitted the mission of Antitrust Section? Improved ability to access committee communications. 3. What feedback have you received from participants/recipients of the Project? We encountered significant resistance from Committee Leadership in phasing-out Committee listserves, but most of the identified issues have been resolved and all but two of the Committees have transitioned to using Connect. 4. Will you be submitting a request to the Section Reserves Board to support the Project in FY2017? If so, for what amount? Please explain any difference in requested level support. Current annual expense is $32,500. I recommend increasing that amount by an additional $48,000 if a master contract between Higher Logic and the ABA does not provide for additional ongoing community management support from Higher Logic at a premium level (a proposal from Higher Logic is attached), including the ability of Section volunteers to receive training and assistance directly from Higher Logic. While some Committee Leaders would not take advantage of such training and assistance, the leaders that do would innovate and help lead the way. 5. Explain why the Section reserves should continue to support the project. Having introduced Connect, the prudent course is to continue using the system, but obtain additional assistance from Higher Logic. On an ongoing basis, the Section should evaluate technologies for facilitating member communications and content management. 6. Please share additional details about the project (i.e., how the project might be improved, lessons learned that could be applied to other programs, or how success should be measured going forward) Success will be measured by whether Connect increases the value of Section membership by facilitating Committee communications and communication between members, improving access to Section and Committee content, and increasing the amount and quality of member generated content. With respect to lessons learned, before introducing any new technology, the Section should undertake rigorous testing, prepare detailed documentation, and have a clear statement of the path forward.

Thank you for completing this evaluation Advisory Board on Section Reserves

ABA Antitrust Section Reserves Project Evaluation/Renewal Request Project Name: RESERVES-FOREIGN ANTITRUST ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS AT SPRING Project Sponsor(s)/Contact(s): Jon Gleklen (International Officer) and Margaret Stafford (Staff Contact) Date: March 11, 2016 QUESTIONS 1. Has the Project been a success? Explain why or why not, including your basis for assessing success. Yes. Participation at Spring has grown from 23 top enforcers in 2005 to 47 in 2015. The goals of the project are to provide senior enforcement officials from other countries an opportunity to become involved in the substantive work of the Section, to develop future leaders of the Section, and to enhance knowledge about the work of the Section among international enforcement officials. A limited number of travel stipends are rotated to new jurisdictions, those with emerging economies or regions we are doing a targeted outreach. An ancillary benefit of the project is to increase the participation of foreign lawyers in the Spring Meeting, who attend to hear and meet foreign enforcers in addition to all of the other programming at the meeting. Participants from outside the United States currently account for almost 25% of registrants for the 2016 Spring Meeting. 2. How has the project benefitted the mission of Antitrust Section? Overall the project has increased the visibility of the Section globally, including requests for Section comments on global antitrust issues. The participation of foreign enforcers also makes the Spring Meeting programming and networking events more valuable for our US and foreign members. The Section has experienced an increase in the number of paying registrants from enforcement agencies and from foreign law firms and economic consulting firms at our Spring & stand-alone CLE Conferences. 3. What feedback have you received from participants/recipients of the Project? Enforcers have been very appreciative, especially with the networking opportunities with our Officers. They also are looking to be more involved in the Spring Meeting.

4. Will you be submitting a request to the Section Reserves Board to support the Project in FY2017? If so, for what amount? Please explain any difference in requested level support. Yes, continuing at the $50,000 level.

5. Explain why the Section reserves should continue to support the project. As some agencies have tightened budgets, the stipend may be the sole way they can participate to learn at the CLE sessions and interact with those who practice throughout the world. Efforts to increase participation by foreign enforcers also yield a direct financial benefit to the Section by increasing paying attendance by lawyers and others that benefit from the participation and attendance of foreign enforcers.

6. Please share additional details about the project (i.e., how the project might be improved, lessons learned that could be applied to other programs, or how success should be measured going forward) Lessons learned/improvements since inception are: • Project works best with a small group of people implementing: Section Chair and International Officer with designated staff. • Invitations go out on the Section letterhead from staff on behalf of the chair. • Responses go directly to Section staff. • Reimbursement is communicated and processed by staff. • We now pair those attending the dinner with Section Officers as resources for the Section, Spring Meeting or section contact.

Thank you for completing this evaluation Advisory Board on Section Reserves

ABA Antitrust Section Reserves Project Evaluation/Renewal Request Project Name: Judicial Intern Opportunity Program Project Sponsor(s)/Contact(s): Gail Howard, Program Director Date: 12/30/2015 QUESTIONS 1. Has the Project been a success? Explain why or why not, including your basis for assessing success. JIOP is a program that matches deserving, diverse law students with judges for summer internships. We placed 194 students with judges last summer. We also expanded the program to include New York and placed an initial 10 students there. The success of the program is measured by our outcomes but more importantly by the success of our students— now alums—as they enter and progress through their legal careers. Please see the attached flyer for alumni testimonials. We have more than 2,000 JIOP alumni that remain involved with the ABA and the program. More than 50% of our screening interviews were conducted by JIOP alumni. The program is also measured by an alumni survey done every three years. Survey results indicate that the program helped most students obtain their first job after law school by increasing their writing skills and giving them importation contacts in the legal profession that helped mentor them along the way. JIOP students are all given a screening interview upon application to the program providing them with an initial contact. Volunteers conducted more than 600 screening interviews last year. Judges and legal staff also work with students during their JIOP summer along with the JIOP alums in local areas providing our mentoring circle program and advice and assistance to the students. 2. How has the project benefitted the mission of Antitrust Section? JIOP students remain involved in the ABA and our sponsoring sections. Our alumni serve in leadership positions throughout the ABA enhancing the pipeline of diverse young lawyers into the profession and into our organization. JIOP was the recipient of the State Bar of California Diversity award because the program successfully demonstrates sustained accomplishments toward increasing diversity in the legal profession. Our sponsoring Sections, and in particular the Section of Antitrust, are credited with increasing diversity and helping these young law students and lawyers attain success throughout the organization in the legal profession.

3. What feedback have you received from participants/recipients of the Project? The JIOP alumni program is extremely strong. Our alums created a new and improved program website to increase alumni information and mentoring for young lawyers. They published a newsletter with a second one slated for this winter. They also are extremely active on our program social media sites. They assist each other, mentor the new students, and remain loyal to the mission of the program. Our alumni tell us (through surveys) that they credit JIOP with helping them obtain their first legal position and provide them with important contacts to help them succeed. They also give back to the profession with many serving in leadership positions throughout the ABA and in their local legal communities. The alumni created the Mentoring Circle Program two years ago and have expanded that program to include all JIOP locations. Through the program, our local alums meet with the JIOP students providing advice and mentoring. They also bring them to local legal and bar events, host social activities and provide important resume, interviewing and professional skills. We are most proud of our alumni and their accomplishments. They are our strongest testimony to a successful program.

4. Will you be submitting a request to the Section Reserves Board to support the Project in FY2017? If so, for what amount? Please explain any difference in requested level support. We will again be requesting a $25,000 award from the Section of Antitrust. As a committee we struggle with maintaining the award amount for our students and meeting the demand from judges for interns through this program. One goal this year is to increase our grant sponsorships. We started the year with a grant from AT&T, the Illinois Judges Foundation and the California Bar Foundation. We awarded 194 students internships last year amounting to nearly $400,000 in student awards. While we have kept our expenses nearly flat over the past 10 years, the majority of our budget is dedicated to student awards. Judges (please see attached letter from California judges) truly appreciate and depend on this program. We cannot keep pace with the judges asking to participate and continue to look for alternatives to funding our students. The reserves award from the Section of Antitrust is used strictly for student awards and is a necessary component in allowing us to continue to place students and award them the $2,000 stipend.

5. Explain why the Section reserves should continue to support the project. The ABA and our supporting Sections need to continue to support this project. JIOP is the largest and longest diversity pipeline project at the ABA. It has a proven success record and our alumni are the future of our profession. We are expanding our partnership to include more specific Antitrust information on the JIOP website, working to involve our alumni more in the Antitrust Section and working with judges to place students with antitrust interest and background with judges that typically hear those types of cases. We work each year to find new ways to bring the mission of the Section of Antitrust to this project and to our students. The program began in the Section of Antitrust and our continued partnership is critical to its success.

6. Please share additional details about the project (i.e., how the project might be improved, lessons learned that could be applied to other programs, or how success should be measured going forward) We continue to find new ways to keep JIOP relevant in a changing profession. Diversity and inclusion are critical to the success of the legal profession. That has not changed. Our best source of information for

improving the program comes from our alumni. Developing and maintaining a successful alumni network not only helps the program but helps us all target our future challenges. As you can imagine, as young lawyers, our alumni move around a lot. Keeping track of them and what they are doing remains our greatest challenge. Our goal is to continue to find ways to keep them involved with the ABA and our sponsoring Sections. The Section of Litigation has a separate JIOP alumni committee which could be mirrored in other Sections. It is also important that we all partner on soliciting volunteers and funds to support the program.

Thank you for completing this evaluation Advisory Board on Section Reserves

ABA Antitrust Section Reserves Project Evaluation/Renewal Request Project Name: Oral History Interviews Project Sponsor(s)/Contact(s): Public Education and Oral History Committee Edward Biester, Jessica Hoke VanDerMiller and James Yoon Date: 12/29/2015 QUESTIONS 1. Has the Project been a success? Explain why or why not, including your basis for assessing success. Yes, the oral history interviews have always been a success. The success of the project can be measured by having preserved on film, the anecdotes of individuals who have influenced the development of antitrust law and also by the substantive content and visual quality of the interviews themselves. The interesting stories told by the interview subjects often shed light on significant antitrust trials, agencies, and legal developments that are not found in textbooks or anywhere else. As the interview subject gets to select her own interviewer, the interviews have a conversational flow which generates a great amount of insight into the interview subject’s antitrust career and life. The interviews are professionally filmed in studios with film and make-up crews that ensure a quality film. 2. How has the project benefitted the mission of Antitrust Section? The historical value of capturing the development of antitrust law and the insights provided by individuals who played significant roles in that development, are an invaluable benefit to both the present and future antitrust community and the Antitrust Section. With an additional focus on international enforcers, this also benefits the international outreach mission of the Antitrust Section. 3. What feedback have you received from participants/recipients of the Project? We have received positive feedback from not only the interview participants but also from those who have viewed prior interviews of former colleagues, friends and other antitrust practitioners. 4. Will you be submitting a request to the Section Reserves Board to support the Project in FY2017? If so, for what amount? Please explain any difference in requested level support.

C:\Users\jhoke\Desktop\ABA Antitrust Section Reserves Project Evaluation 12 2015.docx

Yes. We have submitted a proposal to the Section Reserves Board in the amount of $25,000. This estimate has been developed based on past expenditures for this project. The estimated funds would be spent between 2016 and 2017 for the following expenses: production expenses (studio rental for up to two days, recording, editing and other supplies) and other miscellaneous expenses. As in the past, this project will require a contract with the Associated Press studio in Washington DC. Additional studio contracts may be required based on the location of interviews/symposiums. Also, as we focus on international antitrust enforcers, in the rare event, we may need translators. We have a budget estimate based on past experience with oral history videos of $10,200 for recording and production of five videos. We believe we will have a better chance of securing participation of desired interview subjects if we are able to offer two different days on which to film interviews, which is why we are requesting total funding of up to $20,000. We have also added an additional $5,000 for the addition of a roundtable symposium.

5. Explain why the Section reserves should continue to support the project. It is important to capture and preserve the experiences of a wide range of antitrust enforcers and practitioners. These interviews help preserve the experiences of the people who helped develop our modern antitrust laws. For example, we had a chance to interview Alfred E. Kahn, the “father of airline deregulation” but he passed away during the scheduling of his interview at a great loss to the antitrust community. 6. Please share additional details about the project (i.e., how the project might be improved, lessons learned that could be applied to other programs, or how success should be measured going forward). Working with other individuals and groups within the Antitrust Section have helped improve the oral history interviews. A focus on international enforcement has also helped add diversity. We are in process of developing ideas for better distribution and access to content. A recently completed Documentary compilation from the interviews has been played at the most recent Spring Meeting, and we are working on posting topical intermediate cut segments on our Committee webpages. The Source posted a link to our webpage in its most recent issue with a feature on the Symposium Session on Gordon Spivak, and we hope to continue feature links through the Source.

Thank you for completing this evaluation Advisory Board on Section Reserves

C:\Users\jhoke\Desktop\ABA Antitrust Section Reserves Project Evaluation 12 2015.docx

Request for Renewal of Funding to the Section of Antitrust Law Advisory Board on Section Reserves Proposal: Profiles of Women in Leadership Project Sponsor(s)//: April Tabor 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. MSC H-172 Washington, D.C. Email: [email protected] Fax: 202-326-2496 Section Position: Co-Chair Membership & Diversity Samantha Knox 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA Email: [email protected] Fax: 650-752-3683 Section Position: Vice Chair, Joint Conduct Description of Project: Profiles of Women in Leadership Project. The purpose of the Project is to create series of short video profiles of the Section’s most accomplished female leaders, past and present. In the last two years, we have conducted short videotaped interviews (around 10-15 minutes in length seven women in leadership. Five of these videotaped interviews are currently available on the Section’s website, at http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT320250. The goal of this Project is to use these videos to recruit more women to the Section and to encourage more existing female members to become involved in Section leadership. To that end, the interviews asked each leader to describe her practice, how the Section has helped her career, how involvement in the Section has fostered her professional development, and for any other words of wisdom she may have for young women just joining the Section. Has the Project been a success? Explain why or why not, including your basis for assessing success. The project has been successful in highlighting the number of women in leadership, and in bringing attention to the various ways in which the Section can help our female members in their respective careers or practices. Further, it has been successful in providing younger women members with role models who can inspire their involvement in the Section.

Since beginning the Project, we have received positive feedback from interviewees and from other female leaders who have expressed an interest in participating in this project, including Section Council member Fiona Schaeffer Several women leaders continue to express an interest in participating in this project, including Section Council member Fiona Schaeffer, International Task Force member Amy Mudge, and others. One issue affecting the Project has been the delay in receiving the edited videos. In each year, it has taken several months to receive the edited videos. Though the videos from the first year have been published to the Section website, we are still waiting for the videos from last year. Our understanding is that they may have been delivered to the Oral History Project for review with their videos. How has the project benefited the mission of the Antitrust Section? The Project benefits the Section in several ways. First, the Project supports one of the ABA’s key priorities, Goal III, the commitment to eliminating bias and enhancing diversity. Highlighting women in our leadership furthers three of the Section’s strategic diversity goals: (1) communicating that diversity is valued and supported in the Section; (2) encouraging increased diversity participation in leadership; and (3) encouraging increased diversity in membership. The Project also creates an opportunity to bring women together to network and mentor each other, as we collaborate to create these videos. In addition to documenting more of our oral history, and developing a membership marketing tool, the finished product can be used in hosting events focused on women in the profession. The Project also supports our diversity and inclusion efforts for “investing in coordinating strategic marketing and communication efforts targeted to students and young lawyers, to increase the number of members in the pipeline.” Law students and young lawyers tell us they don’t always feel welcome unless they see people that look like them in leadership. If renewal were approved, what we would change about the Project going forward: In the first two years of the Project, we conducted the interviews during the Spring Meeting and shared interview times with the Oral History Project. Though many of our female leaders attend the Spring Meeting, it is difficult to schedule interviews during this time. Many of the leaders are participating on panels or in other substantive meetings. Further, because we shared studio recording time with the Oral History Project, we had little flexibility in scheduling interviews or in accommodating any last minute scheduling changes that interviewees may need. Going forward, we would conduct interviews independent of the Oral History Project and would conduct such interviews either during the Post-Annual Meeting or at another time during the year.

2

Amount of funding requested: We expect that the project, if renewed, would require approximately $10,000. This is the amount we requested in our initial proposal and it has proven to be sufficient funding for the duration of the Project. We plan to continue working with the same vendor that has produced the prior interviews. This is also the same vendor that performs the Oral History Task Force interviews, and they are familiar with our requirements.

3

ABA Antitrust Section Reserves Project Evaluation/Renewal Request Project Name: Antitrust Source Mobile App Project Sponsor(s)/Contact(s): Antitrust Source/Tina Miller, Dorothy Fountain and Amanda Reeves Date: Dec. 27, 2015 QUESTIONS 1. Has the Project been a success? Explain why or why not, including your basis for assessing success. We believe the app has been successful in increasing the total number of viewers of The Source (both on the app and the Web), based on the best measurements we can obtain. Those numbers are provided by Julian Wiley on a regular monthly basis at our request and show variable numbers of viewers per month. We are not certain, however, that the data analytics provide an accurate measure of viewership. We are continually working to analyze the numbers and see if we can improve reporting. We have been told by the app developer that they are working on ways to improve their reporting.

2. How has the project benefited the mission of Antitrust Section? There are at least two ways the app has furthered the mission of the Section: (1) It provides an easy and portable way for members to access issues of the Source on their mobile devices, which is more and more how a new generation of lawyers get information; and (2) The app is available to anyone who downloads it, which makes it a way for nonmembers all over the world to become aware of the benefits of Section membership.

3. What feedback have you received from participants/recipients of the Project?

We get constant feedback on actual usage via data analytics collected by Julian Wiley (see no. 1 above). We are also investigating how to implement a survey of viewers.

4. Will you be submitting a request to the Section Reserves Board to support the Project in FY2017? If so, for what amount? Please explain any difference in requested level support. We are engaged in a year-long intensive analysis of the advantages of the app based on the data Julian is collecting. It is likely that if the numbers stay at the same or increased levels, we will be asking to continue support of the project in FY2017 at the same amount, pending any changes in the contract price with the app provider or any other changes in the cost of providing the app or in making changes to it to increase its utility.

5. Explain why the Section reserves should continue to support the project. The app provides a direct benefit to Section members now and is also in complete alignment with the Section’s continuing initiative to update Section technological outreach and awareness.

6. Please share additional details about the project (i.e., how the project might be improved, lessons learned that could be applied to other programs, or how success should be measured going forward) As noted above, we are engaged in a continuing analysis of the numbers and ways to heighten awareness of The Source as an important vehicle for the delivery of high-quality peerreviewed timely articles on antitrust and consumer protection. This is the future—and we want to be part of it.

Thank you for completing this evaluation Advisory Board on Section Reserves

ABA Antitrust Section Reserves Project Evaluation/Renewal Request Project Name: Janet D. Steiger Fellowship Project Project Sponsor(s)/Contact(s): Robert M. Langer, Chair Date: 12/18/15 QUESTIONS 1. Has the Project been a success? Explain why or why not, including your basis for assessing success.

Yes. The Project, since its inception, has made significant strides in reaching more and more law schools and in alerting the law schools, their career counselors, law professors who teach either consumer protection or antitrust, and, of course, the law students, themselves, to the unique value of the Project, and to fact that the home for consumer protection within the ABA is the Section of Antitrust Law. Each state and each student, each year, evaluates the Project and shares its evaluation with both Bob Langer and Deborah Morgan. The many jurisdictions and the students during the twelve (12) years of the Project’s existence have uniformly evaluated the Project in a very positive manner. The jurisdictions have praised the very talented students who have assisted them in fulfilling their consumer protection mission, and the students have found the experience to be extremely rewarding. Several jurisdictions have told us that many of the most productive students ever to have interned with them have been Steiger Fellows. Moreover, an increasing number of former Steiger Fellows have sought careers in public service, and have informed us that the reason for them doing so is directly attributable to their fellowship experience. For example, assistant attorneys general in both Montana and Washington State, who are former Steiger Fellows, have for many years served as our principal contacts in administering the Project in each state. Other former Steiger Fellows serve in a wide variety of public service positions, including assistant attorneys general in Alaska, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and Texas. We do intend to increase our efforts on both recruiting and retaining former Steiger Fellows as members of the Section. Under any measure, quantitative or qualitative, the Fellowship Project has been very successful.

2. How has the project benefitted the mission of Antitrust Section?

The project has significantly enhanced the consumer protection mission of the Section of Antitrust Law. The 2015 evaluations of the Tennessee AGO and the New Jersey Steiger Fellow, Robert Holup, are attached below, and we believe explain quite clearly how the project benefits the mission of the Section.

Steiger Fellow Review - Tennessee -

Steiger Fellowship Evaluation_Holup.docx

3. What feedback have you received from participants/recipients of the Project?

As noted in the response to Par. 1, every jurisdiction and every student each and every year provides us with an evaluation. Please see sample evaluations appended to the response to Par. 2, above. We use these evaluations to continue to improve the project.

4. Will you be submitting a request to the Section Reserves Board to support the Project in FY2017? If so, for what amount? Please explain any difference in requested level support.

A request was submitted on November 20, 2015. Please see attachment below. The amount requested is the same amount as authorized by the Council for the current fiscal year, $290,000.

Steiger Project Request for Proposal f

5. Explain why the Section reserves should continue to support the project.

The project has been a wonderful consumer protection outreach initiative that the Section leadership has embraced for over a decade. In multiple ways, the project

has benefited the students who have served as Steiger Fellows and the jurisdictions selected each summer to receive a Steiger Fellow. The project has also been of value in that it has firmly established the Section of Antitrust Law as the home for consumer protection within the ABA. To the extent that Section reserves are available, the project deserves to continue.

6. Please share additional details about the project (i.e., how the project might be improved, lessons learned that could be applied to other programs, or how success should be measured going forward) We have periodically updated our information on the career paths of former Steiger Fellows. We need to continue to do so, in part to further demonstrate the value of the project. This includes the fact that many former Steiger Fellows commit to public service as a career path precisely because of their tenure as a Steiger Fellow.

Thank you for completing this evaluation Advisory Board on Section Reserves 10423/19/3393574.1

Request for Proposal for Funding to the Section of Antitrust Law Advisory Board on Section Reserves.

Person or Group submitting request: Jon Gleklen (International Officer) and Margaret Stafford (Meetings Director)

Contact Person: Margaret Stafford Meetings Director ABA Section of Antitrust 321 N. Clark Street Chicago, IL 60654 312-988-5776 Proposal: Foreign Enforcement Officials at Spring Meeting Provide senior enforcement officials from other countries an opportunity to become involved in the substantive work of the Section, to develop future leaders of the Section, and to enhance knowledge about the work of the Section among international enforcement officials. A limited number of travel stipends would be rotated to new jurisdictions, those with emerging economies or regions where we are doing a targeted outreach.

Amount of funding requested: Annual funding $50,000 to cover the travel, accommodations, and Spring Meeting registration costs for 10 enforcement officials. Time frame: Fiscal years 2017 through 2019.

Assessment of benefits: The project will increase the visibility of the Section globally. The participation of foreign enforcers also makes the Spring Meeting programming and networking events more valuable for our US and foreign members.

Submitting Group: Section of Litigation--Judicial Intern Opportunity Program

Contact: Gail Howard

Who will oversee: Gail Howard has served as the program director of JIOP since the program came to the Section of Litigation and will continue in that role. Proposal: The purpose of the program is to provide opportunities for students who are members of traditionally underrepresented racial and ethnic groups to participate in summer judicial internships. The program also provides opportunities to students with disabilities, students who are economically disadvantaged and students who identify themselves as LGBT. Students selected for summer internships are granted an award to help them offset some of their expenses. Students are also provided learning, mentoring and networking opportunities throughout the summer. The program places approximately 200 students with judges each summer. The mission of JIOP is to provide judicial internships for diverse law students, thereby enhancing the pipeline of qualified, skilled, and diverse practitioners into the profession. The goals of the program are twofold: to increase diversity in the courts by providing internship opportunities to those who would not otherwise have them; and to provide life-changing, careeradvancing opportunities to vault underrepresented populations forward in the profession. During the last 11 years, JIOP has placed more than 1,800 diverse students with judges for summer internships. In order to have a true democracy, the U.S. legal population should reflect the country it serves. Unfortunately, while the U.S. population grows in diversity, the legal profession has not kept pace. Diverse and economically disadvantaged law students face additional challenges to succeed. JIOP provides diverse law students with opportunities to gain real legal experience, mentors and skills, and assists students with the economic difficulty of accepting an internship by also providing a stipend to help offset their expenses. JIOP allows underrepresented students an opportunity to intern in a judge's chambers. The internships provide a learning experience that includes "real-world" situations and allows students to work with judges who provide guidance, education, inspiration and increased confidence for the student. A survey of former JIOP students ranked this experience as extremely helpful in developing their legal analysis (96%), problem solving (94%), research (94%), communication (93%), and ethics (88%). The internship also assists in providing references and job qualifications for students seeking entry to the profession. Participants most often have found the internship extremely

helpful in "choosing a job the year following their internship." Also noted in this survey of former students, experiencing life in the courtroom was one of the most successful components of the program . Students cited limited financial assistance and limited opportunities as the reasons for not being able to obtain internships without the assistance of JIOP. The JIOP program addresses both of those needs by providing opportunities and assisting with a $2,000 award. Judicial clerkship populations have not matched the demographics of law school graduating classes. While minority representation in clerkships has increased slightly over the last decade, it is still at just 16%. The experience as judicial interns provides these students with increased writing and research skills, as well as credentials that make a real difference in their ability to obtain clerkships and other positions in the legal field. JIOP receives nearly 800 applications a year from diverse law students desiring intern opportunities. These positions are valuable and yet extremely limited. Diverse law students often lack the networking and financial resources to obtain and be able to accept a summer judicial internship. As a result, many do not gain the experience and learning necessary to succeed in the legal profession. Students participating in the program benefit from not only the internship experience but other program aspects including interviewing skills, obtaining feedback early on in their legal careers, mentoring support and the skills necessary to obtain a position following law school. The program has assisted more than 1,800 diverse law students by providing them with tools to help them advance in the legal profession. In order to increase the award amount from $1500 to $2000, we had to reduce the number of placements from 200 to 150. We hope this reduction is temporary and that we can raise the additional necessary funds. We also would like to expand the program in 2015 to include internships in New York which will require additional funding. The Section of Litigation supports the program financially. All other program funds are raised either from other Sections within the ABA or externally from support from the legal community. The job of raising more than $350,000 annually is a big one and yet it is an investment in the future of the legal community. JIOP represents the future for both the ABA, the supporting Sections and the legal community by helping young, diverse lawyers achieve their dreams. Amount: 25000 Funding details: The annual project budget is nearly $500,000. The majority of those funds are used to pay student stipends to program interns. Those expenses occur every year and the JIOP committee works to raise those funds annually. We have investigated other ways to fund the program but support from ABA Sections, law firms and other legal entities seems to be the best solution for funding. Time Frame: The project runs annually from August through July. Marketing to all law schools takes place in the fall with the student application period opening in November. Evaluations on applicants are performed in January and February and judicial selection takes place immediately following. Students participate in

program orientations in June and continue with other summer programming during their internships. The JIOP alumni committee has been formed and offers mentoring and other programming for students throughout the summer. The program began in 2000 as a project within the Section of Antitrust Law. It transferred two years later to being administered by the Section of Litigation. The program will continue as long as there is a need to increase diversity in the legal system. Even with declining law student numbers, the program saw a record number of applications this year--800. After more than 13 years, the need for diversity pipeline programs like JIOP remains. Benefits: JIOP partners with the American Bar Foundation every three years to do a program evaluation and measurement. The results show that the program is working. The program not only increases the skills for these law students and young lawyers, it helps them obtain jobs and also shows that JIOP alums have a much higher ratio of becoming and remaining ABA members. These students and young lawyers are committed to the program and to the advancement of diversity in the law. They are active in the ABA, active in Sections and remain active with the program. We have nearly 1800 JIOP alums. They have formed a committee and work to bring information and tools to the JIOP applicants, students and others that have been involved with the program.

Response Summary: Person or group submitting request: Public Education and Oral History Committee Primary Contact Person: Please include the name, phone number, address, email, fax and Section position of the person(s) that will oversee the project First Name Edward Last Name Biester Email [email protected] Address 30 S. 17th Street City Philadelphia State PA Country United States Section Position Chair, Public Education and Oral History Committee Secondary Contact Person (optional) Proposal: Describe the project for which funding is requested. Identify the goal(s) served, the “audience” targeted or benefitted by the project, why the project is appropriately regarded as an “investment” rather than an expenditure from the operating budget, why alternative sources of funding are not otherwise available, the nature of the specific benefits to be accomplished, and the people needed to implement the project Oral History Task Force interviews through the 2017 fiscal year. This proposed budget will cover all expenses associated with recording a series of oral history interviews and symposiums throughout the fiscal year. We may seek further funding for additional sessions in following years. The focus of this series of oral history interviews will be multi-faceted. First, we plan to focus on international antitrust enforcers. International enforcers and practicioners remain under-represented in our completed oral history interviews, and this focus will help improve diversity and add a new perspective to our Oral History Interview collection. This focus will also recognize the growing importance and convergence of antitrust enforcement around the globe, and the importance of international outreach to the Section. Enlisting continued assistance of Section members Randy Tritell, Tad Lipsky and past and current Section International Officers, the Committee will invite approximately 4-7 individuals as interviewees, beginning with the list of international enforcers who plan to attend the Spring Meeting. Out of these 4-7 individuals, we hope to schedule 3-4 interviews for filming during the Spring Meeting. Our second focus will be on oral history interviews with senior U.S. government officials, and senior respected practitioners including limited selections among the plaintiff and defense bar, academia and economists. This will help update our current line-up of oral history interviews while capturing senior antitrust practitioners who have not been previously interviewed, given our committee’s focus in the past few years on compilation of a documentary and interviews of international enforcers. These interviews could also be filmed during the Spring Meeting, or possibly during the Fall Forum.

Our third focus would be round table discussions of respected antitrust lawyers who are no longer with us. With the recent success of the symposium on Gordon Spivack initiated by Jon Jacobson, we propose to replicate this format for one or more respected antitrust lawyers. These round table symposiums would be a lively conversation between experienced antitrust lawyers who worked most closely with and most intimately knew the leading antitrust lawyer of the recent past. This focus will help us capture the contributions and experiences of distinguished antitrust lawyers who we were unable to interview while they were alive. As with all previous interviews, the finished product will be a polished video recording, complete with professional editing and high-quality sound and lighting design. After production, these oral history interviews and symposiums will be posted to the Public Education and Oral History Committee’s website and Connect page.

Amount of funding requested: Please provide a specific dollar amount of funding. 25.000 Funding details: Provide the timing over which the funding would be required (e.g., one time versus recurring expense) and the bases on which you have developed the estimate of costs. Please indicate whether the project requires a contract(s) with a third party. Projects involving entities outside the American Bar Association may require ABA Board of Governors approval. If funding involves international participants, please identify any visa requirements and tax implications. The Public Education and Oral History Committee requests $25,000 for this project. This estimate has been developed based on past expenditures for this project. The estimated funds would be spent between 2016 and 2017 for the following expenses: production expenses (studio rental for up to two days, recording, editing and other supplies) and other miscellaneous expenses. As in the past, this project will require a contract with the Associated Press studio in Washington DC. Additional studio contracts may be required based on the location of interviews/symposiums. Also, as we focus on international antitrust enforcers, in the rare event, we may need translators. We have a budget estimate based on past experience with oral history videos of $10,200 for recording and production of five videos. We believe we will have a better chance of securing participation of desired interview subjects if we are able to offer two different days on which to film interviews, which is why we are assuming $20,000 for the traditional oral history interviews. We have requested an additional $5,000 for at least one round table symposium, which brings our total funding request to $25,000.

Time frame: Please identify as specifically as possible the time frame for the project, including a realistic starting and ending date, including a timeline of the project with significant milestones. We are currently planning oral history interviews for the 2016 Spring Meeting. Following completion of those, we will begin planning for any interviews to take place during mid to late 2016 and into 2017 (invite interviewees/interviewers, finalize filming plans, schedule all

interviews, travel arrangements). The interviews will be filmed during the 2017 Spring Meeting or at major Section events. Post-production of the interviews and final posting of the interviews to the Public Education and Oral History Committee’s website will occur within a month of the interviews. A realistic end date for this round of interviews is early May, 2017.

Assessment of benefits: Please identify as specifically as possible how you might measure the success of the project and its expected benefits and the person or group that would be responsible for undertaking the evaluation. (i.e. “this project will benefit the Section’s membership by…” or “this project will benefit Competition Law and Consumer Protection Law practitioners by…”) The success of this project can be measured by the quality of the interviews. As in the past, we will use a high-quality video production team, so the production quality of the interviews will be evident by viewing the interviews. Regarding the substance of the interviews, by choosing distinguished individuals with deep and interesting antitrust backgrounds, we can ensure substantive, entertaining and enlightening interviews. The historical value of capturing the development of antitrust law and the insights provided by individuals who played significant roles in that development, are an invaluable benefit to both the present and future antitrust community. With our focus in 2016-2017 on international enforcers, we will add to the diversity of our interviews. Ed Biester, chair and Jessica Hoke VanDerMiller and James Yoon, vice chairs will work to evaluate the continued success of this program, and continue to consult with our adhoc advisory committee of Randy Tritell and Tad Lipsky, and past and current Section International Officers.

Request for Renewal of Funding to the Section of Antitrust Law Advisory Board on Section Reserves Proposal: Profiles of Women in Leadership Project Sponsor(s)//: April Tabor 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. MSC H-172 Washington, D.C. Email: [email protected] Fax: 202-326-2496 Section Position: Co-Chair Membership & Diversity Samantha Knox 1600 El Camino Real Menlo Park, CA Email: [email protected] Fax: 650-752-3683 Section Position: Vice Chair, Joint Conduct Description of Project: Profiles of Women in Leadership Project. The purpose of the Project is to create series of short video profiles of the Section’s most accomplished female leaders, past and present. In the last two years, we have conducted short videotaped interviews (around 10-15 minutes in length seven women in leadership. Five of these videotaped interviews are currently available on the Section’s website, at http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT320250. The goal of this Project is to use these videos to recruit more women to the Section and to encourage more existing female members to become involved in Section leadership. To that end, the interviews asked each leader to describe her practice, how the Section has helped her career, how involvement in the Section has fostered her professional development, and for any other words of wisdom she may have for young women just joining the Section. Has the Project been a success? Explain why or why not, including your basis for assessing success. The project has been successful in highlighting the number of women in leadership, and in bringing attention to the various ways in which the Section can help our female members in their respective careers or practices. Further, it has been successful in providing younger women members with role models who can inspire their involvement in the Section.

Since beginning the Project, we have received positive feedback from interviewees and from other female leaders who have expressed an interest in participating in this project, including Section Council member Fiona Schaeffer Several women leaders continue to express an interest in participating in this project, including Section Council member Fiona Schaeffer, International Task Force member Amy Mudge, and others. One issue affecting the Project has been the delay in receiving the edited videos. In each year, it has taken several months to receive the edited videos. Though the videos from the first year have been published to the Section website, we are still waiting for the videos from last year. Our understanding is that they may have been delivered to the Oral History Project for review with their videos. How has the project benefited the mission of the Antitrust Section? The Project benefits the Section in several ways. First, the Project supports one of the ABA’s key priorities, Goal III, the commitment to eliminating bias and enhancing diversity. Highlighting women in our leadership furthers three of the Section’s strategic diversity goals: (1) communicating that diversity is valued and supported in the Section; (2) encouraging increased diversity participation in leadership; and (3) encouraging increased diversity in membership. The Project also creates an opportunity to bring women together to network and mentor each other, as we collaborate to create these videos. In addition to documenting more of our oral history, and developing a membership marketing tool, the finished product can be used in hosting events focused on women in the profession. The Project also supports our diversity and inclusion efforts for “investing in coordinating strategic marketing and communication efforts targeted to students and young lawyers, to increase the number of members in the pipeline.” Law students and young lawyers tell us they don’t always feel welcome unless they see people that look like them in leadership. If renewal were approved, what we would change about the Project going forward: In the first two years of the Project, we conducted the interviews during the Spring Meeting and shared interview times with the Oral History Project. Though many of our female leaders attend the Spring Meeting, it is difficult to schedule interviews during this time. Many of the leaders are participating on panels or in other substantive meetings. Further, because we shared studio recording time with the Oral History Project, we had little flexibility in scheduling interviews or in accommodating any last minute scheduling changes that interviewees may need. Going forward, we would conduct interviews independent of the Oral History Project and would conduct such interviews either during the Post-Annual Meeting or at another time during the year.

2

Amount of funding requested: We expect that the project, if renewed, would require approximately $10,000. This is the amount we requested in our initial proposal and it has proven to be sufficient funding for the duration of the Project. We plan to continue working with the same vendor that has produced the prior interviews. This is also the same vendor that performs the Oral History Task Force interviews, and they are familiar with our requirements.

3

MEMORANDUM

FROM:

Darren Tucker, Editorial Chair, The Antitrust Source Tina Miller, Executive Editor, The Antitrust Source

DATE:

June 13, 2012

RE:

A»titrust Source Mobile Application

A recent priority of the Section of Antitrust Law has been to offer Section content on popular new platforms, such as Facebook, Linkedln, and Twitter. Consistent with this initiative, the Antitrust Source proposes to deploy an application(app)for mobile devices that would facilitate access to the Source on these devices and serve as a pilot for a potential future Section app. We expect that a Source app could he developed at a lower cost than a typical app and would require only very modest additional effort by Section staff and our editorial board to maintain. Background Americans increasingly use smartphones and tablet devices for Internet connectivity. Nearly half of American adults own a smartphone,~Z a quarter of which are tablets. ~ 3 A 2012 Pew survey indicated that 2596 of smartphone owners use their mobile devices as their primary method of accessing the Internet. The use of mobile devices to connect to the Internet, which is particularly popular among younger users, has come at the expense of the PC. According to Pew Research,PCbased Internet access peaked in 2009.14 Mobile devices that access the intemet now outsell PCs; by 2016, sales of smartphones are expected to be more than double that of PCs.~s

12 Aaron Struth, Nearly HalJoJAmencan Adx/t~ arr Smartphone Owners(Pew Internet &American Life Project Mat. 1, 2012), available at htc~~, '~~e~~-inrcrrt ~~n c}irir L~e~-ice. ~~ Pew Internet &American Life Project 2012. Since then, the rate has varied between 74-78°~0. ~~ Press release, IDC, Nearly l Billion Smart (:onnected Devices Shipped in 20]1 with Shipments (I~1ac. available at 2016 28, Expected Double by 2012), to ~s~~cre.c~,tn,~~i're~s_~~~-enr~,~Pre~s_Release~ hrtj~:~ 2(1i:2'S~'lnrrc~dE~cin~,_a'~It,bilr_,A~[r~rrix ?__1 nsi~*ht_intc~_?1tr>f~ile Beh~ti~~c~r.

Id. ~" comScore press release, ru~ra note 1 (reporting that 50.2°~0 of smartphone users use downloaded apps). '`' Gartner, rrrpra note 4. This shift has caused some concern in the tech community. See, e.,g., Janna Anderson & Lte Rainie, The FKturr ofAppr and Web (Pew Internet &American Life Project Mar. 23, f=urtue c>f-_~~ps-anc~-~k'eb as~x (surve}=ing 2012), auarlabk at lltrp:~~;'pe~ti u~tertict.rrrg%Reports/?01?' accessing will become predominant means of the Internet); Chris Anderson & whether apps the Michael Wolff, The IY/eb I.r Dead. Long Live tht Inttrrrel, Wired, Sept. 201(1, hrtp:,l'%u-acv.~virec~.cc~m,~~ma~~zznel~2{1tt) `UH;'ff~~x-et~n}~ all/1 (az$ut~zK that the World Wide Web is "in decline" and "apps" are in ascendance). ~ For example, we will be able to record the number of apps downloaded, the numbez of times the apps are used, and the articles that are viewed.

Facebook, Linkedtn, and Twitter. Developing an app for the Source will allow the Section to stay at the vanguard of technology platforms and reach (often younger) lawyers who prefer using apps to access the Internet,21 Third, the Source has a record of success in technology initiatives. The Source was one of the first Section committees or periodicals to develop a social media presence, and its LinkedIn page currently has the most followers of any Section committee or publication. The fact that the Source is entirely web-based makes it particularly well-suited for development of an app. Fourth, we anticipate that the resource requirements for developing and maintaining a Source app would be modest. Although development of afull-featured app can be quite expensive and require on-going development coasts, our proposal is designed to nninimize these costs in two ways. First, we have selected ascaled-down app design whose one-time costs will be faz less than the cast of an app for the Section.22 Second, the content available on the app will be the same as the weh-based Source. This should minimize any added burden on Julian. Fifth, the trend toward accessing the Internet through smartphones and mobile apps may,in the long term, result in a loss of readership for the Source. Because the Source is dependent on the Web to distribute content, the Source is likely to be affected by this vend to a greater degree than other Section committees and periodicals. Conversely, development of a dedicated app could result in significant traffic to the Source and, consequently, to the Section. Although there are a large number of apps involving legal topics, there are very few apps that touch on antitrust ar consumer protection issues. A Source app may therefore attract significant attention from smartphone-owning antivust lawyers and economists.

21 rlccarding to the Technology Resources Task Farce, the Section and its Committees hoe*e established 16 different Facebook pages, 2G LinkedIn groups and subgroups, 13 ?witter accounts, and 2 blogs. ~ We are in the process of obtaining esrimates from several vendors.

Request for Proposal for Funding to the Advisory Board on Section Reserves Fiscal Year 2016-2017

Person or Group submitting request: Janet D. Steiger Fellowship Project Contact Person: Robert M. Langer Chair, Janet D. Steiger Fellowship Project Wiggin and Dana LLP 20 Church Street, 16th Floor Hartford, CT 06103 860-297-3724 -office 860-543-5541-cell 860-525-9380 –fax [email protected] Proposal: The Janet D. Steiger Fellowship Project is a consumer protection outreach initiative of the Section. Fellowships are awarded to first and second year law students at U.S. accredited institutions who intern in the consumer protection departments of a state or territorial attorney general’s office, the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection, the Georgia Governor’s Office of Consumer Protection (which has recently been merged with the Georgia Attorney General’s Office) and/or the Hawaii Office of Consumer Protection. Since its inception in 2005 and through the summer of 2015, 256 fellowships have been awarded. We have seen a relatively steady increase in the number of jurisdictions applying to receive a Steiger Fellow in the past few years. 35 states plus the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have been selected to receive Steiger Fellows during the summer of 2016. In addition to the large number of students applying to be a Steiger Fellow, we have observed that the quality of student applications has improved quite significantly in recent years. This has been confirmed through our yearly evaluation process. There is no other funding source. The Steiger Fellowship has not been deemed appropriate in the past for funding out of the operating budget. Amount of funding requested: The stipend amount requested is $240,000, the same amount requested for the 2015-16 fiscal year. This number will permit us to award a total of forty (40) $6,000 fellowships. Based on recent communications from jurisdictions that has never applied to receive a Steiger Fellow, we believe it is likely that a few more jurisdictions may apply in the 2016-17 than the number we received in 2015-16. We also request an additional $40,000 to cover an optional travel/housing allowance for those students not living at home during the summer. Our experience has been that about 50% of the students need the travel/housing allowance, and the average allowance has

been about $2,000. Finally, we request an administrative expense of $10,000 to assist the staff of the Section, working with the Chair and Vice Chairs, to provide the support needed to run such a large Project. The total request is thus $290,000. The Steiger Fellowship Project has sought funding one year at a time. Time frame: The application, interview and selection process for the states and territories, plus the students, as well as the internships, themselves, will all occur, if approved by the Advisory Board and the Council, between August 2016 and the summer of 2017. Assessment of benefits: The Project, since its inception, has made significant strides in reaching more and more law schools and in alerting the law schools, their career counselors, law professors who teach either consumer protection or antitrust, and, of course, the law students, themselves, to the unique value of the Project, and to fact that the home for consumer protection within the ABA is the Section of Antitrust Law. Each state and each student, each year, evaluates the Project and shares its evaluation with both Bob Langer and Deborah Morgan. The many jurisdictions and the students during the twelve (12) years of the Project’s existence have uniformly evaluated the Project in a very positive manner. The jurisdictions have praised the very talented students who have assisted them in fulfilling their consumer protection mission, and the students have found the experience to be extremely rewarding. Several jurisdictions have told us that many of the most productive students ever to have interned with them have been Steiger Fellows. Moreover, an increasing number of former Steiger Fellows have sought careers in public service, and have informed us that the reason for them doing so is directly attributable to their fellowship experience. For example, assistant attorneys general in both Montana and Washington State, who are former Steiger Fellows, have for many years served as our principal contacts in administering the Project in each state. Other former Steiger Fellows serve in a wide variety of public service positions, including assistant attorneys general in Alaska, the District of Columbia, New Jersey and Texas. We do intend to increase our efforts on both recruiting and retaining former Steiger Fellows as members of the Section. Under any measure, quantitative or qualitative, the Fellowship Project has been very successful.

10423/19/3379853.1

2

Submitting Group: Young Lawyers Division Antitrust Law Committee Contact: Kate Wallace, YLD Liaison to the Antitrust Section, [email protected] Who will oversee:

Proposal: We ask that the Section continue to fund the YLD Antitrust Law Committee’s 10-part Antitrust Practicum Series. This is a Program that began in the 2006-2007 bar year and continues to the present day. If approved, the Project will continue to further the Section’s goals by helping to develop and sustain the competence of lawyers in the major substantive aspects of antitrust law. The audience served will be YLD- Antitrust Law Committee members and Section of Antitrust Law members. Although the program is designed with junior attorneys in mind, in the past, our listeners have included in-house counsel, partners from law firms with less active antitrust practices, and international attorneys. The Program assists in spurring young lawyer membership and leadership development by showing YLD-Antitrust Law Committee members the benefits of Section programming and by helping to develop and enhance the practice skills of antitrust and consumer protection lawyers. Amount: $6000 Funding details: The costs associated with ten committee programs could be either a one time or recurring expense as the programs are held. Time Frame: The time frame of the program will follow the bar year starting in August 2014 and ending in August 2015 and the committee will strive to present about one program each month. Benefits:

We will measure success following each program and also quarterly. We evaluate success by examining the substance and timeliness of program content, the quality of speakers that we are able to attract, and the number of attendees.

ABA SAL IP COMMITTEE PROPOSAL FOR STUDENT ESSAY CONTEST – Revised January 2016

Submitting Group: Intellectual Property Committee Contact: Alexander Okuliar, IP Committee Vice Chair, [email protected] Who will oversee: Intellectual Property Committee/Vice Chairs/Section Staff Proposal: The IP Committee Student Essay Contest is a proposed competition outreach initiative for the Committee. The Committee would like to design and administer an annual student writing contest to raise awareness of the Section and the Committee, and to foster interest in the legal and economic issues covered by the Committee. We would announce the contest in August each year via the Section website and other electronic media, as well as directly with a handful of law schools with prominent programs of study focused on intellectual property and competition law. Target schools could include, for example, Stanford Law School, George Washington University Law School, and New York University Law School. We expect to reach out to the following people to help us set up the program: Steve Salop, Georgetown; Koren Wong-Ervin & Josh Wright, George Mason; William Kovacic, George Washington; Mark Lemley, Stanford; Carl Shapiro, UC Berkeley; Phil Weiser, University of Colorado; Andrew Gavil, Howard University; and Danny Sokol, University of Florida. The August timing of the announcement is intended to coincide with the start of the fall semester of law school. Eligible contestants would include third-year students expecting to receive their J.D. at the end of the academic year. Participants would be required to submit an essay on a current issue of interest with implications for the antitrust and intellectual property laws, chosen by the IP Committee. Essays would be due in January, with the winning essay announced in late February. The winner would receive a cash scholarship of $1,500, plus free attendance to the Spring Meeting, travel expenses (e.g., flight, hotel, and taxis) up to $1,000, and two tickets to the Annual Dinner. The top essay, along with a bio of the winning student, would be published in one of the leading ABA publications, such as the Antitrust Source. Amount: $16,000 Funding details: The stipend request is $16,000 – which would fund the program for four years, with $1,500 per year going to scholarships. In addition, there would be expense reimbursement for travel to the Spring Meeting up to $1,000 per year for the winner and additional in-kind funding for the winner – free attendance to the Spring Meeting (list price to non-ABA members is $1,245) and two tickets to the Annual Dinner (approximately $270). Time Frame: The entire contest program, as described above, would extend nearly the length of an average school year, from the announcement in August until publication of the essay and attendance at the Spring Meeting in March/April the following year.

ABA SAL IP COMMITTEE PROPOSAL FOR STUDENT ESSAY CONTEST – Revised January 2016

Benefits: This essay contest would offer benefits both to students and to the Section. Student Benefits – Recognition in a Rapidly Growing Legal Specialty The contest offers students a way to raise their profile with practitioners, advance their thinking of the law, and gain exposure to key issues being talked about by practicing attorneys. The intersection of intellectual property and antitrust has attracted students for years because it presents complex analytical and policy issues. Mastery of this area of law can improve a student’s career prospects and offer access to exciting jobs at leading companies generating or acquiring intellectual property or at the law firms servicing those companies. The potential career value to students continues to grow as the global economy shifts to more of an open innovation model – in which some companies focus primarily on research and development monetized through intellectual property and others specialize in acquiring intellectual property in the open market for application in new downstream products. The transformation of the economy has expanded the demand for legal analysis and representation in connection with government enforcement activity and private disputes over the line between appropriate use of intellectual property rights and anticompetitive abuse. The student essay contest would further enhance the winner’s job prospects in this growing specialty field and better prepare them for their career path. Section of Antitrust Law Benefits – Enhanced Profile with New Generations of Students The contest could offer considerable benefits to the Section and to the IP Committee. •

• • •

First, it would raise our profile with people entering the profession and create a platform for us to inform students about the benefits of Section and Committee membership and participation. It would signal that we understand the importance of IP and antitrust to the new global economy and enhance our attractiveness as an organization. In addition, similar contests have helped raise awareness of the sponsoring entities in a specialty field. Second, the program offers a path forward into the ABA for new members – in other words, it makes a large organization seem more approachable and is an easy way for students to learn about how they can contribute to the ABA. Third, an essay contest would help the IP Committee and Section identify additional talented and motivated students for long term development within the organization. Fourth, and finally, the relatively limited scale of this particular program would not represent a conflict with the Section’s existing essay contest. As described on the website, the current program focuses on already-published “articles of general interest to the antitrust law community, including: Civil and Criminal Antitrust Law, Competition Policy, Consumer Protection, and International Competition Law.” 1

In sum, this tailored essay contest could be a good approach for the IP Committee to introduce its strengths to a new generation of law students with a specific interest in intellectual property and ABA SAL, Student Writing Competition, available at http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/ awards_fellowships/l_student_writing_competition.html 1

2

ABA SAL IP COMMITTEE PROPOSAL FOR STUDENT ESSAY CONTEST – Revised January 2016

antitrust, as well as a way to reinforce the Section’s presence with law schools, career counselors, law professors and others by conveying the substantive value of the Section and the Committee. The small size of this proposal would also allow us to use it as a relatively inexpensive pilot program that could serve as a model for other antitrust specialties covered by the Section.

3

Person or Group submitting request: ABA-SAL Trial Practice Committee Contact Person: Brian Grube, Chairman, ABA-SAL Trial Practice Committee Please include the name, phone number, address, email, fax and Section position of the person(s) that will oversee the project: Committee YLD representative(s), with oversight by chair or vice chair. Current Trial Practice Committee YLD representatives are: David H. Reichenberg Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati 1301 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, NY 10019 Telephone: (212) 497-7735 [email protected] Martha L. Goodman Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP 5301 Wisconsin Ave., NW Washington, DC 20015 Telephone: (202) 237-9616 [email protected] Proposal: Create a library on the Trial Practice Committee's website/connect site of transcripts of expert testimony from recent (last 5 years) antitrust trials and thereafter supplement the library with testimony from more recent trials as it becomes available. (This is consistent with our committee's ongoing efforts to post jury instructions to our committee's website.) Project would require identification, collection, and posting of testimony. Work would be done by committee members (younger lawyers), managed by YLD representatives, and overseen by the chair or a vice chair of the committee. Testimony would be obtained either from court dockets or parties involved in the trials. Costs presumably would be limited to costs to copy transcripts or pull testimony from Pacer. Amount of funding requested: Maximum $3-5K/year, depending on number of trials covered and copying costs (if any) of transcripts. Please indicate whether the project requires a contract(s) with a third party: No. Time frame: Project would start in spring 2016, with recruitment of committee members to assist YLD representatives to identify, select, and obtain available testimony and to work with section staff to establish webpage on Trial Practice committee website to list and post links to testimony. Assessment of benefits: This project will benefit section members by providing them with ready access to trial testimony of expert witnesses (mainly, economists). Members can use the testimony to observe how various issues have been addresses, to vet potential experts they may be considering retaining, and to prepare for direct and cross examination of expert witnesses whom they have retained or whom they oppose.

PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL BEST PRACTICES FOR ANTITRUST PROCEDURE: REQUEST FOR SECTION SUPPORT FOR PROPOSED RESEARCH PROJECT Advisory Board on Section Reserves February 29, 2016

The International Task Force requests $50,000 to support research as part of the Section’s project on reform of antitrust procedure. Identification of such research was one of the three main proposals contained in the ITF Report approved by Council in January 2015, “Antitrust Procedures: Options for the Section of Antitrust Law” (hereinafter “Options Report”). BACKGROUND Antitrust procedure has become an increasingly important focus for international efforts to improve antitrust enforcement and to reduce the unnecessary costs and burdens arising from concurrent coverage by more than a hundred antitrust enforcement systems now in force worldwide. OECD, ICN, APEC and ASEAN have all undertaken efforts to improve antitrust procedure. The United States has included specific procedural standards for competition-law enforcement in its recent international trade agreements, including the US-Korea FTA and the Trans Pacific Partnership. Individual jurisdictions have considered and adopted a number of procedural reforms and a variety of other related efforts are ongoing. Although procedural improvements in antitrust have been under discussion for decades, tangible progress has been modest and serious procedural shortcomings remain. In order to stimulate additional progress, the International Task Force – with the support of Section leadership beginning with Christopher Hockett and continuing to the present under Howard Feller and Roxann Henry – has produced two key reports approved by the Council. The first, the Options Report, approved in January, 2015, recommended a three-part effort to advance reforms of antitrust procedure: (1) development of best practices for antitrust procedure, (2) identifying steps to enhance the promulgation of the Section’s views on procedure in the broader international policy

debate (specifically within the international agency groups examining such topics, such as the OECD Competition Committee and ICN), and (3) identifying research topics that could assist in enhancing the policy dialogue on reform of antitrust procedure, for possible Section support. The second report approved by the Council, Best Practices for Antitrust Procedure (May 22, 2015; hereinafter Best Practices Report), was developed and submitted by the International Task Force in fulfillment of the first objective of the Options Report approved in January 2015. This present proposal is the first follow-up on the third (research) element of the Options Report. It has been developed by the Co-Chairs and other members of the International Task Force (Terry Calvani and Damien Geradin), with additional input from antitrust figures recognized for their experience in the empirical study of antitrust policy questions, including Judge Douglas H. Ginsburg, Prof. A. Douglas Melamed and Prof. Keith N. Hylton. CONCEPT OF THE PROJECT The Best Practices Report identifies procedural elements that seem most important to the accuracy, efficiency and impartiality (both actual and perceived) of competition law enforcement. The best practices were developed in the context of the most common type of antitrust enforcement activity – government investigation and review of business conduct to determine whether one or more business enterprises have infringed applicable competition rules, and, if so, to formulate and implement remedies. Although many other functions are important and indeed essential to an effective antitrust enforcement program (e.g., competition advocacy, policy analysis, public education, theoretical and applied research in industrial organization, econometrics, game theory and other allied subjects), the government antitrust proceeding is a central element of all antitrust enforcement systems, and is a critical source of recent concern about the adequacy of procedures as applied to such systems. The practices identified in the Best Practices Report were defined in a manner intended to be applicable regardless of the particular legal framework employed for antitrust enforcement in any specific jurisdiction – common-law or civil law, administrative or prosecutorial/judicial, adversarial/inquisitorial or otherwise. 2

Having defined a set of best practices, a logical next step is to examine existing antitrust enforcement systems and measure their procedural aspects against those best practices. This project is intended to survey a limited number of jurisdictions to be selected in order to provide an interesting sample of characteristics such as size, state of development, prevailing legal tradition (e.g., common-law v. civil law), and enforcement format (e.g., agency v. judicial) in order to identify and assess the extent to which the Best Practices are reflected in the competition law enforcement systems of those jurisdictions, and to “field test” the utility of comparing specific enforcement systems to the standards contained in the Best Practices Report. PROJECT PROPOSAL We propose a study that would select a small number of jurisdictions of diverse characteristics and compare the existing procedures of each jurisdiction’s antitrust enforcement system to those identified in the Best Practices Report. Where significant differences are found, the study would try to identify whether other features of the local system were effective in compensating for any significant variation from the standards of the Best Practices Report in assuring accurate, efficient and impartial enforcement. The sample for study would ideally encompass jurisdictions of diverse characteristics in the following respects: Common-law and civil-law traditions Agency/administrative enforcement and prosecutorial/judicial enforcement Adversarial system and inquisitorial system Large and small economies Economies with high, low and middle-range average GDP per capita Antitrust systems at different stages of development The product of the proposed study would be an article or report, describing how the selection criteria were applied, describing how, if at all, the practices identified in the Best Practices Report are implemented in the antitrust enforcement system of each of the jurisdictions selected for study, describing material differences between each 3

jurisdiction’s practices and those identified in the Best Practices Report, and identifying other practices that may be addressed to the same procedural objective as the practices of the Best Practices Report. The study may also produce other valuable observations about the procedural aspects of the systems under examination, from the standpoint of whether their practices provide worthwhile models to achieve actual and/or perceived accurate, efficient and impartial conduct and resolution of antitrust matters, as well as any observations as to how those qualities could be enhanced within the specific system under study. Finally, the inquiry also will address whether any observed departures from best practices reflect incompatibility between best practices and any fundamental aspects of the subject jurisdictions’ legal systems. METHOD FOR SOLICITING PROPOSALS To locate and solicit interest from individuals willing and able to conduct the study, a subgroup of the Section’s International Task Force, in consultation with other respected antitrust scholars and practitioners, would circulate a notice soliciting interest on the SSRN website, or otherwise by use of lists or websites of other organizations interested in the subject matter. Specific individuals or organizations (e.g., law faculties) thought to have a particular interest in the area would be contacted. Offers to undertake the proposed study would be evaluated by members of the International Task Force who have been focused on the questions of antitrust procedure during the process of developing the two relevant Reports (Terry Calvani, Damien Geradin, Tad Lipsky and Randy Tritell), in consultation with the other interested individuals mentioned above. Funding would be applied to compensate a single author for conducting research and providing a written report containing the results of that research, together with the author’s analysis and conclusions. The author would be expected to make any appropriate research expenditures from the funding supplied. The level of funding could be adjusted (subject to the total support made available) depending upon the number of jurisdictions to be studied. In order to obtain a good cross-section of jurisdictions with varying characteristics, more than one author might be selected. This could allow different authors to focus on jurisdictions where each has specialized expertise. Any division of the support would not affect the total requested amount (i.e., this would imply 4

division of the requested funding among the authors selected, rather than any increase in the funding request). APPLICATION OF SECTION FUNDING CRITERIA Improved information and understanding regarding antitrust procedure as practiced in various jurisdictions around the world – and an appreciation of whether and to what degree these procedures implement practices considered important to the accurate, efficient and impartial resolution of antitrust matters – would be of great benefit to the Section and its members. The output of the project would provide an important benchmark to help clarify and facilitate analysis of the adequacy of antitrust procedures worldwide, which would enable the Section to develop more focused and targeted identification and analysis of procedural shortcomings and proposals for reform when we comment on foreign agencies’ proposed laws, regulations, and practices. Ultimately the project could contribute to better antitrust procedures as well as a reduction in the many points of tension involved in coordinating antitrust compliance and antitrust enforcement worldwide. An understanding of the likely benefits of such a project was implicit in the Council’s approval of the initial ITF Report recommending the development of best practices and the formulation of research projects in aid of policy analysis regarding antitrust procedure. In launching the development of the first ITF Report at the start of the 2013-2014 Section year, Chris Hockett specifically requested, in addition to the Report itself, a survey of prior work on antitrust procedure. An extensive list of such work was included as an Appendix to that Report and presented to the Council. The literature search, although very broad as to the main sources of antitrust policy research and scholarship undertaken in a variety of leading antitrust jurisdictions worldwide, failed to identify any comparable research. Although there is extensive writing on issues of antitrust procedure, work on the development of best practices is far more limited, and has been undertaken primarily by the associations of national and supranational enforcement agencies (OECD, ICN). Despite the substantial effort and thought embodied in those efforts, resulting in some valuable contributions in a number of areas, identification of best practices has been limited, and therefore the comparison of such best practices to 5

procedures currently applied in antitrust enforcement systems has not emerged as an active research topic. Now that a such a list of best practices for antitrust procedure is available due to the work of the Section, it is possible for the first time to develop a program of comparative research to assess national (and supranational) enforcement systems against the Section’s list. While it is always theoretically possible that other scholars would independently recognize the availability of this option, the likelihood of obtaining a methodologically sound and useful assessment would be substantially enhanced by the Section’s taking a direct hand in encouraging and supporting such research.

6

MEMORANDUM

TO:

Officers and Council

FROM:

Brian R. Henry, Program Officer

DATE:

March 22, 2016

RE:

Spring Meeting Council Meeting - Program Report (2015-2016)

__________________________________________________________________ 2015-2016 Core Conferences Merger Practice Workshop – October 1, 2015 GWU Jack Morton Auditorium, Washington, DC Co-Chairs: Jackie Grise & Jerry Swindell Staff Lead: Sheri Mead & Laura Brown 2015 Attendance: 153 inclusive of 28 faculty Last Held: October 2013 (135 participants inclusive of 24 faculty) Notes: We should offer again in 2017 as attendance increased and again feedback was extremely positive. Barry Nigro received very positive feedback from his firm’s associate attendees. Kudos to Jackie and Jerry for helping us grow this conference.

1

Antitrust & Intellectual Property Conference – October 8, 2015 Stanford Law School, Stanford, CA Cosponsor: Stanford Law School (50/50 split) & ABA IP Section Section Co-Chair: Sean Gates Staff Lead: Laura Brown 2015 Attendance: 147 inclusive of 32 faculty and 32 law students. (35 fewer paid attendees than budgeted) Last Held: October 2013 (166 participants inclusive of 30 faculty) Notes: Sean organized a stellar conference with a strong faculty combined with great content. Some other IP conferences were being offered over the same time frame which could account for our lower than budgeted turnout. As we plan 2017, we need to determine if we should repeat with Stanford Law School, Berkeley (which has also been a cosponsor) or try a new location such as San Diego.

Antitrust Law & Economics Institute for Judges – October 18-21, 2015 GMU (cosponsored with GMU and the Federal Judicial Center), Washington, DC ABA Co-Chair: Amanda Reeves Staff Lead: Margaret Stafford 2015 Attendance: 30 (but all were federal judges) Last Held: October 2014 – 40 attendees (only 7 federal judges) Notes: Amanda did a nice job moving the programming forward. We do not have any financial obligations. We need to work closely with the 2

Federal Judicial Center to make sure the word gets out about the program and registrations are timely handled. During Fall Council meeting, Council approved renewing SAL cosponsorship for the next three years (’16-’18). On March 7, however, the FJC indicated that it is undertaken a complete examination of its curriculum and unable to make future cosponsorship commitments at this time. We will need to monitor this closely. GMU remains interested in continuing. Fall Forum – November 12, 2015 National Press Club, Washington, DC Co-Chairs: Heather Tewksbury & Gary Zanfagna Staff Lead: Laura Brown Attendance: 195 inclusive of 18 faculty. Budget goal was 177 paying attendees. Last Held: November 2014 (193 participants inclusive of 30 faculty) Website: www.ambar.org/ATFallForum Notes: Unique program incorporating six judicial faculty and luncheon table discussion topics. Received consistent, excellent reviews - particularly from government attendees. Well-attended by the media; need to assess whether we can enhance media relationship and interaction. Also, need to request copies of all materials created following SAL programming. Sherman Act @ 125 Reception – November 12, 2015 Hay-Adams, Washington, DC Staff Leads: Laura Brown & Margaret Stafford Notes: The reception held after the Fall Forum, the evening prior to the DOJ John Sherman Award Ceremony honoring The Hon. Diane P. Wood (our former Council Judicial liaison). Invitees to the reception included the Fall Forum attendees & those invited to the Award Ceremony. Judge Wood, her family, and some of her clerks/staff were in attendance. 3

Next Generation of Antitrust Scholars – January 22, 2016 NYU, New York Cosponsor: NYU School of Law ($7,000 ABA commitment) ABA Co-chair: Ned Cavanagh Staff Lead: Patricia Harris Attendance: 75 participants plus 37 faculty Last Held: January 2014 (60 participants inclusive of 25 faculty) Website: www.ambar.org/ATScholars Notes: Numerous reports of very strong program, despite bad weather in NYC (several faculty participated via Skype). Interesting papers and excellent panel discussions. This is a nice opportunity for us to invest in the future. 2018 ABA will apply for CLE so all state credits are available vs. only NY. International Cartel Workshop – February 3-5, 2016 The Palace Hotel, Tokyo, Japan Cosponsor: IBA (no financial or administrative commitment) ABA Co-chairs: Jarrett Arp & Don Klawiter Staff Lead: Laura Brown Attendance: 387 inclusive of 27 faculty and 5 complementary attendees. Last Held: February 2014 (335 participants inclusive of 34 free; 46 paying faculty) Website: www.ambar.org/ATCartel 私たちは、日本での素晴らしいワークショップを持っていました。

We had a great workshop in Japan. Next stop is Paris in 2018. Le prochain arrêt est Paris en 2018 Notes: This was our first Cartel Workshop in Asia. Well-done and wellreceived workshop. Numerous reports of a fantastic workshop – many commented that it was the best Cartel Workshop to date. 94 responses to post-program survey, with many excellent suggestions for next program. 4

Recommendations included building in more time for Q&A, improved conference app, more analysis of difficult issues, less formulaic play-acting, and allow role playing to break into discussion if topic warrants it. In addition to the workshop, seems many attendees took advantage of time in Japan and visited Kyoto.

Spring Meeting – April 6-8, 2016 JW Marriott Hotel & National Press Club ABA Co-chairs: Paul Friedman & Peggy Ward Staff Lead: Margaret Stafford Last Held: April 2015 (3,029 participants inclusive of 125 waived & 162 paying faculty) Website: www.ambar.org/ATSpring Notes: LAST YEAR at the JW Marriott. They have been a great partner to us and have worked closely with us as we have grown. We were contracted through 2018 and they us out of our last year so that we could continue to grow at the Marriott Marquis. To transition successfully the first year, it will be important to continue with what we know—our current format - while we learn the nuances of the new location. When we moved from the Shoreham to the JW, there were many changes in attendee patterns. We need to keep in mind to ensure a great first year at the Marquis.

5

As of March 21, 2,750 registrations, good news is the registration figures include 397 government attendees (not including faculty), 701 international attendees, and 146 in-house counsel. Bad news is our dinner is on a decline over the last few years with only 728 tickets sold for Thursday dinner. This is something we should monitor. Is there a decline as the result of affiliates hosting Tuesday awards dinners? Should we promote the entertainment earlier and make sure it is in included in the brochure? Antitrust in Healthcare Conference – May 12-13, 2016 The Ritz-Carlton, Arlington, VA Cosponsors: AHLA & the ABA Health Law Section Section Co-chairs: Leigh Oliver Staff Lead: Laura Brown Last Held: May 2014 (76 participants inclusive of 22 faculty) Website: www.ambar.org/ATSymposium Notes: We have participated successfully in this multi-cosponsorship since 2000. The administrative responsibilities rotate between the three groups. The ABA Health Law Section will administer the 2016 conference. The Section will review & approve budgets, programming and faculty. Even if we are not the primary organizer, it is very important that our panel diversity policy is administered throughout. Antitrust in Asia – June 2-3, 2016 The Langham Hotel, Hong Kong Co-chairs: Chris Hockett & Koren Wong-Ervin Staff Lead: Laura Brown Last Held: May 2014 (247 participants inclusive of 30 faculty) Website: www.ambar.org/ATAsia Notes: This is the third conference with the Antitrust in Asia Series following New Delhi and Beijing. It was budgeted at a loss as the current goal for this particular conference is to increase brand awareness, gain 6

membership (50 joined in 2014 ) and non-dues revenue exposure. Will have a very strong enforcer, academic, and in-house faculty. Keynotes by Edith Ramirez and Bill Kovacic and roundtables with key Asia enforcers. Sentencing Guidelines Symposium – June 2016 George Mason University, Washington DC Co-chairs: Scott Hammond, Katie Hellings & John Terzaken Staff Lead: Sheri Mead Last Held: 2014 (76 participants inclusive of 22 faculty) Website: www.ambar.org/ATSymposium Notes: This member benefit conference is budgeted at a loss as has been done since inception in 2008. The format is typically a u-shaped discussion format with a small audience. The goal is to provide content for the Source or Journal.

Global Seminar Series – Year 2 Concept: The purpose of this new series is to develop and maintain the Section's involvement with the competition and consumer protection bar across the globe. Each seminar will take place internationally and will combine one or two CLE sessions with a networking opportunity with the goal of staying connected in destinations between full CLE Conferences. The Chair of each series is responsible for introducing the panel and highlighting the Section and value of Section membership. Please check out the www.ambar.org/ATSeminarSeries for future locations. London – November 28, 2015 Location: Jones Day law firm Chair: Kathy Fenton 7

Staff Lead: Laura Brown/Margaret Stafford onsite Faculty: Lorenzo Coppi (Compass Lexecon), Bill Kovacic (King’s College year), and Gabriel McGann (The Coca-Cola Company) Notes: • Theme – 2016 U.S. Election Impact on Competition Law • Attendance was only about 30; well-below rsvps. • Need to consider whether to hold these events in conjunction with other international competition law events to draw better attendance. Or are there so many events in London that we should opt for areas where fewer U.S. based events occur? Beijing – TBD Chair: Roxann Henry Staff Lead: Margaret Stafford Notes: • Due to the challenges of putting on an event in Beijing (you need an internal sponsor) this event was cancelled for this year. New Delhi – May 2016 Chair: Al Pfeiffer Staff Lead: Margaret Stafford Notes: • This was postponed and we hope to be able to offer in this location. 2015-2016 Teleseminars Staff Lead: Diane Odom Programs Committee Chair: Andrea Murino Programs Committee Vice-Chair: Jason Daniels Co-sponsored with ABA Center for Professional Development 8

Date

August 27 September 29 November 17 May May/June May/June June/July June/July July/August September

Topic

Whistleblowing in Antitrust: Prospects and Pitfalls Conducting Antitrust Audits as Part of an Effective Compliance Program What’s New in Advertising Law, Claim Support and Self-Regulation: A Recap of the NAD Conference Sports and Antitrust Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo – Implications for Class Certification and Injury Analysis Update on Antitrust Developments in Pharma Virtual Book Release Party: Rule of Reason Handbook Antitrust Developments in Travel and Transportation Economic Fundamentals for Antitrust Discovery Issues in Antitrust Cases and Second Requests

Attendance 10 50 21

Notes: For Fiscal Year 2015, SAL netted $11,118 from 11 Teleseminars (gross revenue being split with ABA Center for Professional Development). It is important to note that three years ago, SAL had $0 revenue from 0 teleseminars. Special thanks for Andrea Murio and Jason Daniels for revitalizing the concept.

SAL Co-Sponsorships Invitation Declines – Due to need to maintain our brand reputation and already high demands on Staff, we decline program co-sponsorship opportunities for programs on topics that are far afield from SAL core expertise. We will continue to review proposals to determine if a cosponsorship fits with our branding and the conference product we produce individually. We receive many requests; however, not all have the quality and depth in programming or fit with our brand image. It is important to remember that there is no such thing as in name only or with no staff involvement—all things ABA involve our staff.

9

Approved 2016-2017 Conferences (MacLeod) We are in the planning stages for 2016-17. It has the makings of an exciting year, including a Consumer Protection program in Atlanta. • Planning memos have been developed. • Budgets are in the works. • Websites are online for most, and we are adding the rest as we have venue contracts confirmed. September Regulation/Competition Symposium (with Loyola School of Law) in Chicago Chair: Spencer Weber Waller Sept/Oct Masters Course in Williamsburg Chair: Kathy Fenton Vice-chair: Nick Widnell October Antitrust Law & Economics Institute for Judges (pending) November Fall Forum in DC Cochairs: Kathleen Foote & Barry Nigro February Consumer Protection Conference in Atlanta Cochairs: Anita Banecevic, Chris Cole & Trish Conners March Spring Meeting at the JW Marriott June Antitrust in Americas (with Barra Mexicana) in Mexico Chair: Russ Damtoft TBD Two-three Global Seminar Series (Seoul, Europe, tbd)

Approved2017-2018 Core Conferences (Jacobson) We are in the initial planning stages for these conferences. October October October November

Mergers Workshop Antitrust & Intellectual Property Antitrust Law & Economics Institute for Judges Fall Forum 10

January February April May June TBD

Next Generation Scholars International Cartel Workshop Spring Meeting Antitrust in Healthcare Antitrust in Asia Two-three Global Seminar Series

11

ABA Antitrust in Asia: Hong Kong June 2–3, 2016 • The Langham Hotel, Hong Kong Conference Co-Chairs Christopher B. Hockett, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Menlo Park, CA Koren W. Wong-Ervin, Global Antitrust Institute, George Mason University School of Law Conference website: www.ambar.org/ATAsia 䡵 THE ABA SECTION OF ANTITRUST LAW is pleased to present its third Antitrust in Asia Conference. Antitrust enforcement in Asia has taken a prominent and increasingly important place in the global competition ecosystem. This conference features leading enforcers, judges, Topics include: 䡲 How to work successfully with established and emerging competition regimes in Asia 䡲 Similarities and differences in competition law and policy across the region 䡲 Non-competition factors and how they affect competition analysis 䡲 Practical insights on how Asian competition regimes engage in merger review, cartel enforcement, intellectual property and pricing and abuse of dominance analysis 䡲 Navigation of private litigation and arbitration in Asian countries 䡲 Compliance and risk assessment for competition law issues in Asia

Conference presenters include: 䡲 Yong Seok AHN, Lee & Ko, Seoul 䡲 Chiann BAO, Secretary-General, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre, Hong Kong 䡲 Bianka BIAN, Senior Vice President & General Counsel for Greater China, Nestle, Beijing 䡲 Naval CHOPRA, Shardul Amarchand, New Delhi 䡲 Dimos DAKANALIS, Chief Antitrust Counsel, Oracle Corporation, Brussels 䡲 Fei DENG, Edgeworth Economics LLC, San Francisco, CA 䡲 Ninette DODOO, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP, Beijing 䡲 Adrian EMCH, Hogan Lovells LLP, Beijing 䡲 Jonathan I. GLEKLEN, Arnold & Porter LLP, Washington, DC 䡲 HE Jing, Anjie Law Firm, Beijing

academics, and practitioners who will address key developments across the Asia-Pacific region and provide conference attendees unique opportunities to interact with top policy-makers. No professional with clients or matters touching Asia can afford to miss it.

䡲 Roxann E. HENRY, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Washington, DC 䡲 HUANG Yong, University of International Business and Economics, Beijing 䡲 Clara INGEN-HOUSZ, Linklaters LLP, Hong Kong 䡲 Brent IRVIN, Vice President and General Counsel, Tencent Holdings Limited, Shenzhen 䡲 Jonathan JACOBSON, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, New York 䡲 James H. JEFFS, Competition Counsel & Privacy Law Counsel, Greater Asia Region, Intel, Hong Kong 䡲 Kyung Taek JUNG, Kim & Chang, Seoul 䡲 Sung-ha KIM, Commissioner, Korea Fair Trade Commission, Seoul 䡲 Becky KOBLITZ, Sheppard Mullin, Beijing 䡲 William E. KOVACIC, George Washington University School of Law, Washington, DC 䡲 LEE Cheow Han, Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Enforcement, Competition Commission of Singapore 䡲 Deborah P. MAJORAS, Chief Legal Officer & Secretary, Procter & Gamble Company, Cincinnati, OH 䡲 John MAJORAS, Jones Day, Washington, DC 䡲 Munesh R. MAHTANI, Senior Competition Counsel, Google, Inc., London 䡲 Sh. U.C. NAHTA, Member, Competition Commission of India, New Delhi 䡲 Hiroyuki ODAGIRI, Commissioner, Japan Fair Trade Commission, Tokyo 䡲 The Honorable Maureen K. OHLHAUSEN, Commissioner, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC

䡲 Sonia K. PFAFFENROTH, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Enforcement, U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Washington, DC 䡲 Rahul RAI, AZB Partners, Mumbai 䡲 The Honorable Edith RAMIREZ, Chairwoman, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, D.C 䡲 Amanda P. REEVES, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC 䡲 Donald J. ROSENBERG, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary, Qualcomm Incorporated, San Diego, CA 䡲 Andy Y. SUN, Peking University Law School, Beijing 䡲 Randolph W. TRITELL, Director, Office of International Affairs, Federal Trade Commission, Washington, DC 䡲 Joanna TSAI, Charles River Associates, Washington, DC 䡲 Rose WEBB, CEO, Competition Commission of Hong Kong 䡲 Mark WILLIAMS, University of Melbourne 䡲 Anna WU Hung-yuk, Chairperson, Competition Commission of Hong Kong 䡲 Angela ZHANG, Kings College London 䡲 Vanessa Yanhua ZHANG, Global Economics Group, New York 䡲 Senior Enforcers from China’s Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM), National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC), and State Administration for Industry and Commerce (SAIC), Beijing

ASSOCIATION YEAR 20 1'.> - 201 b

CHAIR

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION

Rox,:,nn I:. Hf I. Domen

Nashville. TN

BOARD OF GOVERNORS REPRESENTATIVE

Jirmnv Gr.lC.xinKtn

The ABA follows GAAP for inventoried products. When books are initially printed, the expense is entered as a negative (the value of the books on the shelf) and then deducted as the books are sold. After 18 months, unsold books are revalued based on estimated number of units sold and, if appropriate, a financial write-off may occur (i.e., the value of the books is reduced is decreased and the difference is recorded).

Oklalmii1.:1 City, OK

YOUNG LAWYERS DIVISION REPRESENTATIVE Jr:'5i."1:i; ,'vt. Alvar;ldr.r-River,1 \.Vashi11s1on, DC

SECTION DIRECTOR JC1,mneTrt1\oiS Chicago. II.

Promoting G)mpeti tion I Protecting C.:onsumer.6,.ith ABt\ ,"\nt:itrust La\'\' Arrnw,I Spring Mt~Ung I April 6 - A, 20 16 ! \Vashington, DC :~BA Annual Meetin~ • August 4-9. 2016 • S,m Francisco, CA

2

Q2 FY 16 Top 10 List Gross Revenue

Units Moved

Intellectual Property and Antitrust Handbook (Second)

$10,331.90

54

Premerger Notification Practice Manual (Fifth)

$4,434.95

21

Mergers and Acquisitions: Understanding the Antitrust Issues (Fourth)

$3,119.50

20

Econometrics: Legal, Practical and Technical Issues (Second)

$1,843.80

11

Market Definition in Antitrust: Theory and Case Studies

$1,294.00

7

2014 Review of Antitrust Law Developments

$1,269.65

13

Antitrust Compliance: Perspectives and Resources for Corporate Counselors (Second)

$1,006.75

7

RICO: State-by-State Practice Guide

$996.00

4

Antitrust Class Actions Handbook

$877.80

6

Franchise and Dealership Termination Handbook (Second)

$677.55

5

Book Title

II.

MAJOR PUBLICATIONS A.

Antitrust Law Developments (Eighth) Darren Tucker is Chair of Antitrust Law Developments (Eighth) and is supported by a team of seven editors. Most chapters are on track, although some are behind schedule. In an effort to catch up, we recently added Valarie Williams and Kim Piro to the Editorial Board and reallocated some of the Committee responsibilities. The publication is schedule to be published Spring 201 7.

B.

Antitrust Law Developments Annual Review 2015 The 2015 Annual Review was completed earlier this year and is available for sale at the ABA Bookstore. Steve Bradbury and Valarie Williams

3

were the chairs of this project and were well supported by the following team of Editorial Board members: David Ernst, Shimica Gaskins, Rob Milne, Jeff Perry, Jen Roach, and Pete Schwingler. C.

Consumer Protection Law Developments (Second) The second edition of Consumer Protection Law Developments was completed earlier this year and is available for sale at the ABA Bookstore. Editorial chairs Christine Sommer and David Savrin were well supported by the following team of Editorial Board members: Chris Cole, Greg Fortsch, Aryeh Friedman, Megan Gray, David Mallen, Sheila Millar, Gonzalo Mon, Katrina Robson, and Erv Switzer.

III.

BOOKS AND TREATISES COMMITTEE A.

Recent Releases We have recently published (or we are in the process of publishing soon) the Antitrust Evidence Handbook, Third Edition (2016) and Indirect Purchasers Litigation Handbook (2015).

B.

Books Expected to be Published Soon The following books are expected to be ready for Publication in the next few months: the Civil Jury Instructions book and the Private Equity Antitrust Handbook. By way of update, the Civil Jury Instructions book is complete with the exception of the intellectual property chapter, which is expected to be ready for Council review within the next few weeks.

C.

Proposals in Progress We recently approved the proposal for the International Criminal Cartel Handbook are working with committees on the following proposals:

• •

RICO State by State (Third) Antitrust Compliance Handbook (Third)

I encourage Responsible Council Members to work with their committees to see that relevant book proposals are part of their committee's annual plan. If you have not reviewed your committee's annual plan to confirm that all publications obligations have been honored, please do so to confirm that publications plans are on track.

4

D.

Pipeline The following books are in the process of being drafted and edited: • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Rule of Reason (see below) Product Distribution Economics Proving Antitrust Damages Consumer Data Handbook Advertising & Claim Substantiation Insurance Agricultural and Food Civil Jury Instructions Healthcare Mergers & Acquisitions Energy Private Equity Sentencing & Leniency Technology Industries Pharmaceutical Handbook Healthcare Handbook (Fifth) State Enforcement (Third) Proof of Conspiracy Standards Setting Obtaining Discovery Abroad State Action Practice (Third) Class Action Handbook IP Misuse (Second) DOJ Civil Antitrust Practice & Procedure (Second)

There are two book proposals approved by Council that merit an update: First, it has been decided due to the lack of sufficient developments in the law not to pursue the Monopsony Monograph. Second, the Rule of Reason Handbook, which was previously reviewed by Council, is being reworked to take account of some very good suggestions and comments. That book is expected to differ in structure from what was previously proposed and approved. A revised proposal will be presented to Council as soon as it is ready.

5

E.

Book Production Process Improvement Initiatives Over the last several months, we have worked with ABA staff to identify ways to improve our book production process to reduce unnecessary delays and lower the frustration level experienced by those involved. The pilot project to use an outside copy editor for the insurance book did not live up to our expectations, and we are no longer pursuing it. The work was not timely, and the quality was no better than we can do ourselves. We decided that the better avenue for us is to move forward on the template project for which the ABA is now negotiating a contract to create a product, template, or series of templates (the Template) which can be distributed to authors and editors that will allow authors and word processing departments, using Microsoft Word, to produce uniformly formatted chapters that comply with the desktop publishing specifications.

IV.

PERIODICALS Tina Miller will provide an oral report on the periodicals. continue to publish fantastic periodicals under her direction. A.

As always, we

Antitrust Law Journal 80/3 (Freestanding Articles) - in galleys January/February 2016; published April 2016. Six to eight articles; most at cite check stage. 81/1 (European Competition symposium) - Andreas Reindl and Jeremy West, co-editors. Seven articles; three comments. Most at cite check stage. In galleys May 2016; published August 3026. 81/2 (Conditional Pricing Symposium) - overview from Su Sun and Kelly Fayne, co-editors. Seven to eight articles; editors' notes. In galleys September/October 2016; published December 2016/January 2017. Additional freestanding submissions likely to be included in 81-1 and/or 81-2.

6

B.

Antitrust Magazine Spring issue - to be published March 2016. Theme: Anniversary of Rule 23 (Greg Wrobel and Ellen Meriwether, theme editors; working group meeting regularly to plan issue; most articles secured). Summer issue -to be published July 2016 with a theme focused on joint ventures and the competitor collaboration guidelines.

C.

The Antitrust Source Work continues on collecting numbers and working on improvements. We are making good progress on increasing articles in the pipeline, and submissions for April and June issues look healthy.

March 30, 2016

To: Officers and Council

From: J. Anthony Chavez

Re: Report of Secretary and Communications Officer

Summary of Recent Action Items. Attached to this report is a summary of all action items taken by Council between the Midwinter Council Meeting and March 30, 2016. At the Spring Council Meeting, I will move to include that summary (with any updates to the relevant dates that comments were submitted and insertion of links to the submitted comments) in the minutes of the Spring Council Meeting. Please provide any proposed revisions to the summary before the Spring Council Meeting.

Overview of Connect. While Connect does not appear to be the next social network (see Members Connecting on Connect below), it provides members with the ability to easily access information previously distributed by any particular Committee and allows members to more easily access content distributed by other Committees by browsing and using of the site’s search functionality.

On a daily basis, timely and valuable content is posted on Connect by the Section's General Committees, Analysis from the Firms, and Latest News from AT-CP Law Digests. Committees often overlap in terms of subject matter and Members are presented with an unfortunate dilemma with respect to receiving content prepared by the Section's Committees. Unless a member joins every Committee (with the risk of receiving duplicative communications), there is a risk that interesting communications will be missed (see Recommendations of the Long Range Planning Committee Report presented in March 2013 discussed in my report for the 2015 PAM Council Meeting). Until we figure out a high tech solution, we will continue to periodically post on the Open Forum a roundup of recent newsletters and other interesting content posted by Committees on Connect (see posts on March 7, 2016 and January 11, 2016 by Katie Larkin-Wong) and we will encourage Members to periodically browse through the Committee pages. The next Round Up is planned for Monday, April 4th, right before the Section’s Spring Meeting. Thereafter, I would like to have a summary posted on the Open Forum on the first Monday of every month, with inserts requested from the Committees by the close of business of the Wednesday of the preceding week.

Transition to Connect. Over the last year, Committees have been phasing out their committee discussion lists in stages. The Consumer Protection Committee is still using both its listserv and Connect.

Deactivation of Committee Listservs. Because we have had some inadvertent posts on the listservs of Committees that had fully transitioned to Connect 2

(including some posts by leaders in other Committees), we have deactivated those listservs.

Open Forum. The Open Forum is now set up for Full Moderation to limit posts. With the implementation of Full Moderation, the default setting for the Open Forum was changed to real time notices. We will generally limit posts to one per day.

Members Connecting on Connect. As you can see by scrolling through the membership tab on Antitrust Leadership community, a number of individuals in the Section Leadership have not yet taken the first step of adding a photo to their profile. This first step is a tangible indication of support for this platform. Please note that the percentage of the SAL Leaders with photos is much higher than the percentage for other SAL members. I have been monitoring total Profiles Created, profiles with photos, and members with more than two contacts as indicators of Connect as a social network. Here is the current status: 838 Profiles Created on Connect, 655profiles with photos, and 549 Profiles with more than two contacts. Considering that a member with a Linkedin profile can import that profile in less than a couple of minutes (and photo associated with that profile), the number of members with profiles and photos on Connect remains relatively low. The number of members with more than two contacts is also disappointing.

Committee Content. There are significant differences in the level of committee activity (with respect to the number of posts and the value of posts) and in the extent that different committees have placed Committee 3

content on Connect. While some committees now have copies of all their Committee content on Connect, for other committees, a member would need to check both the Committee ABA page and the Connect Committee page.

Real Time Notices versus Daily Digests. When Connect was set up, the default setting resulted in each member receiving a separate daily digest for the Open Forum and for each of that member’s Committees. While many members of the SAL Leadership belong to a large number of different Committees, SAL members, have an average of less than three subscriptions on Connect. As part of the transition to using Connect as the primary means for Committee communications, most of the general Committees have decided to change the default setting on Connect so that Committee members will receive real time notices instead of a daily digest (just like the Committee listserves). The same change has been made for the Open Forum. A member has the option of changing his/her profile to receive a daily digest instead of real time notices. The following All Discussion Subscriptions Report shows for each Committee the number of members receiving real time notices, the number of members receiving daily digests, and the number of members who have unsubscribed. Over the past few months, some of the Committees that ceased using listservs and had default setting changed to real time notices have had very significant unexplained changes in the relative number of members receiving daily digests and real time notices. For example, the Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee had 648 members receiving real time notices on January 7, 2016 and no members receiving daily digests. Now there are 133 receiving real time notices. During that same time period, the Open Forum (with 7,912 subscribers) had only four members switch back to a daily digest. Apparently, 4

for some of the Committees that had ceased using listservs and had default setting changed to real time notices, the subscription type was inadvertently changed back to a Daily Digest. We are still investigating the matter.

Post on Connect by Sending an Email. A member of any Connect community can post on Connect by simply sending an email. I have managed to post using my phone. A member will only be able to post on his/her Committees and will need to use their email address associated with Connect. The Committee email addresses are available on the Connect homepage (click Support and then Committee Email Addresses).

Open Access for Committee Content. All SAL members are able to access content posted on any Connect Committee page. A member will need to join a particular committee to post to that committee’s Bulletin Board.

Analysis from the Firms. SAL encourages members to post their law firm case alerts or other substantive articles right on the Connect homepage in the Analysis

from

the

Firms

section

or

by

sending

an

email

to

[email protected]. Just add a title and summary sentence, and a link to the article. Per SAL Policy, content is limited to legal analysis. Law firm news or pure marketing content is not permissible. Use good judgment. If an article sounds too promotional, then do not post it.

Upcoming Events. To reduce the need for posting multiple program notices, emails generated by Connect now provide a link to the Section’s Upcoming Events page. 5

SAL’s Other Social Media: Linkedin Group – 7,096 members, Twitter (@abaantitrust) – 3,698 followers, Facebook – 977 likes. Unlike these other forms of social media, Connect can help the Section maintain a connected community while protecting content.

6

All Discussion Subscriptions

Active Records With At Least One Subscription

Average Subscriptions Per Active Record

Average Subscriptions Per Active Record With At Least One Subscription

8,091

2.50

2.65

Discussion Name Advertising Disputes & Litigation Agriculture and Food ANALYSIS FROM THE FIRMS Antitrust | Consumer Protection Law Digest Antitrust Leadership Cartel and Criminal Practice Civil Practice and Procedure Competition Torts (formerly Business Torts and Civil Rico) Compliance and Ethics Consumer Protection Corporate Counseling Council Distribution and Franchising Economics Exemptions and Immunities Federal Civil Enforcement Global Private Litigation (formerly Civil Redress) Health Care and Pharmaceuticals Insurance and Financial Services Intellectual Property International Committee International Task Force

Daily Digest

Real Time

Total Subscribed

Unsubscri bed

Never Subscribed

Total Not Subscrib ed

Current Commun ity Members

Past Community Members

% Unsubscrib ed

4

305

309

9

2

11

320

111

2.8%

83 50

138 6

221 56

11 13

0 0

11 13

232 69

82 43

4.7% 18.8%

56

9

65

22

0

22

87

60

25.3%

1 133 168

479 511 353

480 644 521

2 12 15

2 3 1

4 15 16

484 659 537

63 189 174

0.4% 1.8% 2.8%

97

172

269

7

2

9

278

99

2.5%

111 464 197 4 126 192 79 125

188 12 373 0 264 390 157 287

299 476 570 4 390 582 236 412

18 25 22 5 9 11 8 12

1 2 4 46 0 2 2 1

19 27 26 51 9 13 10 13

318 503 596 55 399 595 246 425

96 193 179 9 113 174 65 123

5.7% 5.0% 3.7% 55.6% 2.3% 1.9% 3.3% 2.8%

75

106

181

5

0

5

186

57

2.7%

212

397

609

15

2

17

626

178

2.4%

94

171

265

8

4

12

277

95

2.9%

604 183 26

19 562 1

623 745 27

27 33 0

2 1 0

29 34 0

652 779 27

206 241 31

4.2% 4.2% 0.0%

Joint Conduct Law Students Community Legislation Media and Technology Membership and Diversity Committee Mergers and Acquisitions Open Forum Pricing Conduct Privacy and Information Security Public Education and Oral History Section of Antitrust Law Council State Antitrust Practice and Statutes State Enforcement Trade, Sports and Professional Associations Transportation and Energy Industries Trial Practice Unilateral Conduct Young Lawyer Representatives

167 129 62 4

385 8 19 678

552 137 81 682

11 12 3 14

1 13 0 2

12 25 3 16

564 162 84 698

143 371 70 212

2.0% 8.1% 3.6% 2.0%

23

43

66

4

1

5

71

38

5.7%

279 4 2

576 7,908 542

855 7,912 544

23 613 8

3 62 3

26 675 11

881 8,587 555

261 3,949 157

2.6% 7.2% 1.4%

127

249

376

14

1

15

391

160

3.6%

3

0

3

0

0

0

3

25

0.0%

13

30

43

0

0

0

43

0

0.0%

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

33

#DIV/0

109

181

290

2

1

3

293

94

0.7%

3

363

366

7

1

8

374

125

1.9%

342

10

352

15

1

16

368

104

4.1%

97 2

414 658

511 660

7 12

2 2

9 14

520 674

152 187

1.4% 1.8%

0

41

41

0

1

1

42

2

0.0%

21,455

1,034

171

1,205

22,660

8,664

Grand Totals

About This Report A record can be a contact or company record; this report includes data for both. Active is defined as a record that is not disabled (or pending email confirmation or pending approval for non-integrated clients). The statistics referencing "active records" only include data for active records. • Total Subscribed is the number of current community members who are subscribed (i.e. are receiving discussion emails). • Unsubscribed is the number of current community members who have unsubscribed (i.e. are no longer receiving discussion emails). • Never Subscribed is the number of current community members who have never subscribed (i.e. have never received discussion emails). • Total Not Subscribed is the number of current community members who are not subscribed (i.e Unsubscribed + Never Subscribed). • % Unsubscribed is the percentage of current community members (excluding those who have never subscribed) that have unsubscribed (i.e. Unsubscribed / (Current Community Members - Never Subscribed) * 100).

8

Actions taken by Council between the Midwinter Council Meeting and March 30, 2016 International Comments Comments of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law and Section of International Law on the European Commission's Public Consultation on Empowering the National Competition Authorities to be More Effective Enforcers 

Submitted for review and approval by Council on January 16, 2016 by International Officer Jonathan Gleklen.



Voting via electronic mail before the close of business on January 22, 2016.



Approved by Council on January 22, 2016 “with such non-substantive changes as the International Officer, in consultation with the Chair, deems reasonable and appropriate.” o There were no votes in opposition to the proposed comments.



Upon approval by Council, the proposed Comments were submitted and cleared in accordance with the ABA Blanket Authority Procedure.



Final Comments were submitted on February 12, 2016.



The comments were drafted by Rachel Brandenburger, Emilio Varanini, Jennifer DriscollChippendale, Christina Hummer, Daniel Bitten, and Frank Montag, and supervised by Tad Lipsky for the ITF.

Comments of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law and Section of International Law on the Korean Fair Trade Commission’s November 23, 2015 Draft Leniency Policy for Undertakings Engaged in Cartel Conduct 

Submitted for review and approval by Council on January 20, 2016 by International Officer Jonathan Gleklen.



Voting via electronic mail before the close of business on January 24, 2016.



Approved by Council on January 24, 2016 “with such non-substantive changes as the International Officer, in consultation with the Chair, deems reasonable and appropriate.” o There were no votes in opposition to the proposed comments.



Upon approval by Council, the proposed Comments were submitted and cleared in accordance with the ABA Expedited Blanket Authority Procedure.



Final Comments were submitted on January 28, 2016.



The comment was drafted by Bob Connolly, Guy Pinsonnault, and Gary Spratling from the ICTF. Rob Kwinter led for the ITF.

Comments of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law and Section of International Law on CADE's Draft Guidelines for its Antitrust Leniency Program 

Submitted for review and approval by Council on January 20, 2016 by International Officer Jonathan Gleklen. o The Guidelines themselves are available here: http://www.cade.gov.br/upload/Guidelines%20CADE%27s%20Antitrust%20Leni ency%20Program.pdf



Chair Henry proposed noting that there is a serious concern that the written confession that CADE currently expects would likely be subject to mandatory disclosure in follow-on U.S. private damage lawsuits.



A majority of Council voted to approve the proposed comments with that change.



Voting via electronic mail before the close of business on January 25, 2016.



Approved by Council on January 25, 2016 “with such non-substantive changes as the International Officer, in consultation with the Chair, deems reasonable and appropriate.” o There were no votes in opposition to the proposed comments.

10



Upon approval by Council, the proposed Comments were submitted and cleared in accordance with the ABA Blanket Authority Procedure.



Final Comments were submitted on February 1, 2016.



The comments were drafted by Jen Driscoll and Barbara Rosenberg on behalf of the ITF and Mariana Tavares on behalf of the ITF, under the supervision of Randy Tritell and Tad Lipsky of the ITF and Gary Spratling and Jim Mutchnik of the ICTF.

Joint Comments of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law, Section of Intellectual Property, and Section of International Law on the Anti-Monopoly Guideline on Intellectual Property Abuse (Draft for Comments) 

Submitted for review and approval by Council on January 26, 2016 by International Officer Jonathan Gleklen. o Background: On October 8, 2015 Council Approved the October 15, 2016 submission of Joint Response of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law, Section of Intellectual Property Law, Section of International Law, and Section of Science & Technology Law to the NDRC Questionnaire on IP Misuse Antitrust Guidelines.



Vice Chair Jacobson and Council Member Gates expressed concerns over parts of the draft and a revised draft was circulated for review and approval.



Voting via electronic mail before the close of business on January 28, 2016.



The revised comments were approved by Council on January 28, 2016 “with such nonsubstantive changes as the International Officer, in consultation with the Chair, deems reasonable and appropriate.” o Council member Gates voted to oppose and Council Member Musgrove abstained. One other council member did not respond.

11



Upon approval by Council, the proposed Comments were submitted and cleared in accordance with the ABA Blanket Authority Expedited Procedure.



Final Comments were submitted on February 4, 2016.



The Section's drafting work on the Comments was led by Dina Kallay, Logan Breed, and Rob Davis with input from IP Committee co-chair Hartmut Schneider. The ITF leads were Koren-Wong-Ervin, Steve Harris, and Tad Lipsky.

Joint Comments of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law and Section of International Law on New Zealand’s Targeted Review of the Commerce Act 1986 

Submitted for review and approval by Council on January 25, 2016 by International Officer Jonathan Gleklen.



Proposed revisions were suggested during the review process.



Voting via electronic mail before the close of business on January 28, 2016.



The comments as edited were approved by Council on January 28, 2016 “with such nonsubstantive changes as the International Officer, in consultation with the Chair, deems reasonable and appropriate.” o There was one vote in opposition due to the suggestion that the New Zealand Commerce Commission be empowered to conduct market studies.



Upon approval by Council, the proposed Comments were submitted and cleared in accordance with the ABA Expedited Blanket Authority Procedure.



Final Comments were submitted on February 17, 2016.



The comments were drafted by Scott Sher, Byron Tuyay, Ross Fisher, Meg Guerin-Calvert, and Jennifer Marsh. Andy Gavil (who has written on competition law in New Zealand) also provided input. Lisl Dunlop and Tad Lipsky led the work for the ITF.

12

Comments of the American Bar Association’s Sections of Antitrust Law and International Law Regarding the National Development and Reform Commission’s February 3, 2016 Draft Guidelines for Applying Leniency Program to Horizontal Monopoly Agreements (Chinese) 

Submitted for review and approval by Council on February 23, 2016 by International Officer Jonathan Gleklen.



Voting via electronic mail.



The comments were approved by Council on February 26, 2016 “with such nonsubstantive changes as the International Officer, in consultation with the Chair, deems reasonable and appropriate.” o The comments provide that the proposed Leniency Program could be made more effective by removing the exclusion of eligibility for undertakings that were organizers of a horizontal monopoly agreement. Two members of Council voted against approval on the grounds that “amnesty should be denied presumptively to ringleaders, including ‘organizers.’”



Upon approval by Council, the proposed Comments were submitted and cleared in accordance with the ABA Blanket Authority Procedure.



Final comments were submitted on March 15, 2016.



The drafting group was led by Niall Lynch of the Section's International Cartel Task Force; other SAL drafters included Stu Chemtob, Bob Connolly, and Eva Cole, with helpful research support from the ITF's YLR, Sarah Bartels. Yee Wah Chin coordinated the SIL contribution to the draft.

Joint Comments of the American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law and Section of International Law on the National Development and Reform Commission’s Draft Guidelines for Commitments in Anti-Monopoly Cases 

Submitted for review and approval by Council on February 25, 2016 by International Officer Jonathan Gleklen. 13



Voting via electronic mail.



The comments were approved by Council on February 28, 2016 “with such nonsubstantive changes as the International Officer, in consultation with the Chair, deems reasonable and appropriate.” o There were no votes in opposition.



Upon approval by Council, the proposed Comments were submitted and cleared in accordance with the ABA Blanket Authority Procedure.



Final Comments were submitted on March 24, 2016.



The primary SAL drafters were Jay Modrall and Emilio Varanini.

Comments of the American Bar Association Sections of Antitrust Law and International Law on the Draft Anti-Unfair Competition Law of the People's Republic of China (in Chinese and English) 

Submitted for review and approval by Council on March 17, 2016 by International Officer Jonathan Gleklen.



Following suggestions made by Council member Wellford during the Council’s review, a revised draft was circulated by Officer Gleklen to Council on March 18, 2016. There were no votes in opposition to the revised draft.



Voting via electronic mail.



The comments were approved by Council on March 21, 2016 “with such non-substantive changes as the International Officer, in consultation with the Chair, deems reasonable and appropriate.”



Upon approval by Council, the proposed Comments were submitted and cleared in accordance with the ABA Expedited Blanket Authority Policy.



Final Comments were submitted on March 24, 2016. 14



The ITF leaders on the project were Emilio Varanini, Amy Mudge, and Steve Harris, as well as the ITF's YLR, Sarah Bartels. Drafters from the Section were Julie Soloway (International Committee) and Scott Sher and Thu Vu Hoang (Unilateral Conduct Committee). Yee Wah Chin and drafters from SIL also made a significant contribution to the draft.

Publications

Approval of the publication of Consumer Protection Law Developments, Second Edition 

February 13, 2016 motion by Bernard A. Nigro Jr, Publications Officer, with the consent of the Chair, to approve the publication of Consumer Protection Law Developments, Second Edition and to take such vote by electronic mail.



Voting occurred by electronic mail.



Publication Approved by Council on February 15, 2016. o There were no votes in opposition.



Special thanks go to Christine Sommer and Daniel Savrin, who served as the editorial chairs and oversaw the entire publication effort. They were assisted by an exceptionally capable editorial board comprising Christopher Cole, Aryeh Freidman, Gregory Fortsch, Megan Gray, David Mallen, Shelia Millar, Gonzalo Mon, Katrina Robson, and Erv Switzer.

Approval of the publication of 2015 Annual Review of Antitrust Law Developments 

February 16, 2016 motion by Bernard A. Nigro Jr, Publications Officer, with the consent of the Chair, to approve the publication of 2015 Annual Review of Antitrust Law Developments and to take such vote by electronic mail.



Voting occurred by electronic mail.



Publication Approved by Council on February 17, 2016. o There were no votes in opposition. 15



Special thanks go to Steven Bradbury and Valarie Williams, who served as the Editorial Board Co-Chairs and oversaw the entire publication effort. They were assisted by an Editorial Board that included David J. Ernst, Shimica D. Gaskins, Robert A. Milne, Jeffrey H. Perry, Jennifer S. Roach, Peter J. Schwingler.

Approval of Publications Proposal for the International Criminal Cartel Handbook (First Edition) 

On March 11, 2016 Bernard A. Nigro Jr, Publications Officer, provided for Council review and approval a detailed Publications Proposal from the Section’s Cartel and Criminal Practice Committee for the International Criminal Cartel Handbook (First Edition) (“Publications Proposal”) along with a preliminary Marketing Plan.



Background o The Project Leaders are Adam Hemlock and John Terzaken. o The planned schedule includes submission of final drafts to Council reviewers in December 2016, submission to Council for approval in April 2017, and publication in May 2017.



Publications Officer Nigro, with the consent of the Chair, moved to approve the Publications Proposal, with possible additional changes to the outline, identified contributors, and schedule consistent with existing processes and procedures and with the Publications Officer keeping Council informed of significant changes consistent with existing processes and procedures, and that such vote be taken by electronic mail before 5 pm ET on March 14, 2016 and to take such vote by electronic mail.



Voting occurred by electronic mail.



Publication Proposal Approved by Council on March 14, 2016. o There were no votes in opposition.

16

TO:

Section of Antitrust Law Council

FROM:

Membership and Diversity Committee (M&D)

DATE:

March 24, 2016

RE:

Report to Council for Spring 2016 (FY2016 Q3)

MEMBERSHIP DATA Currently, the Section has a total of 8,495 members, consisting of 5,623 attorneys, 1,314 associate members, and 1,558 student members. These membership numbers are the totals after the January 29, 2016 drop for nonpayment of dues. Here is how our membership numbers compare to the membership numbers at our last report:

Attorneys Associates Students TOTAL

Midwinter 5,849 1,356 582 7,781

Feb 2016 5,623 1,314 1,558 8,495

Important points to consider: • Attorney members continue to depart the Section at a considerable rate. • Law student membership has increased dramatically. Section committees should make efforts to engage these student members, so that they continue to remain involved in the Section after graduation. • Members that were dropped on January 29 were asked to complete a brief exit survey. We are waiting for those results and will use them to refine our efforts to retain members. • A second drop for nonpayment is scheduled for April 14, 2016. We are at risk to lose an additional 77 members. We are contacting these potential drops directly in an effort to encourage them to renew their membership.

CURRENT MEMBERSHIP RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION INITIATIVES 

AMBASSADOR PILOT PROGRAM • • • •



COORDINATION OF MEMBERSHIP RECRUITMENT/RETENTION EFFORTS WITH SUBSTANTIVE COMMITTEES • •

• 

The M&D Committee are working to coordinate the following upcoming networking events: • West Coast networking events, in conjunction with several other committees • Miami consumer protection networking event, in conjunction with CP committee • Washington, D.C. speed mentoring event, in conjunction with CP committee

LAW STUDENT DIVISION •



Call with substantive committee vice chairs occurred on March 8, 2016. Feedback received from committees were as follows: o Committees urgently need a way to track new members joining a committee o Committees need to cross-pollinate and coordinate on joint events more. Several committees are now jointly working to host multiple Section networking events on the West Coast as a result. Additional calls tentatively scheduled for May 2016 and July 2016.

GENERAL NETWORKING EVENTS •



Vice Chair Eugene Benick is leading this pilot program to offer stipends to minority, plaintiffs’ bar, and other underrepresented attorneys to attend the Spring Meeting, in an effort to increase the Section’s overall diversity. Applications are currently being accepted. M&D committee members have received a template email to approach prospective applicants. Staff is reaching out to outside organizations to promote the program further.

We continue to work with the Law Student Division (LSD) to promote the Section. We disseminated volunteer opportunities in the LSD’s regular newsletter. Additionally, the LSD featured the Section Mentoring Program in a blog post.

SECTION MENTORING PROGRAM • • •

Largest mentoring class to date. Received applications from 123 mentees (65 students and 58 attorneys) and 33 mentors. Currently pairing up mentees and soliciting additional mentors Program scheduled to run from April 1 through October 31, 2016.



WHY ANTITRUST /CONSUMER PROTECTION • •



WOMEN IN LEADERSHIP INTERVIEWS • • •

• 

We are working with the CP Committee on a “Why Antitrust/Why Consumer Protection?” event to be hosted at George Washington University Law School in May. We are awaiting a date confirmation from Professor Kovacic. We are also working to host a “Why Antitrust” event at Emory University in September 2016.

Interviews of women interviewees from 2014 have been posted to the Section website and are now available. Interviews of women interviewees from 2015 are still in editing. We are awaiting the final product. Vice Chair Kathryn Hellings is coordinating with Samantha Knox and Sarah Zielinski to identify interviewees and coordinate studio time for this year. It will be outside of the Spring Meeting, to minimize scheduling conflicts. The group has identified the following interviewees they would like to approach: Janet McDavid Lisa Phelan Deb Garza Marybeth Petrizzi Saretta McDonough Renata Hesse Judge Katherine Forrest Sonia Pfaffenroth Judge Susan Illston Amy Manning In February 2016, the M&D Committee submitted a request to renew the Section Reserves for this project to continue beyond this current year.

WOMEN NETWORKING EVENTS • • • • •

Second event to be co-hosted with The Grapevine scheduled for May 13, 2016 Event will focus on women in economics and will feature Nancy Rose, USDOJ DAAG for Economic Analysis, and Ginger Jin, FTC Director for Bureau of Economics. This is the only day in May that both women are available. Targeted audience are economists, economic students, and law students, so should not conflict with attendees at Section Healthcare Conference. Event will take place at Hunton & Williams from 8:30 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. Seeking Council member to introduce speakers, per networking event guidelines.

PLANNED/UPCOMING MEMBERSHIP RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION INITIATIVES The following items are membership recruitment and retention initiatives that are planned, but are still in the initial stages. 

USING CONNECT / PROMOTION OF VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES •

We have now resolved the issue with use of our Connect page and are in a position to post to Connect.

• •



We wish to use Connect to promote volunteer opportunities within the various committees. We also wish to use Connect to spotlight different committees and their available opportunities, in order to encourage members that are not on any committee to get involved.

DINNER & DISCOURSE •

We were asked to revisit this idea to address concerns that the event may inadvertently become exclusionary. We have revised the proposal, which is currently being reviewed for additional feedback.

OTHER EFFORTS 

PATHWAYS TO LEADERSHIP (SPRING MEETING) • •

This Spring Meeting panel is scheduled to take place on April 5, 2016. Panelists will have a “run-through” on March 31, 2016. The panel will occur in the same room as the First Timers Reception and will be informal. We expect this will result in an increased attendance and participation for both events.

DIVERSITY INITIATIVES 

DIVERSITY STRATEGIC PLAN

•

cc:

We submitted a proposed Strategic Plan in January 2016. The Council agreed to review the plan and to vote on whether to accept the plan at the Spring Meeting. We request that the Strategic Plan be adopted as proposed. Vice Chairs, Membership and Diversity Committee Deborah Morgan, Assistant Director, ABA Section of Antitrust Law

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF ANTITRUST LAW DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION PLAN 2016-2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Membership and Diversity Committee respectfully requests that the Council review and adopt the attached proposed Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan. The proposed plan is a substantial revision from the original plan adopted by the Council in 2013. The proposed plan encompasses the following four strategic goals: 1. 2. 3. 4.

increase diversity in membership; increase accessibility for members with disabilities; increase diversity in programming; and assess areas where diversity can be improved.

In the current plan, the Section adopted several long-range goals and action items for the Section. Reviewing the current plan, it appears the Section has achieved each of its identified longrange goals, which includes designating committee vice chairs responsible for member recruiting and diversity purposes; coordinating strategic marketing and communication efforts targeted specifically to students and young lawyers; and addressing the marketing demand for programming for women in the profession. The proposed plan builds on these achievements. Also, applying best practices outlined in the ABA Goal 3 Report, the proposed plan states specific metrics for determining success. These specific goals include the following: • • • • • • •

increasing law student membership by 15% over three years (October 2015 vs. October 2018) (Note: Law student membership as of October 2015: 868); increasing Associate membership by 15% over three years (October 2015 vs. October 2018) (Note: Associate membership as of October 2015: 1,372); retaining a diversity consultant to analyze Section membership for diversity information and to advise on strategic ways in which to target underrepresented groups; ensuring that 100% of electronic Section publications and CLE materials are accessible to persons with disabilities by end of fiscal year 2018; investing financially in coordinating strategic marketing and communication efforts targeted specifically towards consumer protection professionals and the plaintiffs’ bar; offering on an annual basis at least two events (either on a committee or Sectionwide level) targeted towards women in the profession; and revising the Section’s strategic plan for diversity and inclusion once every three years.

Once approved, we ask that the Council make this plan publicly available on the Section’s website. 1

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION OF ANTITRUST LAW DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION PLAN

2016-2018

INTRODUCTION The American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law (the “Section”) embraces the principles of diversity and inclusion. We do not view diversity as any single characteristic and appreciate that each member offers unique and valuable skills and perspectives that can advance the work of the Section. We believe that a diverse and fully engaged Section membership allows us to marshal these skills and perspectives to enrich the practice of antitrust and consumer protection law. The Section is also committed to ensuring that all members are able to fully and meaningfully participate in its work. As the practice of antitrust and consumer protection law becomes increasingly global in scope, the goal of a diverse and inclusive Section can only be achieved with the support and participation of the Section’s leaders, committees, and members. Towards that end, the Section has developed a new Diversity and Inclusion Plan to advance its progress towards a diverse membership and a culture of leadership that fosters inclusion. BACKGROUND The Section has long been a leader in recognizing the importance of fostering a diverse and inclusive environment. As one of the first sections to implement an annual strategic plan for diversity nearly 20 years ago, the Section implemented a series of initiatives that has resulted in a consistent increase in the diversity of its membership and its leadership. ABA’s Goal III, which was adopted in 2008, mirrors the Section’s priorities in seeking to achieve the following: 1. Promoting full and equal participation in the Association, our profession, and the justice system by all persons; and 2. Eliminating bias in the legal profession and the Justice System. While we recognize the strides we have made in improving Section diversity and engaging our membership, it is important to ensure these efforts continue. Specifically, the Section must improve its outreach towards membership segments that are underrepresented (e.g., law students and young attorneys), as well as cater to those segments that are growing (e.g., women, consumer protection, plaintiffs’ bar, and international practitioners). The Section has accordingly reexamined its membership data to identify areas of improvement, to update its strategic diversity-related goals, and to establish a revised action plan. The Section has also seen dramatic growth in the number of Associate members, which includes international attorneys not barred in the United States, and economists, and other professionals. Over the last four years, the number of Section Associate members has increased by 25 percent. In addition, nearly 75% of reporting members were over the age of 40 while law 2

students make up a nominal percentage of its membership. At the same time, a large number of Section members do not report demographic information, and obtaining more accurate and complete data is a prerequisite to the success of the Section’s efforts. STRATEGIC GOALS In furtherance of the Section’s goals and values, the Section has developed the following strategic objectives for diversity and inclusion. Diversity reflects the effort to ensure sufficient numbers of targeted populations are represented, and inclusion addresses how well the diverse individuals are included in all aspects of the organization. For purposes of this plan, however, references to “diversity” generally represents both diversity and inclusion. Goal I.

Increase Diversity in Membership

Diversity is one of the ABA’s four strategic goals. Consequently, it merits dedicated resources, increased visibility, and active top-down support throughout the year. To reinforce the Section’s prioritization of diversity, the Section will ensure that diversity-related materials are easily accessible to current and prospective members and prominently displayed on our website. Section leadership also seeks to encourage committees and publications to take ownership of realizing these goals, and will recognize those committees that make significant progress towards improving diversity. The Section is aware that antitrust and consumer protection law is a distinct niche and historically does not draw as many members as broader practice areas like civil litigation, international law, or business law. Further, we understand that many practitioners in this area may not devote their full-time practice to antitrust or consumer protection issues. These realities may limit the depth and breadth of the membership pool available to the Section. The Section must adjust its outreach efforts to account for these realities by targeting its outreach efforts to those membership segments that are underrepresented and nurturing those segments with demonstrated growth. The Section also recognizes the importance of expanding its outreach to law students and young lawyers. Growing this membership segment is critical to the Section’s continued growth and improvement. The Section will leverage its existing programs – including the “Why Antitrust?” and “Why Consumer Protection?” programs, the Janet Steiger Fellowship, and the Young Lawyer Representative Program, the YLD-MEO Mentoring Program – to encourage students and young lawyers to become involved in the Section. The Section will also target certain marketing efforts, including brochures, newsletters, and websites, to students to increase their awareness of the Section and the scope of antitrust and consumer protection law. To further the Section’s efforts to recruit more law students, we will also focus on expanding our outreach to law professors. The Section’s goal in pursuing these initiatives is to increase its law student membership by 15% over the next three years. Further, the Section believes that improving its outreach to women in the profession is a priority. There are several examples nationwide of successful associations and informal networking groups for women in antitrust and consumer protection law. The Section recognizes this market demand and is committed to meeting this demand by implementing an initiative to expand outreach to women in the profession. The Section will aim to offer at least two substantive programs annually 3

that are geared towards women, dedicate resources to host/focus on women-centered programming, and provide settings for women to gather. In order to achieve this goal, the Section will work with the Liaison to the Commission for Women in the Profession to identify programs. We will also continue to enrich our outreach to international, consumer protection, and plaintiffs’ bar practitioners. The Section currently enjoys strong relationships with several affinity bar associations, including the National Bar Association and the Hispanic National Bar Association and frequently speaks at regional and national events hosted by such organizations. The Section will continue to leverage its relationships with affinity and international bar associations and create targeted marketing efforts towards international members. Specifically, the Section will expand its effort to reach out to international practitioners, building on its international conferences and Global Seminar Series. The Section has increased its resources targeted towards recruiting international practitioners and other Associate members. As a result of the Section’s efforts, the Section’s Associate membership has increased significantly over the last five years. The Section will build on its current efforts and seek to increase its Associate membership by 15% over the next three years (October 2015 vs. October 2018). Goal II.

Increase Accessibility for Members with Disabilities

The Section will continue our outreach to disabled members by ensuring accessibility to Section programming and providing membership benefits that address the needs of practitioners with disabilities. Towards that end, the Section will ensure that its electronic publications and materials are routinely made accessible to persons with disabilities and that all videos are closedcaptioned. Goal III.

Increase Diversity in Programming

The Section continues to excel in providing programming that features a diverse array of speakers and panelists. Our goal is to build on this success by expanding our programming to encompass soft skills across practice areas and take greater advantage in partnering with affinity groups, other ABA resources, and law schools. The Section will also strive to expand its market presence and highlight its commitment to diversity by: (a) developing additional programming, sponsoring research projects, and publishing articles focusing on diversity-related issues in consumer protection, antitrust, and law practice management; (b) developing programming specifically for its women members; and (c) seeking to increase the number of programs it co-sponsors with affinity bar associations. Goal IV.

Assess Areas Where Diversity Can be Improved

The Section believes in the principle that “if you measure it, you can improve it.” Currently, the Section does not have demographic data for approximately 52% of its members. Absent more complete reporting data, it is difficult to obtain meaningful measurements of our progress. Since 2013, the Section has worked proactively to collect more complete demographic data for its membership, while respecting member sensitivities. This included offering incentives to provide demographic data and simplifying the process for updating member profiles. These efforts 4

were helpful in gaining demographic data from an additional five percent of Section membership. In order to address this issue further, the Section will retain a diversity consultant to advise on strategies for gathering more complete information while remaining mindful of privacy concerns. Further, recognizing that diversity encompasses a variety of factors, including practice area, geography, and seniority in the profession, the Section will continue to ensure its programming reflects a fair cross-section of experiential and geographic diversity within the profession.

5

Entity Web Analytics Report Key Key Definitions: Unique Visitor: The number of individual people that come to the site during a specific time frame. Visit: The total number of people that come to the site. A visit could consist of multiple page views. The visit persists until 30 minutes of inactivity or 12 hours of continuous activity. Page Views: The amount of pages that were viewed on the site. Page Views / Visit: The average amount of page views that were viewed on each visit. Example: John Smith came to the ABA website 4 times in the month of October. Each time he viewed 3 pages. Also, during the month of October, Bill Henry came to the ABA website 6 times and viewed 3 pages each time. October Results for the above scenario: Unique Visitors: 2 (1 for John Smith and 1 for Bill Henry) Visits: 10 (4 for John Smith and 6 for Bill Henry) Page Views: 30 (12 for John Smith and 18 for Bill Henry) Page Views / Visit: 3 (30 Page Views divided by 10 Visits)

Report Definitions: Key Metrics Report: Shows the amount of unique visitors, visits, pages views and page views per visit, by week, for the reporting month. (See definitions above) Rolling Page Views:Charts page views over time; will eventually show one year. Left Navigation Elements: Buckets page views into the left navigation selections on the entity’s web pages. Since Home Page usually sees the majority of the traffic, an additional category was included for Home Page. Logged in Status: Counts the number of pages viewed while a visitor was either logged in or not logged in. Time Spent on Entity Pages (min): Average amount of minutes that a visitor spends on entity pages in total.

Return Frequency: Shows the number of days between repeat visits from an entity’s visitors. Top Pages: Ranks the pages on the site based on those that receive the most views. File Downloads: Shows how many times visitors download files from the site. File types that are being tracked are exe,zip,wav,mp3,mov,mpg,avi,wmv,doc,pdf,xls,xml,ram,txt,ppt,pptx,xlsx,docx, and flv. Top Entry Pages: Shows, by percentage and by total visits, which pages on the site are the first pages seen by a visitor. Top Referring Domains: A referrer is the Web page location visitors were at before coming to the site. This report shows which domains referred visitors to the site. Search Keywords: Displays a breakdown of each search keyword that has been used to find entity pages externally. (i.e. Using Google, Yahoo, Bing, etc.)Google now does not share search terms and all Google Search Terms will be grouped together under “Keyword Unavailable.” Internal Searches: Displays a breakdown of each search keyword that has been used to find entity pages internally. (i.e. Using the Americanbar.org Search Box) Server Page Views: Populates what server a page is located on when the page is viewed.(i.e. CQ5, SharePoint or Teamsite) Browsers: Identifies the browser type and version used by each visitor. This report only includes data from non-mobile devices. Mobile Technology: Shows the types of devices for each mobile device that is used to navigate to the site. 404 Page Previous Page: Shows the page name that was viewed right before a visitor was taken to a 404 Error Page. Entities can then go to these previous pages and locate the link that is in error and correct the path. Bounce Rate: Calculates each time a page is the entry page to the entities site and how often visitors leave the entities site without accessing any other pages.(i.e. when a visitor views one page on the site and then leaves) Committee Page Views: Shows page views for designated committees.(For entities that do not have committees, this report will not exist).

Antitrust Law Created: Feb 01, 2016 12:03 PM CST

Key Metrics Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016) Date (week beginning) Dec 26, 2015 Jan 2, 2016 Jan 9, 2016 Jan 16, 2016 Jan 23, 2016 Jan 30, 2016 Total

Unique Visitors 6 253 253 234 1,054 279 1,962

Visi... 6 291 285 269 1,222 320 2,393

Page Views 6 542 591 615 2,479 679 4,912

Page Views / Visit (lharden) 1.00 1.86 2.07 2.29 2.03 2.12 n/a

Rolling Page Views Antitrust Law Sun. 1 Feb. 2015 - Sun. 31 Jan. 2016

Page 1 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Feb 01, 2016 12:03 PM CST

Left Navigation Elements

Logged In Status

Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Entity Content Category Committees awards & fellowships home page publications events & cle about us committees resources section membership contact us Publications Total

Page Views 2,221 893 618 406 190 187 127 75 69 19 1 4,807

46.2% 18.6% 12.9% 8.4% 4.0% 3.9% 2.6% 1.6% 1.4% 0.4% 0.0%

1. 2. 3. 4.

Logged In Status not logged in Not Logged In logged in Logged In Total

Time Spent on Entity Pages (min)

Return Frequency

Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

Entity Content 1. Antitrust Law 2. antitrust law Total

Time Spent 4.52 4.04 n/a

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Return Frequency less than 1 day longer than 1 month 1 to 3 days 14 days to 1 month 3 to 7 days 7 to 14 days Total

Page Views 1,987 1,856 597 472 4,912

40.5% 37.8% 12.2% 9.6%

Visits 261 252 94 60 43 30 740

35.3% 34.1% 12.7% 8.1% 5.8% 4.1%

Page 2 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Feb 01, 2016 12:03 PM CST

Top Pages Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Page http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships/steiger_fellowship_project.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT325050&pg=1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships/steiger_fellowship_project/steige http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT939371&edit=1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/events_cle.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT329400 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT307000 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT311500 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT301000 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/leadership.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT311500&pg=3 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT325050 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/committees.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT308000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT325000 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/the_antitrust_source.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT311550 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT311570 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/resources.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/membership.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT311000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT304000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT800006 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT320250&pg=1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/about_us.html http://www.americanbar.org/calendar/2014/02/antitrust-international-cartel-workshop.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT329100 Total

Page Views 606 598 310 191 137 121 117 109 105 88 84 72 72 70 62 55 54 51 48 48 44 43 42 42 40 38 37 37 36 36 4,912

12.3% 12.2% 6.3% 3.9% 2.8% 2.5% 2.4% 2.2% 2.1% 1.8% 1.7% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7%

Page 3 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Feb 01, 2016 12:03 PM CST

File Downloads Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016) File Download 1. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/antitrust_law/at_steiger_application.docx 2. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_law/at311500_threshold_fallwinter2015.pdf 3. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_law/at325050_25_ji_11th.pdf 4. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_law/at320050_tft.pdf 5. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/antitrust_law/at_steiger_bio.pdf 6. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_law/at320050_retractable.pdf 7. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_law/at325050_vitaminc.pdf 8. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_law/at311500_threshold_summer2015.pdf 9. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_law/at325050_25_ji_5th.pdf 10. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_law/at320050_christou.pdf 11. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_law/at325050_urethane.pdf Total

Instances 271 27 22 18 17 16 16 11 11 10 10 1,041

26.0% 2.6% 2.1% 1.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0%

Visits 496 396 129 101 74 58 56 52 45 39 37 2,378

20.9% 16.7% 5.4% 4.2% 3.1% 2.4% 2.4% 2.2% 1.9% 1.6% 1.6%

Top Entry Pages Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Entry Pages http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships/steiger_fellowship_project.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT325050&pg=1 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT939371&edit=1 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT329400 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT307000 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT301000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT311500 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT308000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT325000 Total

Page 4 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Feb 01, 2016 12:03 PM CST

Top Referring Domains

Search Keywords

Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Referring Domains Typed/Bookmarked google.com bing.com google.co.uk google.co.jp hg.org google.ca yahoo.com abaforlawstudents.com google.co.in google.com.au Total

Visits 855 690 53 37 24 19 19 16 13 13 12 2,393

35.7% 28.8% 2.2% 1.5% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.5% 0.5% 0.5%

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Search Keywords - All Keyword Unavailable american bar the threshold antitrust aba antitrust section aba antitrust consumer protection conference 2016 journal on contracts and antitrust laws james musgrove chair, uni... at aba antitrust section aba publications consumer protection 2016 janet steiger fellowship aba scholar in residence janet d. steiger fellowship project Total

Internal Searches

Server Page Views

Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Referring Internal Search Keyword antitrust leadership portal antitrust antitrust section antitrust spring meeting antitrust quesitons "antitrust & ip" reimbursement form janet antitrust law section leadership portal antitrust writing competition Total

Instances 25 19 17 10 8 6 5 5 4 3 3 157

15.9% 12.1% 10.8% 6.4% 5.1% 3.8% 3.2% 3.2% 2.5% 1.9% 1.9%

1. 2. 3. 4.

Server cq5 TeamSite personify CQ5 Total

Searches 1,252 8 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 1,328

Page Views 2,560 2,325 24 3 4,912

94.3% 0.6% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

52.1% 47.3% 0.5% 0.1%

Page 5 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Feb 01, 2016 12:03 PM CST

Browsers

Mobile Technology

Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Browsers Google Chrome 47.0 Microsoft Internet Explorer 11 Google Chrome 48.0 Mozilla Firefox 43.0 Safari 9.0 Safari 9.0.2 Microsoft Internet Explorer 10 Safari 9.0.3 Chrome Mobile 47.0.2526 Microsoft Internet Explorer 9 Safari 9.0.1 Total

Visits 691 541 195 140 137 94 62 54 54 40 33 2,393

28.9% 22.6% 8.1% 5.9% 5.7% 3.9% 2.6% 2.3% 2.3% 1.7% 1.4%

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Device unspecified Apple iPhone Apple iPad Motorola Moto X Play (XT1562) Unknown Generic Windows RT Tablet Samsung Galaxy S2 (GT-I9100) Samsung Galaxy Note Edge (SM-N9150) Verizon Galaxy S5 (SM-G900V) Samsung Galaxy S4 LTE (GT-I9505) BlackBerry Q10 Samsung Galaxy S6 (SM-G920A) Total

Visits 2,119 88.5% 142 5.9% 48 2.0% 9 0.4% 6 0.3% 4 0.2% 4 0.2% 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 3 0.1% 2,393

404 Page Previous Page Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

This report has no data. Please verify that the date range and report filters are correct.

Page 6 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Feb 01, 2016 12:03 PM CST

Bounce Rate Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Page http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships/steiger_fellowship_project.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT939371&edit=1 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT325050&pg=1 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT329400 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT307000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT301000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT325000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT304000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT311550 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT311500 Total

Bounces 203 193 80 55 45 33 29 26 25 24 23 1,251

16.2% 15.4% 6.4% 4.4% 3.6% 2.6% 2.3% 2.1% 2.0% 1.9% 1.8%

Bounce Rate 40.9% 48.7% 79.2% 42.6% 60.8% 56.9% 55.8% 70.3% 80.6% 75.0% 51.1% 52.6%

Committee Page Views Antitrust Law January 2015 (1 Jan 2016 - 31 Jan 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Full URL in Window http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT325050&pg=1 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT939371&edit=1 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT329400 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT307000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT311500 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT301000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT311500&pg=3 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT325050 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT308000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT325000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT311550 Total

Page Views 310 137 117 109 88 84 72 70 55 54 48 2,326

13.3% 5.9% 5.0% 4.7% 3.8% 3.6% 3.1% 3.0% 2.4% 2.3% 2.1% 47.4%

Page 7 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Mar 01, 2016 12:03 PM CST

Key Metrics Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016) Date (week beginning) Jan 30, 2016 Feb 6, 2016 Feb 13, 2016 Feb 20, 2016 Feb 27, 2016 Total

Unique Visitors 1,668 1,138 1,045 1,260 488 4,926

Visits 2,114 1,384 1,283 1,542 564 6,886

Page Views 4,262 3,869 3,384 4,095 1,493 17,103

Page Views / Visit (lharden) 2.02 2.80 2.64 2.66 2.65 n/a

Rolling Page Views Antitrust Law Sun. 1 Mar. 2015 - Mon. 29 Feb. 2016

Page 1 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Mar 01, 2016 12:03 PM CST

Left Navigation Elements

Logged In Status

Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Entity Content Category home page publications Committees awards & fellowships about us committees events & cle resources section membership contact us Total

Page Views 3,702 3,540 2,527 2,482 1,410 1,224 957 735 337 141 17,055

21.7% 20.8% 14.8% 14.6% 8.3% 7.2% 5.6% 4.3% 2.0% 0.8%

1. 2. 3. 4.

Logged In Status not logged in logged in Not Logged In Logged In Total

Time Spent on Entity Pages (min)

Return Frequency

Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

Entity Content 1. antitrust law 2. Antitrust Law Total

Time Spent 4.70 3.94 n/a

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Return Frequency less than 1 day longer than 1 month 3 to 7 days 1 to 3 days 7 to 14 days 14 days to 1 month Total

Page Views 10,246 4,288 1,866 703 17,103

59.9% 25.1% 10.9% 4.1%

Visits 953 579 396 376 301 233 2,838

33.6% 20.4% 14.0% 13.2% 10.6% 8.2%

Page 2 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Mar 01, 2016 12:03 PM CST

Top Pages Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Page http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships/steiger_fellowship_project.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/events_cle.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/committees.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/the_antitrust_source.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/leadership.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships/steiger_fellowship_project/steige http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_magazine.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/resources.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT325050&pg=1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/membership.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/about_us.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/committees/committee_program_audio.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal/alj_toc.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/committees/committee_program_audio/committee_program http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/contact_us.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_magazine/antitrust_magazine_i http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal/alj_issue_archive http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/resources/comments_reports_amicus_briefs/2016_comments.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/resources/comments_reports_amicus_briefs/2016_commen http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/leadership/programsschedulingcalendar.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships/steiger_fellowship_project/steiger_fellows_2015.html http://www.americanbar.org/tools/digitalassetabstract.html/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_la http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT329400 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT307000 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/leadership/leadership_meetings/postannual2016.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT301000 Total

Page Views 3,640 1,473 811 667 652 478 456 432 420 363 244 229 195 169 165 161 154 145 141 139 138 136 123 122 115 110 110 106 102 98 17,103

21.3% 8.6% 4.7% 3.9% 3.8% 2.8% 2.7% 2.5% 2.5% 2.1% 1.4% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

Page 3 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Mar 01, 2016 12:03 PM CST

File Downloads Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016) File Download 1. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/antitrust_law/at_steiger_application.docx 2. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/antitrust_law/at_steiger_bio.pdf 3. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/antitrust_law_journal/at_journal_80i2_full.pdf 4. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/antitrust_law/at_comments_salsil_newzealand.pdf 5. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_law/at308000_newsletter_2016winter.pdf 6. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/antitrust_law_journal/at_journal_v8i1_full.pdf 7. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/antitrust_law/at_coverletter_salsil_newzealand.pdf 8. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/antitrust_law_journal/at_journal_80i2_full_toc.pdf 9. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/antitrust_law_journal/at_journal_80i2_posner_intr.pdf 10. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_magazine/anti_fall2015_fullissue.pdf 11. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/antitrust_law/ylr_application_2016.doc Total

Instances 417 48 40 40 39 37 34 34 29 29 28 2,840

14.7% 1.7% 1.4% 1.4% 1.4% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0%

Visits 2,441 1,053 358 225 165 115 112 107 106 80 74 6,850

35.6% 15.4% 5.2% 3.3% 2.4% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.5% 1.2% 1.1%

Top Entry Pages Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Entry Pages http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships/steiger_fellowship_project.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/the_antitrust_source.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/events_cle.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_magazine.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/committees.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT325050&pg=1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/leadership.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/about_us.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications.html Total

Page 4 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Mar 01, 2016 12:03 PM CST

Top Referring Domains

Search Keywords

Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Referring Domains Typed/Bookmarked google.com bing.com google.co.uk google.co.jp yahoo.com google.ca abaforlawstudents.com google.de google.com.br google.co.in Total

Visits 2,504 2,036 163 94 62 50 47 46 42 38 31 6,886

36.4% 29.6% 2.4% 1.4% 0.9% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.5%

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Search Keywords - All Keyword Unavailable antitrust law journal aba antitrust aba antitrust spring meeting 2016 aba section of antitrust law aba antitrust section steiger fellowship model jury instructions in civil antitrust cases aba antitrust section spring meeting aba antitrust publications aba international cartel workshop Total

Internal Searches

Server Page Views

Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Referring Internal Search Keyword antitrust antitrust spring meeting antitrust law journal oral history business torts "group boycott" fellowship antitrust source national institute on cybersecurity antitrust section section of antitrust law Total

Instances 90 10.0% 38 4.2% 28 3.1% 24 2.7% 22 2.4% 16 1.8% 16 1.8% 15 1.7% 14 1.6% 13 1.4% 13 1.4% 899

Server 1. cq5 2. TeamSite 3. personify Total

Searches 3,723 27 24 11 6 6 4 3 3 3 3 3,955

94.1% 0.7% 0.6% 0.3% 0.2% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Page Views 14,469 2,569 65 17,103

84.6% 15.0% 0.4%

Page 5 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Mar 01, 2016 12:03 PM CST

Browsers

Mobile Technology

Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Browsers Google Chrome 48.0 Microsoft Internet Explorer 11 Safari 9.0 Mozilla Firefox 44.0 Safari 9.0.3 Google Chrome 47.0 Mozilla Firefox 43.0 Microsoft Internet Explorer 10 Safari 9.0.2 Chrome Mobile 48.0.2564 Safari (unknown version) Total

Visits 2,231 1,908 408 304 263 241 183 151 92 82 77 6,886

32.4% 27.7% 5.9% 4.4% 3.8% 3.5% 2.7% 2.2% 1.3% 1.2% 1.1%

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Device unspecified Apple iPhone Apple iPad Samsung Galaxy S5 (SM-G900T1) Unknown Generic Windows RT Tablet Samsung Galaxy S6 (SM-G920A) Samsung Galaxy Note 3 (SM-N900V) Samsung Galaxy Note 2 (GT-N7100) Sprint Galaxy Note 4 (SM-N910P) Motorola Droid Turbo (XT1254) Verizon HTC One M8 (6525LVW) Total

Visits 6,219 90.3% 400 5.8% 129 1.9% 6 0.1% 5 0.1% 4 0.1% 4 0.1% 3 0.0% 3 0.0% 3 0.0% 3 0.0% 6,886

404 Page Previous Page Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

This report has no data. Please verify that the date range and report filters are correct.

Page 6 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Mar 01, 2016 12:03 PM CST

Bounce Rate Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Page http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships/steiger_fellowship_project.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/events_cle.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/the_antitrust_source.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal/alj_abstracts/alj_v80_02.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT939371&edit=1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/contact_us.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT325050&pg=1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/committees.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/about_us.html Total

Bounces 1,247 480 113 110 106 69 59 56 47 39 37 3,385

36.8% 14.2% 3.3% 3.2% 3.1% 2.0% 1.7% 1.7% 1.4% 1.2% 1.1%

Bounce Rate 51.1% 45.6% 31.6% 66.7% 47.1% 98.6% 83.1% 86.2% 43.9% 34.8% 46.3% 49.4%

Committee Page Views Antitrust Law February 2015 (1 Feb 2016 - 29 Feb 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Full URL in Window http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT325050&pg=1 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT329400 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT307000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT301000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT939371&edit=1 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT311500 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT311550 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT325050 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT308000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT315000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT311500&pg=3 Total

Page Views 229 8.9% 110 4.3% 106 4.1% 98 3.8% 93 3.6% 90 3.5% 87 3.4% 81 3.2% 69 2.7% 67 2.6% 63 2.5% 2,571 15.0%

Page 7 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Apr 01, 2016 12:01 PM CDT

Key Metrics Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016) Date (week beginning) Feb 27, 2016 Mar 5, 2016 Mar 12, 2016 Mar 19, 2016 Mar 26, 2016 Total

Unique Visitors 865 1,124 1,135 936 1,043 4,409

Visits 1,066 1,345 1,370 1,130 1,242 6,153

Page Views 2,916 3,792 3,368 2,862 3,094 16,032

Page Views / Visit (lharden) 2.74 2.82 2.46 2.53 2.49 n/a

Rolling Page Views Antitrust Law Wed. 1 Apr. 2015 - Thu. 31 Mar. 2016

Page 1 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Apr 01, 2016 12:01 PM CDT

Left Navigation Elements

Logged In Status

Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

Entity Content Category publications home page Committees committees about us awards & fellowships resources events & cle section membership contact us Total

Page Views 3,671 3,342 2,367 1,834 1,443 1,162 838 792 348 122 15,919

23.1% 21.0% 14.9% 11.5% 9.1% 7.3% 5.3% 5.0% 2.2% 0.8%

1. 2. 3. 4.

Logged In Status not logged in logged in Not Logged In Logged In Total

Time Spent on Entity Pages (min)

Return Frequency

Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

Entity Content 1. antitrust law 2. Antitrust Law Total

Time Spent 4.44 3.15 n/a

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Return Frequency less than 1 day longer than 1 month 14 days to 1 month 1 to 3 days 3 to 7 days 7 to 14 days Total

Page Views 9,125 4,434 1,693 780 16,032

56.9% 27.7% 10.6% 4.9%

Visits 720 467 401 376 375 329 2,668

27.0% 17.5% 15.0% 14.1% 14.1% 12.3%

Page 2 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Apr 01, 2016 12:01 PM CDT

Top Pages Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30.

Page http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/committees.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/events_cle.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships/steiger_fellowship_project.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/leadership.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/the_antitrust_source.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_magazine.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal/alj_abstracts/alj_v80_02.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/resources.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/resources/comments_reports_amicus_briefs/2016_comments.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/committees/committee_program_audio.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal/alj_issue_archive.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT325050&pg=1 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/about_us.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_magazine/antitrust_magazine_issue_archive.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/committees/committee_program_audio/committee_program_audio_2016_03.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/membership.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships/steiger_fellowship_project/steiger_fellows_2015.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/the_antitrust_source/past_issues.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/resources/comments_reports_amicus_briefs/2015_comments.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/contact_us.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/leadership/leadership_meetings/postannual2016.html http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT329400 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT301000 http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal/alj_toc.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/committees/committee_program_audio/committee_program_audio_2016_02.html http://www.americanbar.org/tools/digitalassetabstract.html/conten.../aba/publications/antitrust_law/at311500_threshold_spring2016.pdf Total

Page Views 3,312 814 603 562 560 556 428 375 327 278 255 213 210 201 196 196 168 167 167 151 132 130 126 122 109 107 106 104 103 98 16,032

20.7% 5.1% 3.8% 3.5% 3.5% 3.5% 2.7% 2.3% 2.0% 1.7% 1.6% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2% 1.0% 1.0% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.6% 0.6%

Page 3 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Apr 01, 2016 12:01 PM CDT

File Downloads Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016) File Download 1. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/antitrust_law/leadership/resources/leadership_directory_final.pdf 2. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_magazine/anti_fall2015_fullissue.pdf 3. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/antitrust_law_journal/at_journal_v8i1_full.pdf 4. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/antitrust_law_journal/at_journal_80i2_full.pdf 5. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_magazine/anti_summer2015_fullissue.pdf 6. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_magazine/anti_spring2015_fullissue.pdf 7. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_law/at311500_threshold_spring2016.pdf 8. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/multimedia/antitrust_law/20160301_at160301_mo.mp3 9. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/antitrust_law/at_comments_20160324_china.pdf 10. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/antitrust_source/dec15_full_source.pdf 11. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/antitrust_law/at311500_threshold_fallwinter2015.pdf Total

Instances 38 36 36 34 32 30 26 23 21 20 20 2,375

1.6% 1.5% 1.5% 1.4% 1.3% 1.3% 1.1% 1.0% 0.9% 0.8% 0.8%

Top Entry Pages Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Entry Pages http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships/steiger_fellowship_project.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal/alj_abstracts/alj_v80_02.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/the_antitrust_source.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/leadership.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/committees.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/events_cle.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/about_us.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_magazine.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications.html Total

Visits 2,259 36.8% 373 6.1% 307 5.0% 262 4.3% 199 3.2% 138 2.2% 130 2.1% 107 1.7% 97 1.6% 87 1.4% 77 1.3% 6,141

Page 4 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Apr 01, 2016 12:01 PM CDT

Top Referring Domains

Search Keywords

Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Referring Domains Typed/Bookmarked google.com bing.com google.co.uk abaantitrust.org google.co.in google.ca google.com.br yahoo.com google.de google.be Total

Visits 2,176 1,940 167 91 59 48 48 46 43 37 26 6,153

35.4% 31.5% 2.7% 1.5% 1.0% 0.8% 0.8% 0.7% 0.7% 0.6% 0.4%

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Search Keywords - All Keyword Unavailable aba antitrust section aba antitrust aba antitrust spring meeting aba antitrust spring meeting 2016 aba section of antitrust law aba antitrust section spring meeting antitrust law journal american bar association ...rust spring meeting 2016 iba empowering the nationa... more effective enforcers model jury instructions in civil antitrust cases Total

Internal Searches

Server Page Views

Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Referring Internal Search Keyword antitrust compass lexecon articles 2016 brown bag antitrust spring meeting econometrics 2012 antitrust in health care conference antitrust source on-demand economy audio illionois brick antitrust repealer china Total

Instances 89 25 21 18 17 17 17 16 15 15 13 910

9.8% 2.7% 2.3% 2.0% 1.9% 1.9% 1.9% 1.8% 1.6% 1.6% 1.4%

1. 2. 3. 4.

Server cq5 TeamSite teamsite personify Total

Searches 3,602 14 14 10 9 5 5 4 4 3 3 3,805

94.7% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1%

Page Views 13,331 2,473 160 68 16,032

83.2% 15.4% 1.0% 0.4%

Page 5 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Apr 01, 2016 12:01 PM CDT

Browsers

Mobile Technology

Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Browsers Microsoft Internet Explorer 11 Google Chrome 49.0 Google Chrome 48.0 Mozilla Firefox 44.0 Safari 9.0 Safari (unknown version) Safari 9.0.3 Mozilla Firefox 45.0 Microsoft Internet Explorer 10 Google Chrome 47.0 Microsoft Edge 13 Total

Visits 1,886 1,036 1,031 285 284 267 193 158 119 72 62 6,153

30.7% 16.8% 16.8% 4.6% 4.6% 4.3% 3.1% 2.6% 1.9% 1.2% 1.0%

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Device unspecified Apple iPhone Apple iPad BlackBerry Q10 Xiaomi Mi 4W Motorola Droid Turbo (XT1254) Verizon Galaxy S5 (SM-G900V) Unknown Event (Generic Android Mobile) Verizon Lumia Icon (Lumia 929) Google Nexus 7 Verizon Galaxy S6 (SM-G920V) Total

Visits 5,674 283 106 7 4 4 4 2 2 2 2 6,153

92.2% 4.6% 1.7% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

404 Page Previous Page Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

This report has no data. Please verify that the date range and report filters are correct.

Page 6 of 7

Antitrust Law Created: Apr 01, 2016 12:01 PM CDT

Bounce Rate Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Page http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal/alj_abstracts/alj_v80_02.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/awards_fellowships/steiger_fellowship_project.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/antitrust_law_journal.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications/the_antitrust_source.html http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/events_cle.html http://www.americanbar.org/tools/digitalassetabstract.html/c...a/publications/antitrust_law/at329400_newsletter_201603.pdf http://www.americanbar.org/tools/digitalassetabstract.html/...ublications/antitrust_law/at311500_threshold_spring2016.pdf http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/contact_us.html http://www.americanbar.org/tools/digitalassetabstract.html/c...blications/antitrust_law/at320000_newsletter_2016winter.pdf http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/publications.html Total

Bounces 1,181 262 223 105 102 65 59 56 44 39 39 3,273

36.1% 8.0% 6.8% 3.2% 3.1% 2.0% 1.8% 1.7% 1.3% 1.2% 1.2%

Bounce Rate 52.3% 100.0% 59.8% 34.2% 51.3% 60.7% 95.2% 81.2% 86.3% 78.0% 50.6% 53.3%

Committee Page Views Antitrust Law March 2015 (1 Mar 2016 - 31 Mar 2016)

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

Full URL in Window http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT325050&pg=1 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT329400 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT301000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT307000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/comadd.cfm?com=AT311500&pg=3 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT311500 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT308000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT322100 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT325050 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT304000 http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=AT311550 Total

Page Views 196 7.4% 107 4.1% 106 4.0% 89 3.4% 81 3.1% 80 3.0% 76 2.9% 65 2.5% 64 2.4% 59 2.2% 58 2.2% 2,641 16.5%

Page 7 of 7

DATE:

April 5, 2016

TO:

Section of Antitrust Law Council

FROM:

Joanne Travis

SUBJECT: Section Director’s Report

ANTITRUST STAFF UPDATE We are currently recruiting to fill the last staff vacancy, the Programs Specialist position (Conferences), which was recently reclassified from Senior Meeting Planner position, to more accurately reflect the responsibilities, and to optimize recruitment and retention. We expect to fill the position within the next few weeks, which will complete our staff slate (staff roster attached to this report). STAFF PROJECTS OVERVIEW Since the Midwinter Meeting the majority of the staff’s time and efforts have been focused on Committee activities, the International Cartel Workshop, the Spring Meeting, providing input on the Antitrust in Healthcare Conference, the Antitrust in Asia Conference, and the Antitrust Sentencing Symposium. Countless hours have also been committed to planning and executing the Section Reserves Program, membership and outreach initiatives, publishing and technology initiatives, and a variety of special projects. Staff continues to draft, execute and monitor the Section budget; and respond to daily telephone and e-mail inquiries and requests related to the above-mentioned activities. Staff also schedule and regularly participate in Section conference calls and contribute substantial time to ABA level projects and activities. The staff regularly participates in ABA and outside training and educational sessions. Following is a summary of some of the key staff projects and activities since the Midwinter Meeting. Budget •

Executed/monitored Section budget for the first half of the fiscal year, including providing monthly explanation/justification of substantial budget variances ($5,000 or more) to ABA Financial Services and reconciling budget discrepancies; and tracking any expenses over $5,000 that have not been paid by month’s end and reporting to ABA Financial Services for accrual.

•

Regular communication with Finance Officer regarding status of Section expenses and revenue; and Reserves projects.

•

Prepared high level Section budget for personnel for FY2017

•

Preliminary development of the complete Section for FY2017 in progress

(first submission due in May) Committee Activities •

Since the Midwinter Meeting, staff has provided administrative support for 44 committee programs with combined attendance of 812; and one (1) Teleseminar with attendance of 100 (collected over 150 speaker releases). Eighteen newsletters were published and copyright release forms were collected. Staff worked with Committee Chairs to update the printed version of the Committee Guide that will be distributed at the Spring Meeting and used for the remainder of this fiscal year.

•

Staff prepared the Committee Activities chart and posted it on the Leadership Portal. Staff also provided information to the Committee Officer as requested and routinely added/removed members from the list serves, as needed. Staff coordinated the audio downloads for committee programs and provided technology support, ongoing. Staff worked with the Committee Officer on committee evaluations; provided historical leadership data for the Nominating Committee; and to the Chair-elect for the appointments process. Staff also coordinated logistics for committee participation at the Spring Meeting Welcome Reception.

CLE Conferences/Projects Spring Meeting Badging it •

A badge is required for all spring events. Registrations opens at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 5, so please pick up before the Council meeting.

Being Mobile •

Download our mobile app to help navigate your way through the Spring Meeting. Registered attendees can download “Antitrust Spring Meeting 2016”

Being Social •

Lunch and dinner sales are down this year ↓. If you are planning to attend, please contact [email protected] right away to purchase your tickets.

•

Tagging and Tweeting will be going on so join the fun at #ATSpring16

Course Materials •

The best way to access the course materials will be via the online link, which will be sent to attendees in advance of the conference.

Lists, lists, and more lists 2

We are auditing all aspects of the conference to preempt any issues on site. A few of the many audits are: • • •

Hotel audits to avoid attrition Faculty audits to ensure course materials, CVs, photos, PowerPoints & speaker releases are submitted Audits of hotel orders, signage orders, and invitations for targeted social events

Websites •

PLEASE use the following resources as you schedule your activities: www.ambar.org/ATSpring for general Spring information and details for conference delegates; and www.at-leadership.org for leadership/administrative meetings. Both sites are updated ongoing throughout the conference, so please check online regularly for updates.

Past Conferences •

International Cartel Workshop was a success both in terms of attendance and positive feedback. We are still processing bills and nonprofit faculty reimbursement; however, we anticipate a profit. Unique this year, it appears that delegates went off site for client development opportunities so our food and beverage costs were lower than budgeted. Unfortunately many delegates booked at non-conference hotels, so we incurred an attrition fee at our overflow hotel.

•

Next Generation of Antitrust Scholars continues to be a great opportunity for Section involvement with the academic community while increasing our brand awareness to law students. This year the New York City snowstorm caused some interference; however, NYU was prepared and had panelists Skyped in who could not get in, including co-chair Danny Sokol. The snow delayed the return of staff until Tuesday, but this created an opportunity to connect with New York leadership. One change recommended for 2018 is for ABA to handle/apply for the CLE so all attendees are eligible (vs. only NY).

Upcoming Conferences •

Antitrust in Asia is online and ready for your registration. If you are unable to attend, we hope that you encourage your colleagues and clients to attend. We have found the best way to market the Antitrust in Asia conferences is through grassroots efforts, so please help us spread the word. As mentioned in November and January, we are looking for suggestions of individuals and small firms to whom we can market these conferences. We have not received any suggestions to date, so please email [email protected] with your suggestions.

•

The Antitrust Sentencing Symposium is picking up speed with the faculty being confirmed. Staff is working on logistics and registration is available online at www.ambar.org/ATSymposium. 3

2016-17 Conferences/Meetings •

Post-Annual in Ojai (pronounced oh-hi) is just around the corner. Please check the leadership portal (www.at-leadership.org) for all conference details including hotel reservations. Please remember to book within the ABA block. Items will continue to be updated ongoing so please check online for updates.

•

Cosponsorship agreements are being prepared for Antitrust in the Americas, the Symposium with Loyola Law School, and the Judicial Conference.

•

Letter of agreement in progress for the Consumer Protection Conference at the Georgia Aquarium

•

Planning memos have gone out, budgets are being drafted, and websites are live for Antitrust Masters Course and Fall Forum.

•

The Global Seminar Series are being developed.

•

Planning memos have gone out, budgets are being drafted, and websites are live for Antitrust Masters Course and Fall Forum.

•

Websites are being developed for the above conferences, and we hope to have live in time for Spring, or shortly after.

Membership/Marketing/Outreach •

Daily launching of the Antitrust and Consumer Protection Daily Digest.

•

The ABA Public Service Group Membership Program continues to be promoted for FY2017 (the program is being marketed to U.S. and foreign government agencies). Promotional pieces that explain the program will be available at the Spring Meeting and will be available to answer questions.

•

Once again, the Section cosponsored the State and Local Government Law/ABA Diversity Center Diversity Networking Reception at the 2016 ABA Midyear Meeting in San Diego, CA.

•

The Section continues to participate in the ABA Joint Exhibit Program by providing Section collateral for exhibit booths at the national conventions of the bars of color. The upcoming schedule is: National Native American Bar Association, April 6-8, 2016, Scottsdale, AZ; National Bar Association, July 16-22, 2016, St. Louis, MO; Hispanic National Bar Association, September 25, 2016, Chicago, IL; and National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, November 3-6, 2016, San Diego, CA.

•

For the past couple of months, staff has been working on developing messaging to target practitioners interested in consumer protection.

•

Since Antitrust Section dues became free for all law students (September 1, 2015), Section law student membership has increased from 582 to 1,549. As of March 1, 2016, there are 5,621 lawyer members and 1,310 Associates. We 4

experienced a drop of 523 lawyer members at the end of January 2016, and another 67 lawyer members are in danger of being dropped on April 14, 2016 for non-payment of dues. Staff is working with the Membership & Diversity Committee and ABA Membership to retain as many members as possible. •

Staff has been working with Membership and Diversity and the Consumer Protection Committee to sponsor various women’s networking events. Currently, two are scheduled on the west coast, one in Tennessee, and one in Florida.

•

The Section Mentoring Program for young lawyers and law students is underway for the last half of this fiscal year. The project received over 130 applications from mentees and mentors.

•

The Section provided a panelist and Section collateral for the Law Student Division Washington, DC Circuit Governance Meeting.

• Publications •

As the ABA Publishing Department continues to undergo restructuring, the Section has once again, been assigned a dedicated marketer as a point of contact for marketing Antitrust publications. Staff has worked with ABA Publishing to prepare books budgets for FY2017. They also produced the 2016 Publications Catalog, which will be available in the book store at Spring Meeting. Staff has also been working with S4Carlisle Publishing to produce templates/macros to make it easier for authors to prepare and submit cameraready manuscripts. The contract is in progress.

Reserves Projects/Special Projects •

Staff has worked diligently with the Section Reserves Chair/Reserves Board to bring greater structure and organization to the Section Reserves Program. Several new reports, tracking systems, budgeting details, and other processes have been implemented that have already improved the efficiency of the Reserves program, and will continue to be extremely beneficial for long-term program management.

Social Media •

The staff has been working with Section leaders to increase the use of social media at the Spring Meeting. The goal is to build/enhance the Section of Antitrust Law brand and the Spring Meeting, among non-attendees and nonmembers. We will be providing snippets of the conference using the hashtag #ATSpring16. We will also be utilizing our young lawyer representatives as brand ambassadors, tweeting from sessions to stir up conversation and pique the interest of non-attendees.

5

Technology/Website •

Staff continues to support “Connect,” the Section’s member collaboration tool. The ABA is also working with Higher Logic on the development of “ABA Connect.” This tool will serve as a replacement for the ABA’s Dynamic Committee Homepages (DCH), and will be a vital resource for interaction with, and between, members. Higher Logic is currently expanding their base functionality to meet the ABA’s hierarchical organization needs. Once the development is completed this Spring, they will implement two entities, Health Law and Antitrust Law. They will then roll out the remaining entities in a phased implementation.

•

Staff completed revisions to the Merger Contract Provisions Database (http://www.americanbar.org/groups/antitrust_law/committees/mergers_contr act_provisions_database.html), a publicly-available website to assist practitioners that are in the process of negotiating a merger or acquisition agreement.

•

Staff created a new infographic highlighting key Section activities. Staff continues to provide regular website updates and build conference sites for upcoming conferences.

•

Staff worked with Antitrust Source leaders to send out a repeat email blast of the February issue of Antitrust Source with a change of teasers. A 4% increase in email activity for the re-release was experienced.

•

Staff is working to enhance its inventory of searchable digital assets, particularly its multimedia files (audio, video). Detailed descriptions of committee program resources will be included in the Searchable Antitrust Library as it allows for better search results.

•

Staff attended two sessions at the 2016 ABA TECHSHOW at Hilton Chicago: 1) Expand Your Practice with On Line Dispute Resolution Technology – the discussion focused on technologies that help individuals and corporations conduct virtual arbitrations, mediations and other legal means of dispute resolution. 2) E-Discovery and Mobile Devices: The Forensic Cell Phone – this session was about the prevalent use of smartphones in electronically collecting resources for a trial case, and the security issues of cloud computing and using the right mobile platform. The majority of exhibitors at the expo focused on software solutions for lawyers, mainly solo practice attorneys. The main takeaway of the TECHSHOW was the reiterating of a tech-forward approach to the legal profession – delivering and optimizing information to lawyers. Also highlighted was the importance of security and mobile compatibility, which ABA is currently striving to achieve.

Other Projects 6

•

Ongoing – working closely with the Chair, International Officer, and other leaders (including other Sections) in shepherding Section comments through the blanket authority process and final submission.

•

Ongoing – regular participation on numerous monthly and ad hoc leadership calls

•

Prepared Officer/Council agendas and related materials for the Spring Meeting

•

Prepared weekly highlights and monthly reports for Senior Manager and Executive Director (report of all major projects and activities in the Section); participated regularly in various internal ABA activities

•

Responded to/handled the numerous ad hoc requests received on a daily basis

If you have any questions or comments concerning anything in this report, please do not hesitate to contact me at 312/988-5575 or [email protected]. i:/users/libsa/staff/Director Report/2016SMReport

7