Colin Kass

Photo of Colin Kass

Colin Kass is a partner in the Litigation Department and co-chair of the Antitrust Group. An experienced antitrust and commercial litigation lawyer, Colin has litigated cases before federal and state courts throughout the United States and before administrative agencies. His practice involves a wide range of industries and spans the full-range of antitrust and unfair competition-related litigation, including class actions, competitor suits, dealer/distributor termination suits, price discrimination cases, criminal price-fixing investigations, and merger injunctions.

Colin also has extensive experience dealing with the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice in obtaining clearance for competitively-sensitive transactions and handling anticompetitive practices investigations. His practice also includes counseling clients on their sales, distribution, and marketing practices, strategic ventures, and general antitrust compliance.

Latest Articles

On April 3, 2018, the Antitrust Division of the U.S Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it had reached a settlement in a matter involving a “no-poaching” agreement between employers—the first such enforcement action under the Trump Administration.  The DOJ’s pursuit of the matter reflects the Department’s continuing scrutiny of employment and hiring agreements between corporations.                          Read the full post on Law and
On April 3, 2018, the Antitrust Division of the U.S Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced that it had reached a settlement in a matter involving a “no-poaching” agreement between employers—the first such enforcement action under the Trump Administration.  The DOJ’s pursuit of the matter reflects the Department’s continuing scrutiny of employment and hiring agreements between corporations. Background on Antitrust Enforcement of Employment and Hiring Agreements Between Companies Near the end of the Obama Administration, the…
On January 26, 2018, the Federal Trade Commission announced revisions to HSR Act and Clayton Act Section 8 thresholds, which are indexed annually to account for inflation. We have identified the adjustments that are likely to be the most relevant to our clients, and reiterate several important practice tips. The Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, commonly known as the HSR Act, requires parties to certain transactions to notify the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice, and…
The D.C. Circuit recently blocked a proposed merger between two of the nation’s three largest health care insurers – Anthem and Cigna, raising doubts about the viability of the efficiencies defense in merger cases despite such a defense having been explicitly recognized in the 2010 FTC and DOJ Horizontal Merger Guidelines. Click here to read the full client alert.
A judge in the Northern District Court of California ruled that a virtual reality firm’s “right to veto” provision in its partnership agreement prevented the company from bringing suit against Oculus VR, LLC (“Oculus”), a company that created a popular line of 3-D virtual reality headsets. Total Recall Technologies (“TRT”), a general partnership also in the business of virtual reality headsets, sued Oculus and its founder, Palmer Luckey, claiming that Luckey and Oculus breached a…
Earlier this month, a judge from the Northern District of California allowed a putative class action suit to proceed against Facebook. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged Facebook collected and stored biometric data of individuals’ facial features for use in “tagging” friends in digital photographs. In rejecting Facebook’s attempt to dismiss the suit, the court found that Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act (“BIPA”) applied in place of California law, and that BIPA does not…
Enforcement actions for violations of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act (HSR) often are announced with substantial money penalties or other restrictions agreed in advance between the agency and the parties. Not so with the Department of Justice’s complaint filed April 4 against ValueAct Capital and its affiliated investment funds. ValueAct has said that it will vigorously defend its position. The HSR Act, among other things, requires certain investors to file notice with the Department of Justice and…
When an enforcement action for a violation of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act is announced, chances are the matter has already come to a close – by the time the action becomes public, the agency and the parties usually have agreed upon financial penalties and other sanctions to be levied. But that is not the case for ValueAct Capital and its affiliated investment funds. After the Department of Justice filed a complaint against ValueAct on April 4,…