Shane Yodlowski
Overview
Shane Yodlowski represents clients in a wide variety of antitrust transactional and litigation matters, including mergers and acquisitions, regulatory compliance, price fixing, and bid rigging. Shane has counseled clients in a variety of industries, including telecommunications, health care, transportation, hospitality, and consumer products.
Career & Education
- University of Central Florida, B.A., cum laude, 2014
- The George Washington University Law School, J.D., 2019
- District of Columbia
Shane's Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.22.23
FTC Pushes Enforcement Frontier Against Board Interlocks and Information Sharing Among Competitors
The Federal Trade Commission took a major step recently to crack down on unlawful interlocking directorates and leverage its “standalone” authority that prohibits “unfair methods of competition.” In a complaint and consent order issued last week, the FTC alleged that a transaction between EQT Corporation and QEP Partners, LP (Quantum) violated Section 8 of the Clayton Act, the first time in 40 years that the agency has enforced the statute. The FTC also alleged that the transaction and an existing joint venture independently violated Section 5 of the FTC Act based largely on the prospective ability to share competitively sensitive information, an expansive theory of harm. The consent order goes well beyond the typical remedy for a Section 8 violation – prohibiting the interlock – and also prohibits Quantum from serving on certain other competitors’ boards without prior approval of the Commission. The Section 5 information sharing remedy is similarly aggressive, requiring the parties to dissolve an existing “cozy” joint-venture and requiring Quantum to divest all EQT shares it acquired in the underlying transaction. These novel theories of harm and aggressive remedies are a warning shot to companies that the agencies are ramping up scrutiny of board interlocks and competitor information exchanges.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 07.20.23
Turning Back The Clock? Agencies Seek to Remake and Expand Merger Prohibitions
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.12.19
Representative Matters
- Counseling clients on potential antitrust exposure in proposed mergers and acquisitions.
- Representing AT&T in several transactions, including the sale of its anime business to a competitor in which the DOJ issued a Second Request.
- Representing multiple third parties in DOJ and state attorneys general antitrust investigations and enforcement actions related to the technology sector.
- Representing a Class I railroad as part of a multidistrict litigation alleging conspiracy to fix fuel surcharge prices.
- Defending a large global hospitality company against allegations of conspiracy among various hotel brands resulting in a public apology from the plaintiff after five days of trial.
- Counseling clients on corporate antitrust compliance.
Shane's Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.22.23
FTC Pushes Enforcement Frontier Against Board Interlocks and Information Sharing Among Competitors
The Federal Trade Commission took a major step recently to crack down on unlawful interlocking directorates and leverage its “standalone” authority that prohibits “unfair methods of competition.” In a complaint and consent order issued last week, the FTC alleged that a transaction between EQT Corporation and QEP Partners, LP (Quantum) violated Section 8 of the Clayton Act, the first time in 40 years that the agency has enforced the statute. The FTC also alleged that the transaction and an existing joint venture independently violated Section 5 of the FTC Act based largely on the prospective ability to share competitively sensitive information, an expansive theory of harm. The consent order goes well beyond the typical remedy for a Section 8 violation – prohibiting the interlock – and also prohibits Quantum from serving on certain other competitors’ boards without prior approval of the Commission. The Section 5 information sharing remedy is similarly aggressive, requiring the parties to dissolve an existing “cozy” joint-venture and requiring Quantum to divest all EQT shares it acquired in the underlying transaction. These novel theories of harm and aggressive remedies are a warning shot to companies that the agencies are ramping up scrutiny of board interlocks and competitor information exchanges.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 07.20.23
Turning Back The Clock? Agencies Seek to Remake and Expand Merger Prohibitions
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.12.19
Insights
Shane's Insights
Client Alert | 7 min read | 08.22.23
FTC Pushes Enforcement Frontier Against Board Interlocks and Information Sharing Among Competitors
The Federal Trade Commission took a major step recently to crack down on unlawful interlocking directorates and leverage its “standalone” authority that prohibits “unfair methods of competition.” In a complaint and consent order issued last week, the FTC alleged that a transaction between EQT Corporation and QEP Partners, LP (Quantum) violated Section 8 of the Clayton Act, the first time in 40 years that the agency has enforced the statute. The FTC also alleged that the transaction and an existing joint venture independently violated Section 5 of the FTC Act based largely on the prospective ability to share competitively sensitive information, an expansive theory of harm. The consent order goes well beyond the typical remedy for a Section 8 violation – prohibiting the interlock – and also prohibits Quantum from serving on certain other competitors’ boards without prior approval of the Commission. The Section 5 information sharing remedy is similarly aggressive, requiring the parties to dissolve an existing “cozy” joint-venture and requiring Quantum to divest all EQT shares it acquired in the underlying transaction. These novel theories of harm and aggressive remedies are a warning shot to companies that the agencies are ramping up scrutiny of board interlocks and competitor information exchanges.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 07.20.23
Turning Back The Clock? Agencies Seek to Remake and Expand Merger Prohibitions
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.12.19
