""

Antitrust & Competition

Antitrust & Competition

Antitrust & Competition

Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Overview

Our leading Antitrust & Competition practice includes over 75 dedicated lawyers located in 15 offices across the US, UK, Belgium, France and Germany. Our significant global coverage is combined with intimate local knowledge of markets and regulatory regimes. Whether your issue is international or domestic, we will provide the strategic insight necessary to help you manage antitrust and competition law risk and at the same time achieve your commercial objectives. Our team provides commercially-focused, full-service competition and regulatory support to clients, ranging from compliance policies and training to cartel investigations and merger control. The experience of our team is substantive and diverse – in private practice, in industry, at regulators, in economics and in law. We are well-equipped to offer innovative, efficient and effective solutions. We are continually recognised for our work, and Global Competition Review has named us “one of the world’s leading competition practices”. 

In addition to working with clients dealing with significant domestic and international cartel investigations, we act as trusted advisors to clients on the full spectrum of antitrust issues, including assessments of supply and distribution arrangements and other vertical agreements, horizontal cooperation agreements and monopolization/abuse of dominance questions.  Given the importance of compliance, we help companies devise and implement policies by understanding the risks facing their businesses. When there are concerns about conduct, we work with clients to undertake the necessary internal investigations, focussing on identifying and mitigating risk. We also have extensive experience helping clients with queries relating to State aid and public procurement. With years of experience advising clients across regulated sectors, we bring a strategic approach to achieving a successful outcome, and our strength and depth across multiple industries provides clients with exceptional insight into the common themes and challenges facing regulated businesses. 

We help our clients minimise the cost and burden of complying with the multiple systems of merger control that now exist worldwide, and help clients obtain clearance in those jurisdictions where notification is required, in the shortest time and in an efficient and co-ordinated manner. Members of our team have successfully advised on many high profile and complex transactions, including obtaining HSR clearance from the US competition authorities and responding to second requests, as well as Phase II investigations by the European Commission and UK Competition and Markets Authority. Our strong relationships with the US, EU, UK and other competition authorities enable us to navigate the merger control process smoothly, from briefing papers and pre-notification meetings to notifications, oral hearings and, where necessary, negotiated modifications and remedies. We are able rapidly to assess whether and where your transaction may need to be disclosed, and we advise you as to regulatory risk to allow for well-informed decisions that affect the future of your business.  

In the past decade, our award-winning team has been at the forefront of advising clients in disputes concerning alleged anti-competitive conduct, including bringing and defending damages actions and defending class action suits (involving allegations of unlawful agreements, monopolization, and abuse of dominance). Globally, we have acted in many key competition litigation cases. Unlike many practices, we represent a wide range of clients, including both defendants and claimants/plaintiffs. Using our comprehensive knowledge and experience from different standpoints, we stay one step ahead in formulating successful strategies.

Given the current climate of increased antitrust enforcement, a business of any size is likely to receive a third-party subpoena in an agency enforcement investigation, such as those conducted by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) or the Department of Justice (DOJ). When a business receives a third-party subpoena for documents, the first concern is always responding to the subpoena. But that is only the beginning. Once compliance is finished, the main concerns are: who will see my documents? How can I prevent other parties—who may be my closest competitors—from seeing my documents? And how can I protect my confidential documents in a cost-effective way? BCLP has extensive experience responding to third-party subpoenas efficiently and cost-effectively. In particular, we can advise you on:

  • What level of confidentiality to choose in a protective order?
  • Will you be successful in adding further layers of confidentiality?
  • How can you limit the access of parties’ employees to your documents?
  • Will you be able to limit outside counsel’s access to your documents?
  • Is complete inaccessibility by parties’ employees to your documents achievable?
  • How to make sure you know who exactly will see your documents?
  • Will you know if the government wants to use your documents outside of the current lawsuit?
  • How can you obtain notice from the parties if your documents are being used publicly?
  • What will happen to your documents at the end of a lawsuit?

If you have any questions about third-party subpoenas or would like to receive training/guidance on this topic, please contact David B. Schwartz, Ashley Kim or your usual BCLP contact.

Rebecca A. D. Nelson, Partner and U.S. Leader, Antitrust & Competition, St. Louis, Washington, D.C.
Rebecca A. D. Nelson, Partner and U.S. Leader, Antitrust & Competition, St. Louis, Washington, D.C.
+1 314 259 2412

Andrew Hockley

Andrew Hockley
+44 20 3400 4630
Rebecca A. D. Nelson, Partner and U.S. Leader, Antitrust & Competition, St. Louis, Washington, D.C.
Rebecca A. D. Nelson, Partner and U.S. Leader, Antitrust & Competition, St. Louis, Washington, D.C.
+1 314 259 2412

Andrew Hockley

Andrew Hockley
+44 20 3400 4630

Meet the team

Rebecca A. D. Nelson, Partner and U.S. Leader, Antitrust & Competition, St. Louis, Washington, D.C.
Rebecca A. D. Nelson, Partner and U.S. Leader, Antitrust & Competition, St. Louis, Washington, D.C.
+1 314 259 2412

Andrew Hockley

Andrew Hockley
+44 20 3400 4630

Related capabilities

  • Government Contracts & Public Procurement

  • Foreign Direct Investment

Related insights

News
Sep 30, 2026

The Legal 500 UK 2027

Insights
Sep 15, 2026

European Commission’s ecosystems theory of harm: cleared for take-off?

On 9 September 2026, the EU’s General Court delivered its judgment in Booking Holdings’ (“Booking”) appeal of the European Commission’s 2023 decision to block its proposed acquisition of Etraveli. The judgment, which upheld the Commission's decision, provides important guidance on the Commission's merger assessment framework, especially as regards the assessment of “non-horizontal” mergers where the parties are active in different but related markets.
Insights
Sep 08, 2026

UK Investment Screening: Recent Developments under the UK’s National Security and Investment Act

The mandatory notification regime under the UK’s National Security and Investment Act (NSIA) has been in force for more than four years. During this time, the number of deals notified to the UK Government has steadily increased, allowing the Government to scrutinise more deals from a national security perspective. However, changes are afoot. Over the summer, the new Prime Minister rehoused the Investment Security Unit (ISU) once again, and the NSIA’s legal framework, which has remained unchanged since being enacted, is due to be altered significantly. In the following article, we look at lessons learnt from two prohibited transactions – the first block of 2026 and the conclusion of an M&A saga dating back to 2021. We also consider the implications of the ISU leaving the Cabinet Office, identify key trends from the latest NSIA Annual Report, and examine major forthcoming amendments to the NSIA regime.
Insights
Jul 20, 2026

Ctrl + Alt + Deceive? FTC Proposes Policy On AI Accuracy Suppression

The FTC has published a proposed policy statement on artificial intelligence accuracy, focusing on politically motivated steering or suppression. Rather than outright prohibiting conduct, the statement emphasizes the need for disclosure to consumers of any purported steering/suppression. Normally, a policy statement is the least binding form of guidance from an agency, though the FTC has taken the curious step of submitting the proposed policy statement for public comment. Nonetheless, the draft policy statement provides important guidance and indicates the direction of the FTC’s AI priorities. Clients should conduct a careful review of their AI tools and algorithms, as well as disclosure statements, to ensure that the AI does not generate false or misleading claims.

Related insights

Awards
Oct 15, 2026
BCLP moves up in Chambers UK 2027 with a new Band 1 and 20 newly ranked lawyers
Insights
Oct 07, 2026
BCLP Responds to UK Government Competition Law Consultation
News
Sep 30, 2026
The Legal 500 UK 2027
Insights
Sep 15, 2026
European Commission’s ecosystems theory of harm: cleared for take-off?
On 9 September 2026, the EU’s General Court delivered its judgment in Booking Holdings’ (“Booking”) appeal of the European Commission’s 2023 decision to block its proposed acquisition of Etraveli. The judgment, which upheld the Commission's decision, provides important guidance on the Commission's merger assessment framework, especially as regards the assessment of “non-horizontal” mergers where the parties are active in different but related markets.
Insights
Sep 08, 2026
UK Investment Screening: Recent Developments under the UK’s National Security and Investment Act
The mandatory notification regime under the UK’s National Security and Investment Act (NSIA) has been in force for more than four years. During this time, the number of deals notified to the UK Government has steadily increased, allowing the Government to scrutinise more deals from a national security perspective. However, changes are afoot. Over the summer, the new Prime Minister rehoused the Investment Security Unit (ISU) once again, and the NSIA’s legal framework, which has remained unchanged since being enacted, is due to be altered significantly. In the following article, we look at lessons learnt from two prohibited transactions – the first block of 2026 and the conclusion of an M&A saga dating back to 2021. We also consider the implications of the ISU leaving the Cabinet Office, identify key trends from the latest NSIA Annual Report, and examine major forthcoming amendments to the NSIA regime.
Insights
Jul 24, 2026
The Perils of Ignoring the HSR Act: Why “Avoidance” Tactics Can Cost You Millions
Insights
Jul 20, 2026
Ctrl + Alt + Deceive? FTC Proposes Policy On AI Accuracy Suppression
The FTC has published a proposed policy statement on artificial intelligence accuracy, focusing on politically motivated steering or suppression. Rather than outright prohibiting conduct, the statement emphasizes the need for disclosure to consumers of any purported steering/suppression. Normally, a policy statement is the least binding form of guidance from an agency, though the FTC has taken the curious step of submitting the proposed policy statement for public comment. Nonetheless, the draft policy statement provides important guidance and indicates the direction of the FTC’s AI priorities. Clients should conduct a careful review of their AI tools and algorithms, as well as disclosure statements, to ensure that the AI does not generate false or misleading claims.
News
Jun 10, 2026
The Best Lawyers in France 2027
Awards
Jun 04, 2026
BCLP Recognized in Chambers USA 2026