GCR 100 - 17th Edition

Bates White Economic Consulting

10 January 2017

Bates White Economic Consulting

Bates White offered economic expertise on several high-profile mergers and behavioural cases.

  • Involved in seven second request merger reviews, including the Halliburton/Baker Hughes tie-up
  • No group one or two departures in the last year
  • Helped secure significant settlements for plaintiffs in Urethane antitrust litigation
Global heads George Rozanski, Randal Heeb, Cory Capps
Home jurisdiction US
Total size of firm 158
Competition economists 81
% of firm specialised 51%
Who’s Who Legal: Competition nominees 6
Group one 10
Group two 13
Group three 19
Group four 39
Lateral hires 1
Departures 0
Internal promotions 3

Bates White continued to show its reputation among peers this past year with six Who’s Who Legal nominations, including co-heads George Rozanski and Cory Capps. Based in Washington, DC, the firm dedicates a large portion of its practice to economic litigation but also has 51% of its work in economic consulting. It grew further in size and now counts 81 competition specialists.

Of the 27 mergers on which Bates White worked last year, seven received second requests and several stood in the national spotlight. It prepared a testifying expert on behalf of the US DOJ in support of the antitrust division’s challenge to the proposed US$34.6 billion merger between Halliburton and Baker Hughes. The firm provided economic analysis of the merger’s effects on competition and that information supported the DOJ’s lawsuit against the deal, which the companies eventually abandoned. Partner Michael Whinston testified on behalf of the DOJ when the agency went to trial to stop the sale of General Electric’s appliance business to Electrolux, a deal that was abandoned at the end of 2015.

Bates White also advised on a number of prominent behavioural matters, both in private litigation and as a result of government investigations. That work included testifying at deposition and trial for a large group of opt-out plaintiffs in the Urethane antitrust litigation. The firm analysed impact and estimated damages, finding that the plaintiffs were overcharged by US$608 million, or 11%, between 1994 and 2003 as a result of alleged price-fixing conspiracy among chemicals suppliers. The opt-out plaintiffs reached settlements with the defendants, including a US$400 million payment from Dow Chemical.

Previous Chapter:Analysis Group

Next Chapter:Berkeley Research Group