|
John Beukema’s practice has concentrated on antitrust litigation. He has participated in numerous major antitrust cases involving a considerable variety of industries and issues arising under both federal and state antitrust laws. He is also experienced in counseling clients on antitrust issues and in negotiating with antitrust enforcement officials to avoid enforcement litigation. Among the antitrust cases in which John has participated are: In re Canadian Drug Import Litigation, a purported class action alleging a conspiracy among major manufacturers of prescription drugs to restrict the import of their products into the United States from Canada, in which John was part of the Faegre & Benson team representing Novartis AG. The federal district court in Minneapolis dismissed the complaint, holding that no claim was stated because the allegedly restrained imports would be illegal under the federal drug laws. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the dismissal. Fest v. Micron Technology, Inc., et al., a purported indirect-purchaser class action alleging a price-fixing conspiracy among manufacturers of dynamic random access memory (DRAM) products in the United States and abroad to fix the price of their products. John is representing all of the defendants in this case, which is pending in Minnesota state court in Minneapolis. In re Minnesota Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, a consolidated group of related actions, including one purported class action, filed in Minnesota state court by indirect purchasers against a large number of vitamin manufacturers and their foreign affiliates alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in violation of Minnesota Antitrust law. John is representing one pair of defendants. Peridot, Inc. v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., et al., a purported class action in which John defended two manufacturers of commercial tissue products against allegations by indirect-purchasing commercial customers that our clients, together with other manufacturer defendants, conspired to fix prices. John acted as coordinating counsel for all defendants and was part of the team that successfully opposed certification of the case as a class action. In re Drug Pricing Litigation, Kerr v. Abbott Laboratories, et al. and Fontaine v. Abbott Laboratories, et al., related class actions by pharmacies and consumers alleging that prescription drug manufacturers engaged in price discrimination in violation of the Minnesota Antitrust Law. In the Kerr case, John was part of the team that persuaded the court not to certify the case as a class action. Rozema v. Marshfield Clinic, a class action in which John defended a Wisconsin health maintenance cooperative against charges that it had conspired with a major competitor to divide markets. ADC Telecommunications v. Telect, a patent case in which we defended a manufacturer of telecommunications equipment against counterclaims by its principal competitor alleging monopolization, predatory pricing, and price discrimination. Bloom v. Hennepin County, et al., in which John obtained summary judgment for a large physicians’ group and several of its doctors on claims by another doctor, formerly associated with the group, that they had conspired to allocate territories in, and monopolized, the market for kidney dialysis services in the Twin Cities area. In re Worker’s Compensation Insurance Antitrust Litigation, in which we represented one of about 15 insurers who were accused of having conspired to fix prices for workers’ compensation insurance in Minnesota The case raised difficult issues about the boycott exception to the general rule of insurance industry exemption from the federal antitrust laws and about the relevance of state regulation on antitrust liability. State of Minnesota v. Naegele Outdoor Advertising, in which the Minnesota Attorney General claimed that our client monopolized the outdoor advertising market in the Twin Cities, and sought to compel divestiture of significant portions of the client’s facilities. This was the first monopolization action ever brought by the State under the Minnesota Antitrust Law, and it raised unique issues about the remedies available under that Law. Vannelli v. NCAA, in which John obtained summary judgment for the NCAA on claims by a former college hockey player that the Association’s rules governing the athletic eligibility of students who transfer from one college to another unreasonably restrain trade. Keating v. Phillip Morris Inc., an action by an indirect purchasing retailer, alleging that the major tobacco producers had conspired to fix cigarette prices. The trial court refused to certify the case as a class action, and the Minnesota Court of Appeals affirmed in the only appellate decision on class certification under the Minnesota Antitrust Law. United States v. British Columbia Forest Products, an action by the United States Justice Department challenging our Canadian client’s acquisition of an American paper company under Section 7 of the Clayton Act. After extensive discovery, in which John was heavily involved, we negotiated a consent decree that allowed our client to retain the challenged acquisition. T.V. Signal Co. v. AT&T, in which we defended AT&T and its then-subsidiary Northwestern Bell Telephone Company against charges of antitrust conspiracy and monopolization in the cable television industry. Although he has concentrated in the antitrust field, John has also been involved in complex commercial litigation in other areas of the law. Examples include: In re Workers’ Compensation Refund (a successful challenge to the constitutionality of a Minnesota statute that attempted to deprive insurance companies of their right to refunds of excess premiums they had paid to the state workers’ compensation reinsurance association); In re Schmitt Music Litigation (a class action alleging that our client’s credit practices violated Minnesota’s usury statute, the federal Truth in Lending statute, and RICO) and H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone (RICO claims challenging the propriety of telephone rates; John wrote the briefs leading to the first court decision holding that such claims are barred by the filed rate doctrine). John also has extensive experience in appellate litigation in state and federal courts, as both an oral and a written advocate. This experience has given him a detailed familiarity with state and federal appellate procedures as well as skill in recognizing and articulating successful appellate arguments.
Education
B.A., Carleton College (1968), magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa
J.D., University of Minnesota (1971), Law Review (Articles Editor), magna cum laude, Order of the Coif
Professional Recognition
Who’s Who in America
Who’s Who in American Law
Publications
Post-Trial Motions: The First Step on the Appellate Road
Bench and Bar of Minnesota (1998)
Professional and Trade Associations
ABA Antitrust Section
ABA Litigation Section
Minnesota State Bar Association
Hennepin County Bar Association
American Bar Association
Admitted to Practice (State)
Minnesota
Admitted to Practice (Federal)
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Supreme Court
Pro Bono Areas
Neighborhood Involvement Program, Minneapolis
Ronald McDonald House of the Twin Cities
|
