John Landry joined the firm in 1998 and is a member of the Antitrust & Trade Regulation and Securities Litigation Practice Groups.

Experience

Prior to joining Heller Ehrman, Mr. Landry was a litigation associate in the New York office of a prominent international law firm. He focuses on complex litigation where he supervises large teams of associates, paralegals and consultants and advises clients on critical strategic decisions. Mr. Landry practices in a broad spectrum of subject areas with emphasis on antitrust and securities litigation. Mr. Landry also has experience in accountants’ liability litigation, corporate control contests and responding to Securities and Exchange Commission investigations. His clients have included Microsoft, Philip Morris, Merrill Lynch, Merck, Medco Health Solutions and Citibank.

Representative Engagements

• Represents Medco Health Solutions, Inc. in a class action suit brought by California retail pharmacists against the pharmacy benefits management industry based on alleged violations of state law, including California’s Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et. seq. The case is presently pending in federal district court.
• Represents Philip Morris U.S.A. in defending nationwide class action antitrust cases pending in state and federal courts. The plaintiffs alleged Sherman Act Section 1 violations for cigarette price-fixing by the major manufacturers. The cases were filed in 2000 and the federal direct purchaser claims were dismissed after Philip Morris and the other defendants obtained summary judgment. HellerEhrman led the briefing in the district court and in prevailing on appeal. Mr. Landry’s role included developing Philip Morris’ economic expert proof and opposing class certification in several state court purchaser actions.  Mr. Landry continues to represent Phillip Morris in a remaining state court case.
• Represents Asiana Airlines in a federal multi-district class action alleging a global conspiracy by air cargo carriers to fix fuel and other surcharges in violation of the Sherman Act, state law, and European competition law. Mr. Landry handles various aspects of this case including working with Asiana’s expert consultants.
• Represented Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment LLC in a class action by retail video store owners against studios and Blockbuster alleging a price discrimination claim under California’s Unfair Practices Act.  Mr. Landry worked on various aspects of the litigation which settled in 2007. 
• Represented RITA Medical Systems, Inc. and its directors in class action litigation brought by certain shareholders seeking to enjoin a merger.  Mr. Landry handled all aspects of the litigation including negotiating a settlement that allowed the merger to proceed without delay in 2007.
• Represented KPMG in an accountants’ liability action in California state court.  Mr. Landry handled all discovery and summary judgment proceedings.  In 2007, the case was settled favorably while KPMG’s summary judgment motion was pending.
• Represented Black & Decker in an action brought under California’s Cartwright Act alleging that Black & Decker had terminated plaintiff’s retail tool distributorship at the behest of plaintiff’s rival, another Black & Decker distributor.  Mr. Landry handled all aspects of the case, which resolved favorably in 2006.
• Represented Microsoft in defending a lawsuit brought by Sun Microsystems alleging monopolization and tying violations of the federal antitrust laws. The case was filed in 2001 and a settlement was reached in 2004.  Mr. Landry’s role consisted of briefing motions to dismiss, opposing preliminary injunctive relief and working with Microsoft’s expert witnesses.
• Represented Medo Industries, a subsidiary of Pennzoil/Quaker State, in a case brought by a rival alleging that Medo was attempting to monopolize a nationwide market for automotive air fresheners and had engaged in unfair competition in violation of California law.  The case settled on favorable terms in 2002.
• Represented KPMG in a major accountants’ liability action arising from KPMG’s role as auditor for Orange County from 1992-1994.  After seeking bankruptcy protection in December of 1994, the County sued KPMG for alleged breach of contract and negligence relating to investment losses of $1.8 billion in the County’s portfolio.  Mr. Landry’s role in the case consisted of organizing and managing KPMG’s discovery of significant third party witnesses, including various water districts and school districts which had placed funds in the County’s investment pool.
• Represented Merck and Co., Inc. in In re Brand Name Prescription Drug Litigation, one of the largest private antitrust litigations ever brought in the United States.  Plaintiffs, independent and chain store pharmacies, through class actions and individual lawsuits, sued the entire brand-name prescription drug industry, alleging that defendants conspired to fix prescription drug prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and that they engaged in price discrimination in violation of Section 2(a) of the Robinson-Patman Act.  In the class actions, Mr. Landry managed offensive and defensive discovery.  Among other things, Mr. Landry supervised numerous associates and contract attorneys, conducted key depositions of executives of the leading plaintiff drug store chains, including Walgreens and Rite Aid, defended depositions and argued several pivotal discovery motions.  In 1997, Merck settled the class cases on a favorable basis.
• Represented Porex Technologies Corp., a former distributor of silicon gel breast implants and a defendant in multi-district breast implant litigation.  Mr. Landry advised Porex with respect to its litigation strategy and settlement discussions.  In counseling Porex regarding its potential exposure arising from this litigation, Mr. Landry also negotiated with Porex’s insurance carriers regarding the funding of defense and indemnity costs and advised Porex with respect to public disclosure of the litigation and its impact on the financial condition of the company.
• Represented Porex in an insurance coverage dispute. Porex and its primary insurance carrier sued Mitsui, the insurer of the manufacturer of the breast implants distributed by Porex, with respect to certain insurance policies in which Porex was named as an additional insured. Mr. Landry conducted deposition discovery of Mitsui representatives and drafted memoranda in opposition to several dispositive motions. Porex obtained a favorable settlement from Mitsui in January 1998.
• After AT&T sued the Human Resources Administration of the City of New York (the HRA) to collect outstanding long distance bills for calls fraudulently charged to the HRA, the City impleaded Northern Telecom, Inc., the manufacturer of the HRA’s telephone switch, through which the unauthorized calls were made. Mr. Landry defended Northern Telecom against the HRA’s claims for alleged defective manufacture and design and breach of contract. In addition to conducting discovery, Mr. Landry drafted the motion for summary judgment which, in 1993, disposed of the entire case against Northern Telecom. The reported decision is a leading case on the economic loss rule, a principle which bars recovery in tort where defendant’s negligence did not result in personal or property damage.

Publications

• “The Ninth Circuit’s linkLine Decision: A Flawed Application of Stare Decisis?,”  Competition, The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California, Vol. 17, No.1, Spring 2008 (publication pending).  05.2008
• “What Every Lawyer Should Know About U.S. Antitrust Law,”  County Bar Update, a publication of the Los Angeles County Bar Association, Vol. 27, No. 11  12.2007
• “Possible Limitations on Securing Corporate Governance Reforms Through Class Action Settlements,”  The Wall Street Lawyer  03.2006
• “Undoing The Ninth Circuit’s Chroma Lighting Decision: Is Volvo Too Much, Too Little, Too Late?,"  Competition, The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California, Vol. 15, No. 2  Fall/Winter.2006
• "The Plight of Nascent Competitors in the Ninth Circuit After Bourns v. RaychemCompetition"  The Journal of the Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section of the State Bar of California, Vol. 13, No.1  12.1.2004
• Co-author, “The Future of Loss Causation,”  Securities & Commodities Regulation, Vol. 20 No.11,  11.2004
• “Courtroom Closure: New York Refines Its Approach,”  New York Law Journal,   09.1997
• Co-author, “Hospital Group Purchasing and Efforts to Reduce Supply Prices: Antitrust Considerations and the Issues Raised by In re Brand Name Prescription Drugs Antitrust Litigation,”  Antitrust Developments for Healthcare Providers, American Bar Association  03.1995
• Co-author, “How Foreign Governments Gain Access to U.S. Information,”  Money Laundering Law Report, Volume 4 No.3  10.1993
• Co-author, “Responding to Extraterritorial Investigations,”  ABA Section of Business Law,  08.1993
• Co-author, “Speculation, Overdeterrence, and Consumer Standing in Walker Process Litigation: A Response to Professor Leslie,” The Southwestern Journal of Law and Trade in the Americas, Vol. 13, Issue 2 (forthcoming August 2007).  

Speaking Engagements

• “An Overview of Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law,” co-presenter, The State Bar of California Section Education Institute, January 2007.
• “E-discovery Panel:  Update on 2006 Amendments To The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,” University of California Hastings College of the Law and Heller Ehrman LLP, January 2007.