Global Competition Review Again Recognizes Analysis Group Among the Leading Global Economics Consultancies

January 18, 2023

Analysis Group has again been recognized as a leader on the 2023 Global Competition Review (GCR) Economics 24. The annual ranking highlights top economics consulting firms, evaluated by size of practice, reputation, and work on impactful competition matters over the previous year. Analysis Group was recognized as having “a formidable reputation on both sides of the Atlantic,” with 358 competition economists across its offices worldwide supporting 226 litigation cases, 49 merger reviews, and 18 government investigations in the past year.

“With fierce competition comes a host of complex relationships that are increasingly being scrutinized by authorities in every major market around the world,” said Martha S. Samuelson, CEO and Chairman of Analysis Group. “Once again, I’m inspired by the innovative, creative, and sound economics my colleagues across the firm bring to bear on behalf of our clients. The Economics 24 recognition is a testament to the fruits of their labor, and I applaud each for their efforts.”

GCR called out Analysis Group’s significant role in many of the past year’s noteworthy antitrust cases around the world, including:

Veolia/Suez Merger Approval

An Analysis Group team supported Suez in its acquisition by the international environmental services conglomerate Veolia. The team provided economic and financial analyses for review by regulatory agencies in the UK, EU, US, India, Australia, and Morocco.

  • In the UK, the team assessed the competitive dynamics of single-service and multi-service waste management contracts for both municipal and commercial customers, analyzed bidding data to assess closeness of competition, and submitted relevant market share analysis to regulators in both the Phase 1 and 2 merger reviews.
  • In the EU, the team assessed the impact of the merger on innovation incentives by analyzing a very large set of patents and estimating the closeness of innovation processes between the parties. It also analyzed the position of Suez on numerous national and local markets, including commercial, industrial, and household waste treatment and municipal, industrial, and mobile water technologies. The team estimated the impact of the merger on bidding markets, particularly in France for waste treatment and municipal water distribution and treatment.
  • In the US, the team assessed the impact of the merger on prices for large municipalities that contract with companies for water and wastewater utility services.
  • In India, the team assessed the merger’s impact on drinking water distribution and management markets, using bidding data. The team also investigated how the merger would affect innovation incentives in the country.
  • In Australia, the team analyzed the competitive impact of the merger on landfill disposal in the Sydney region; operation and maintenance of water and wastewater treatment plants and desalination plants across Australia; and commercial and industrial collections in a number of local markets.
  • The team also assessed the competitive impact of the merger on the Moroccan energy and water services markets.

US v. DaVita Inc. and Kent Thiry

Analysis Group President Pierre Cremieux was hired by kidney dialysis provider DaVita and its former CEO, Kent Thiry, the defendants in the first criminal labor market antitrust case brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) in which a “no-poach” agreement was treated as a per se violation of federal antitrust laws. Dr. Cremieux – the sole witness called by the defense at trial – opined that there was no statistical evidence of a decline in hiring from the alleged agreements. He also testified – based on an analysis of benchmark data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics – that during the time of the alleged agreements, neither DaVita’s turnover rate nor its compensation had decreased relative to an industry benchmark, both findings being inconsistent with an allocation of the labor market or a meaningful decrease in competition. A jury in the US District Court for the District of Colorado found DaVita and Thiry not guilty of all charges.

US v. Penn, et al.

An Analysis Group team was hired by former executives at leading poultry processing companies who were defendants in a criminal antitrust price-fixing matter brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ). The team supported an academic affiliate and expert witness in assessing whether there was economic evidence consistent with a price-fixing agreement. The analysis revealed that the objective economic data did not support the DOJ’s theory of price-fixing and bid-rigging. It also showed that pricing patterns were inconsistent with the DOJ’s theory and that the at-issue prices were not systematically higher than a set of benchmark prices analyzed for the case. The team instead found that prices were consistent with the supply and demand conditions in the broiler chicken industry. Following a five-week trial in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, a jury acquitted all defendants.

Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

An Analysis Group team was hired by Apple in a high-profile antitrust suit brought by Epic Games, developer of the popular videogame Fortnite. The team supported an academic affiliate who filed expert reports and testified at both deposition and trial on issues of market definition, market power, and the economics of two-sided platforms, like those identified by the US Supreme Court in Ohio v. American Express. The US District Court for the Northern District of California cleared Apple of all antitrust claims brought by Epic.

Read the GCR profile