Darryl L. Snider

Mr. Snider is a partner in the Antitrust and Trade Regulation practice group in the firm's Los Angeles office.

Areas of Practice

Mr. Snider focuses on complex litigation, particularly in antitrust, securities class actions, accountants’ liability, mergers and acquisitions, and bank litigation. He has successfully argued one case in the United States Supreme Court for Wells Fargo Bank and has argued numerous appeals in the Second and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals. He has been lead trial counsel for many clients in state and federal courts throughout the country.

Education

• J.D., University of Michigan Law School, 1974, magna cum laude
• Ph.D., University of Michigan, 1975, with Highest Distinction
• B.A., University of Michigan, 1971, Phi Beta Kappa; University of Michigan Law Review (1973-74)
• Fred M. Taylor Award for Best Preliminary Exam in Economic Theory among doctoral candidates at the University of Michigan (1974).

Admissions

• United States Supreme Court
• Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
• Second Circuit Court of Appeals
• California Federal District and State Courts.

Representative Engagements

United States Supreme Court

Represented Wells Fargo Bank at trial in a case concerning whether the deposit-taking bank was responsible for repayment following a debt moratorium imposed by the Philippine government (Southern District of New York). Darryl was called in as the lead trial lawyer to replace Skadden Arps three weeks before trial and tried the case on Citibank’s home turf against the co-chair of Shearman & Sterling’s litigation department.  Darryl handled the transition smoothly, worked out of Skadden’s New York offices and was able to make sure that the client did not lose the benefits of any previous work. After obtaining a favorable verdict, Darryl successfully argued the case on appeal before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court against Robert Bork. The American Lawyer (May, 1990) reported on the oral argument and described Snider as “more than a match for Bork.” 

Antitrust

Represented Mercedes Benz of North America (MBNA) in a case involving an alleged tying arrangement in violation of Sherman Section 1 and Clayton Section 3. Darryl was the co-lead trial counsel in a 13-week jury trial before U.S. District Court Judge Maryland Hall Patel in San Francisco. Plaintiff was a competitor who was seeking to sell imported automotive replacement parts to Mercedes dealers. Plaintiff claimed that MBNA violated the antitrust laws by tying the renewal of the dealer franchise agreement to their usage of “genuine” replacement parts purchased only from MBNA. The jury found that MBNA’s actions did not violate the antitrust laws under the “business justification” defense. Affirmed by the Ninth Circuit, 833 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1987). (Northern District of California).

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. (United States District Court, Baltimore). The Fourth Circuits’ reversal of the preliminary injunction order entered by Judge Motz was largely based upon the economic expert testimony of Dr. Dennis Carlton of Chicago that Darryl established at his deposition on the key issue of “tipping”.

Representation of Philip Morris U.S.A. in defending nationwide class action antitrust cases pending in state and federal courts. Darryl was co-lead counsel with David Boles. Darryl and Jamie Speyer are now taking the lead for the entire Joint Defense Group. The plaintiffs allege Section I violations for cigarette price-fixing by the major manufacturers. The cases were filed in 2000. The federal direct purchaser claims were dismissed after Philip Morris and the other defendants obtained summary judgment. Heller Ehrman took the lead in District Court and on appeal, prevailing before the Eleventh Circuit. Of the cases filed in approximately 30 states, all cases have been dismissed, either by the court or by the plaintiffs, except two which remain pending in Kansas and New Mexico. In New Mexico State Court, Heller Ehrman obtained summary judgment which is now on appeal. (United States District Court, Atlanta).

Ongoing representation of Philip Morris U.S.A. in connection with an antitrust challenge in federal court alleging that the Master Settlement Agreement constitutes a price-fixing conspiracy. Darryl took the lead in the Northern District of California in obtaining a motion to dismiss and in the briefing and recent oral argument in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (argued February 15, 2007).

Represented Unocal in several cases consolidated as MDL-150 alleging that the major oil companies, including Unocal, conspired to fix and artificially depress the posted price of crude oil and the retail price of gasoline in the 1960s and 1970s. This litigation involved a massive antitrust case involving a potential billion-dollar exposure by the group of defendants. (Central District of California). Maxwell Blecher was lead counsel for the plaintiff. Darryl took the lead in taking the depositions of all of the plaintiffs’ economic experts. Indeed, plaintiffs’ lead economic expert, Dr. Richard Rapp, was withdrawn as a witness by Mr. Blecher in the middle of Darryl’s deposition examination. Darryl successfully argued a summary judgment motion in the trial court and argued in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Represented Medo Industries, a subsidiary of Pennzoil/Quaker State, in a case alleging claims for a Section 2 attempt to monopolize and unfair trade practices brought by a competitor called California Scents. The case involves the market for automotive air fresheners and was brought by Maxwell Blecher in Los Angeles. Following completion of certain discovery, Darryl negotiated a favorable settlement early in the proceeding. (Central District of California).

Represented C&H Sugar in civil and criminal cases alleging that C&H Sugar and other sugar refiners, conspired to fix sugar prices by agreeing to withdraw competitive allowances and to engage in a base point pricing system. Maxwell Blecher represented an opt-out plaintiff, Continental Baking. (Northern District of California).

Represented Cytec Industries in defending nationwide class actions pending in state and federal courts. The complaints alleged that Cytec and other defendants conspired to fix the prices of carbon fiber and pre-preg, a composite material used primarily in the production of aircraft and sports equipment. (Central District of California).

Represented Lucky Stores in cases alleging that Lucky Stores conspired with six other large supermarket chains in Southern California to fix and raise the retail price of milk in the Los Angeles area. (Los Angeles Superior Court).

Represented Tyler Pipe Industries in a complaint alleging that Tyler Pipe, and other major manufacturers of cast iron soil pipe and fittings, engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices, restrain trade, disparage plaintiffs products, and engage in other alleged monopolistic and unfair trade practices. (Central District of California, Santa Ana).

Represented Medco, which was being acquired by Merck in a $6 billion merger. Plaintiff, a retail pharmacy, sued under Clayton Section 7 for damages and to enjoin the merger. The merger was successfully consummated in November of 1993. (Northern District of California).

Represented Masco Corporation in connection with antitrust counseling and various matters, including litigation in Reno, Nevada.

Represented Stroh Brewery Company in a case alleging violations of federal antitrust laws, unfair competition and violations of RICO. (Northern District of California).

Represented Pitney Bowes in a case that involved alleged monopolization in violation of Sherman Section 2 and predatory pricing and conduct in the market for mailing machines. (Northern District of California).

Other Litigation and Trial Experience

Represented Citicorp Real Estate at a week long jury trial in St. Louis, Missouri in a case brought by Boatman’s Savings & Loan involving a claim of breach of contract and fiduciary duties in a loan participation arrangement. The jury reached a compromised verdict awarding only a small amount of damages to plaintiff.

Represented Stockton Investment in a week long bench trial in Alameda County Superior Court.  Stockton won the trial for the full amount of damages requested flowing from claims of conversion and constructive trust involving a loan.

Represented Tom Sneva (Indy 500 Race Driver) in a jury trial concerning fraud and breach of contract. Following three days of testimony, the Court declared a mistrial.  After interviewing the jury, the defendant paid Mr. Sneva the full amount of damages and attorneys’ fees rather than go to trial again.

Represented Shell Oil Company in an insurance coverage dispute involving the refinery at Anacortes, Washington.

Represented Chevron Corporation in connection with hearings before the U.S. Senate on the potential closure of a uranium mine in New Mexico and an investigation into uranium pricing.

Securities Litigation and Professional Liability

Represented Unocal against Mesa Petroleum in a 16(b) litigation for disgorgement of $100 million of short-swing profits arising from the attempted takeover of Unocal. (Central District of California).

Represented Unocal in a class action lawsuit that alleged the company made material misrepresentations in a prospectus and financial statements regarding the roll-up of a master limited partnership into a Delaware corporation. (Central District of California).

Represented ARCO in connection with a shareholder class action challenging ARCO’s merger with BP Amoco as unfair and involving a breach of fiduciary duties by ARCO’s Board for not “shopping” the company and achieving a higher price. (Los Angeles Superior Court).

Represented ARCO in connection with a shareholder class action securities claim under Section 14(e) (alleged misrepresentations in the proxy materials) arising out of a merger with Union Texas Petroleum.  (Central District Court of California).

Represented Merrill Lynch in defending securities class actions involving claims by limited partners of securities fraud, breach of fiduciary duties, and mismanagement in the underwriting and operation of three coin and antiquities limited partnerships managed by Bruce McNall. (Los Angeles Superior Court).

Represented KPMG in the massive Orange County Bankruptcy Litigation, which included several state court actions relating to the collapse of the Orange County Investment Pool as well as class action suits by bondholders. (Central District Court, Santa Ana).

Represented Deloitte & Touche LLP in consolidated securities class actions in federal and state court and an SEC investigation arising from Deloitte & Touche’s role as auditor for FPA Medical. Deloitte & Touche obtained summary judgment as to all claims. (Southern District of California).

Represented KPMG (United Kingdom) and certain individuals in connection with European accounting and auditing issues related to the SEC’s investigation of Xerox Corporation.

Memberships

• American Bar Association (Litigation and Antitrust Sections) State Bar of California
• Trustee, Peninsula Education Foundation (1990), Palos Verdes, California.

Articles

• Prominent Antitrust Litigator Leaves Heller for Sheppard, Los Angeles Daily Journal, August 21, 2008

Speeches

• Co-Author, with Irving Scher of Weil Gotschal, of ABA Book Chapter entitled, “Conscious Parallelism or Conspiracy,” coming out later this month.
• Speaker, “The Use of Court-Appointed Experts,” American Bar Association, Antitrust Section Annual Spring Meeting (April 2007).
• Speaker, “Corporate America Under Siege,” American Business Trial Lawyers Association Conference (October 2004).
• Panel Member, Practicing Law Institute Conference on Securities Litigation (1996-1997)
• Adjunct Professor of Law, University of San Francisco (1979), Law and Economics
• Adjunct Professor of Law, Golden Gate University (1977-78), Antitrust