This site makes use of Javascript, please enable your web browser to allow Javascript. Thank you.
Philip A. Giordano

Philip A. Giordano

Counsel

Washington, DC
T: +1 202 682 3546
F: +1 202 682 3580

Silicon Valley
T: +1 650 319 4530
F: +1 650 319 4700


icon Download vCard

Legal Services

Education

  • Stanford Law School
    JD, 1997
  • Stanford University
    BS, General Engineering, 1988
  • Stanford University
    BA, Quantitative Economics, 1988

Bar Admission(s)

  • United States Supreme Court
  • United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
  • State of California
  • District of Columbia

Philip A. Giordano serves as counsel in Kaye Scholer’s Antitrust Practice. Drawing on more than 15 years of experience as a prosecutor in the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice (DOJ), most recently as a Trial Attorney in the National Criminal Enforcement Section, Philip represents and counsels clients regarding a variety of national and international antitrust matters, including complex criminal antitrust investigations and litigation, civil non-merger government investigations and mergers and acquisitions. His experience in antitrust matters spans a diverse set of industries, including computer hardware and software, auto parts, financial services, entertainment, publishing, chemicals, air cargo transportation and consumer goods. Philip maintains offices in Palo Alto, CA and Washington, DC.

As a trial attorney in the Antitrust Division’s National Criminal Enforcement Section, Philip prosecuted numerous cartel and related violations, including wire fraud, obstruction of justice, perjury, bribery and accepting kickbacks. Previously, Philip was Special Assistant to the Directors of Enforcement in the Antitrust Division’s Office of Operations, where he assisted Directors and Deputy Assistant Attorneys General in criminal matters and in merger and civil non-merger cases. In that capacity, he recommended indictments, plea agreements and civil complaints, and worked on leniency applications, requests for immunity and a variety of consent decrees. Philip earlier served as a trial attorney in the Antitrust Division’s Network and Technology Section, where he led or participated in more than 60 significant merger and civil non-merger investigations and enforcement actions, primarily in the technology and financial services markets. His responsibilities there included developing economic and legal theories of harm, issuing and enforcing Second Requests under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act and negotiating consent decrees.

Representative Matters

  • United States v. Hitachi Automotive Systems. Representing the United States, prosecuted auto parts manufacturer and obtained a $195 million criminal fine for a cartel violation in the auto parts industry. 
  • United States v. Panasonic Corporation. Representing the United States, prosecuted auto parts manufacturer and its subsidiary, obtaining $56.5 million in criminal fines for cartel violations in the auto parts industry. 
  • United States v. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. Representing the United States, prosecuted auto parts manufacturer and obtained a $14.5 million criminal fine for a cartel violation in the auto parts industry. 
  • United States v. Florida West International Airways. Represented the United States in a dispositive evidentiary hearing in the Southern District of Florida regarding an alleged cartel violation in the air cargo transportation industry. 
  • United States v. Ticketmaster Entertainment and Live Nation. Representing the United States, obtained a consent decree allowing an $889 million merger in the market for primary ticketing on condition that the acquirer license its ticketing software to competitors, divest ticketing assets and abide by anti-retaliation restrictions on its conduct. 
  • Representing the United States, led a DOJ investigation of a major financial services corporation’s exclusionary conduct with respect to pinless debit cards resulting in changes to the company’s operating regulations in a favorable civil settlement. 
  • Representing the United States, led a DOJ investigation of a proposed multi-billion dollar acquisition of a data management software developer by a leading security software developer. 
  • Representing the United States, led a DOJ investigation of a proposed multi-million dollar merger of optical fingerprint scanning and identification systems manufacturers involving the issuance of a Second Request. 
  • Representing the United States, led a DOJ investigation of a proposed multi-billion dollar acquisition of a leading online payment service provider by a leading online auction and shopping website. 
  • Merger of Chicago Board of Trade and Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Representing the United States, investigated and issued a Second Request regarding a proposed multi-billion dollar merger of the two largest US futures and options exchanges. 
  • United States v. First Data Corporation and Concord EFS. Representing the United States, obtained a consent decree allowing a $7 billion merger in the market for debit network services while requiring the divestiture of the NYCE debit network. 
  • United States v. Microsoft Corporation. Representing the United States, enforced a consent decree against Microsoft requiring the development of middleware-neutral software settings and defaults, and acted as liaison to plaintiff States and the European Union. 
  • Merger of SABMiller and Molson Coors. Representing the United States, investigated a proposed multi-billion dollar merger of two leading beer brewers involving issuance of a Second Request.

Speaking Engagements and Publications

  • “Representation of Companies in Criminal Antitrust Investigations,” Chapter 15, PLI Deskbook on Internal Investigations, Corporate Compliance and White Collar Issues (March, 2016)
  • “Price Discrimination and Related Antitrust Issues,” CLE Presentation (February 25, 2016)
  • “Emerging Standards Under the FTAIA,” The State Bar of California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law Section (February 10, 2015)
  • “FTAIA Litigation and Effects on Future Competition Enforcement,” ABA Business Law Section Annual Meeting, Chicago (September 13, 2014)

  • “Why the Recent Upswing in US Cartel Enforcement?,” InsideCounsel, (with Robert Bell) (July 30, 2014)

  • “When the Feds Are Finished: Class Actions Following Criminal Investigations and Plea Agreements,” DRI’s Class Actions: Latest Developments in Law and Practice Seminar, Washington, DC (July 24, 2014)

  • “Here Comes Tougher International Antitrust Enforcement,” Forbes (June 9, 2014)

  • “Antitrust Pitfalls – Small Deals, Electronic Communications and Other Traps for the Unwary,” Mergers and Acquisitions Dealmakers Roundtable, Palo Alto (April 23, 2014)

  •  “Current Issues in US Cartel Enforcement,” Department of Justice Antitrust Division Chilean Interagency Seminar, Department of Justice, Washington, DC (August 6, 2012)

  •  “Motions to Dismiss in United States v. Florida West International Airways,” Case Review Seminar, Department of Justice, Washington, DC (2012)

  • “Criminal Cartel Enforcement in the United States,” Georgetown University McDonough School of Business (May 12, 2011)

  • “Overview of Criminal Cartel Enforcement,” American University Kogod School of Business (November 18, 2009)