Civil Antitrust Litigation

Antitrust litigation continues to become more expansive and complex, and increasingly more common. Not only are business practices more frequently challenged under the antitrust laws, but antitrust claims and counterclaims more often arise in other kinds of business disputes. We are not generalists who dabble in the occasional antitrust case, but antitrust professionals with deep knowledge and experience capable of handling any and all types of antitrust litigation. We not only defend claims of price-fixing, but handle cases involving exclusive dealing, refusals to deal, tying and bundling, group boycotts and actual or attempted monopolization. We have litigated claims brought under the Sherman Act, the Clayton Act, the Robinson-Patman Act, the Lanham Act, California's Cartwright Act and a host of other state antitrust and unfair competition laws. The size of our group and the depth of our substantive antitrust experience make us uniquely qualified to litigate the most complex and novel antitrust issues as they arise, and also make us extremely efficient at litigating simpler or more common antitrust issues.

Our litigators combine substantive antitrust knowledge with practical experience. We are equally skilled at trying the most complex disputes and navigating the procedural and logistical challenges of large MDL class actions. We also understand that private antitrust lawsuits are often large and resource-intensive, and we take pride in our ability to litigate both effectively and efficiently. Many of our antitrust litigators also counsel our clients on antitrust issues, making us particularly attuned to our clients' larger business objectives in any dispute, and better able to translate litigation issues into cost-effective preventive counseling.

Representative matters include:

Defense of CSX Transportation in multidistrict class action litigation against allegations of an agreement among the nation's largest railroads to use the same formula for calculating fuel surcharges charged to rail freight customers.
Defense of AT&T against a class action litigation challenging, under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, Apple Inc.'s and AT&T's agreement to offer the iPhone exclusively on AT&T's wireless network.
Recovered more than $200 million for clients in litigation claiming price-fixing and cartel activity in the DRAM industry.
Defense of DuPont against allegations that DuPont monopolized and attempted to monopolize the para-aramid business through the use of supply agreements, filed in response to DuPont's claim that a company stole DuPont's confidential trade secrets used in the production and sale of its Kevlar® brand of para-aramid fibers.
Recovered $90 million for clients from attempts to monopolize the copper market.
Defense of Daybreak Foods, Inc., against claims that it participated in a conspiracy to fix egg prices through its participation in the activities of an agricultural cooperative.
Defense of Yamaha Corporation of America in a putative class action Section 1 case alleging unlawful agreements with respect to the minimum advertised prices of musical instruments sold at a leading nationwide retailer.
Recovered more than $60 million for clients in litigation claiming price-fixing and cartel activity in the rubber chemicals industry.
Defense of a nationwide wireline telephone carrier in a Section 2 monopolization claim brought by a competitive local exchange carrier, alleging a refusal to provide access to long-distance network on sufficiently favorable terms, which we successfully resolved on terms favorable to our client.
Defense of SAS in class action litigation relating to surcharges in the air cargo industry.
Defense of DuPont in class actions claiming price-fixing for titanium dioxide, primarily through trade association interaction.
Negotiated recoveries of over $30 million for client group in claims against four parcel tanker shipping companies, stemming from their alleged involvement in a conspiracy to rig bids, fix prices and allocate customers.