Antitrust and Competition

"With more than 40 antitrust lawyers spread across the firm’s 14 offices, it is noted for “‘excellent reputation among peers,’” which “includes many renowned attorneys.”
– The Legal 500 United States 2014

In today’s marketplace, it is more important than ever to have a trusted antitrust advisor who knows the significance of understanding a company’s business and can provide frank and ongoing guidance aligned with a company’s strategic goals. With more than 40 antitrust lawyers spread across the firm’s 14 offices, the BakerHostetler Antitrust and Competition team has the experience and judgment to navigate clients successfully through the most significant business issues, antitrust litigation, investigations, and transactions.

Recognized by Global Competition Review, the world’s leading antitrust and competition law journal and news service, for having “a top team” of dedicated antitrust lawyers “working in the hub of antitrust law” in Washington, D.C.—we have litigated and won antitrust jury trials for both plaintiffs and defendants, including antitrust class actions. Our seasoned trial lawyers provide clients with the advantage of counsel “who have been there before.”

Pre-trial, we bring extensive experience successfully navigating clients through the often complicated economic antitrust considerations as well as issues presented by class certification and other pre-trial motion practice from our perspective as both plaintiff and defense antitrust counsel. That experience includes decades of working with economic experts, winning and defeating class certification motions, and offering practical and cost effective guidance in addressing complex electronic discovery issues from those in our group who are members of The Sedona Conference and serve on the Advisory Board of Georgetown Law’s Advanced eDiscovery Institute.

More »

As a trusted partner to our clients, we keep their goals front and center, understanding their business needs and objectives, and working closely with them to prevent regulatory problems before they arise. If they do arise, we represent them in investigations and litigation initiated by the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department (civil and criminal), the Federal Trade Commission, state attorneys general, foreign enforcement authorities, as well as private plaintiffs looking to free-ride off of investigations.

We also routinely advise companies on the competition aspects of proposed transactions, while handling pre-merger notifications and navigating transactions through the regulatory review process, and defending such transactions if investigated or litigated.

Members of our team are currently representing clients in some of the largest antitrust class actions, including In re Vehicle Carrier Services Antitrust Litigation, (MDL No. 2471), In re Air Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, (E.D.N.Y.), Precision Associates, Inc., et al. v. Panalpina World Transport (Holding) Ltd., et al., (E.D.N.Y.), Allen, et al. v. Dairy Farmers of America, et al. (D. Vt.), In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, (N.D. Cal.), In re Online DVD Rental Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.), and In re: Musical Instruments and Equipment Antitrust Litigation, (S.D. Cal.).

We keep clients and others updated on the latest developments in antitrust and competition law through our Antitrust Advocate blog (www.antitrustadvocate.com).

Select Experience

  • Represented a certified class of more than 7,000 dairy farmers against defendants Dean Foods and Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), as well as individuals and entities controlled by them. Total settlements in this matter exceed $300 million, which represents more than 70 percent of the alleged damages. In addition, the DFA Defendants agreed to implement more than a dozen changes to how they conduct their business in the Southeast—a “significant and valuable non-monetary benefit[]” that United States District Judge J. Ronnie Greer said, “likely go[es] beyond the extent of structural relief which could have been ordered by the Court in the event of an injunction after successful prosecution of the case by the plaintiffs at trial.” As Judge Greer put it, the “result obtained” is “extraordinary.”
  • Obtained dismissal of antitrust claims alleging unlawful exclusive dealing against manufacturer of automotive repair equipment.
  • Successfully represented two major airlines against claims of price-fixing on commissions brought by nationwide class of travel agents and by class opt-out plaintiffs.
  • Obtained dismissal of antitrust class action claims alleging that less-than-truckload (“LTL”) freight service carriers conspired to fix fuel surcharges from 2003 to 2007.
More »

Professionals

Name Title Office Email
Robert G. Abrams Partner Washington, D.C.
Gregory L. Baker Partner Washington, D.C.
Robert J. Brookhiser Partner Washington, D.C.
John F. Bruce Counsel Washington, D.C.
John H. Burtch Partner Columbus
Carey S. Busen Partner Washington, D.C.
Torello H. Calvani Associate New York
Gregory J. Commins Jr. Partner Washington, D.C.
Barry J. Cutler Of Counsel Washington, D.C.
Douglas D. D'Arche Partner Houston
William DeVinney Counsel Washington, D.C.
Robert M. Disch Of Counsel Washington, D.C.
Billy M. Donley Partner Houston
Paul P. Eyre Partner Cleveland
Danyll W. Foix Partner Washington, D.C.
John R. Fornaciari Partner Washington, D.C.
Judy Gechman Of Counsel Houston
Emerald P. Greywoode Associate Washington, D.C.
Carl W. Hittinger Partner Philadelphia
Peter W. James Partner Los Angeles
Jonathan L. Lewis Partner Washington, D.C.
Joanne Lichtman Partner Los Angeles
Thomas L. Long Of Counsel Columbus
Bridget S. McCabe Associate Washington, D.C.
Elizabeth B. McCallum Partner Washington, D.C.
M. Mitchell Oates Associate Philadelphia
John D. Parker Partner Cleveland
Sally Yuanyuan Qin Associate Washington, D.C.
Jocelyn R. Roy Staff Attorney Washington, D.C.
Edmund W. Searby Partner Cleveland
Lee H. Simowitz Partner Washington, D.C.
Nicole A. Skolout Counsel Los Angeles
Terry L. Sullivan Partner Washington, D.C.
Sarah Jane T.C. Truong Associate New York
Ernest E. Vargo Partner Cleveland

Experience

  • Represented a certified class of more than 7,000 dairy farmers against defendants Dean Foods and Dairy Farmers of America (DFA), as well as individuals and entities controlled by them. Total settlements in this matter exceed $300 million, which represents more than 70 percent of the alleged damages. In addition, the DFA Defendants agreed to implement more than a dozen changes to how they conduct their business in the Southeast—a "significant and valuable non-monetary benefit[]" that United States District Judge J. Ronnie Greer said, “likely go[es] beyond the extent of structural relief which could have been ordered by the Court in the event of an injunction after successful prosecution of the case by the plaintiffs at trial.” As Judge Greer put it, the “result obtained” is “extraordinary.”
  • Obtained dismissal of antitrust claims alleging unlawful exclusive dealing against manufacturer of automotive repair equipment.
  • Successfully represented two major airlines against claims of price-fixing on commissions brought by nationwide class of travel agents and by class opt-out plaintiffs.
  • Obtained dismissal of antitrust class action claims alleging that less-than-truckload (LTL) freight service carriers conspired to fix fuel surcharges from 2003 to 2007.
  • Served as co-lead trial counsel for plaintiffs in a scrap metal antitrust class action jury trial that obtained a $33 million verdict after damages were trebled. The trial victory was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit.
  • Won summary judgment for Puerto Rico's largest newspaper and its affiliated commercial printing company in an antitrust case brought by a competing printing company alleging attempted monopolization of the market for printing newspaper advertising inserts; won dismissal on collateral estoppel of second antitrust case brought by same plaintiff.
  • Successfully obtained a defense verdict in a jury trial in Long Island for a leading retailer of aftermarket automotive parts in a case brought by some 200 independent aftermarket auto parts dealers who sought $1 billion in antitrust damages from large national and regional retailers of aftermarket parts.
  • Defended a national beauty products firm against an antitrust suit in Tennessee attacking its distribution policies to sell only to professional salons.
  • Represented a biological products concern in a major vitamin industry price-fixing case involving over 100 criminal and civil lawsuits worldwide, with our client paying only minimal fines compared to the multimillion dollar judgments and criminal sentences for other defendants.
  • Defended a major Canadian potash producer against class action claims of a price-fixing conspiracy among Canadian and U.S. potash companies.
  • Won summary judgment for a large auto glass repair and replacement company in an antitrust suit brought by independent automobile glass repair shops claiming unlawful exclusion from auto insurers' repair networks.
  • Developed a joint operating agreement application for two large publishing concerns, gained approval of the agreement by the Attorney General under the Newspaper Preservation Act, and defended the agreement against an attempted preliminary injunction by a local advertiser, allowing the two newspapers to merge their business operations and save millions of dollars through operational efficiencies.
  • Successfully represented a major university hospital in an antitrust suit in Washington, D.C. brought by a surgeon who maintained that his hospital privileges had been illegally terminated.
  • Won summary judgment for one of the big three automakers in an antitrust case in Texas brought by a truck dealer challenging the automaker's sales assistance program.
  • Represented a leading manufacturer of industrial equipment against claims brought under Sherman Act sections 1 and 2 arising from the manufacturer’s supposed dominance of the replacement parts business for its machines. The court directed a verdict in favor of the manufacturer on the antitrust claims and the jury returned a verdict in its favor on the remaining state law claims. The verdict was affirmed on appeal.

Recognition

  • The Legal 500 United States: Antitrust - Civil litigations/class actions (2015)
  • "Best Law Firms" 2015: National Tier 3 ranking in the area of Litigation - Antitrust from U.S. News – Best Lawyers®
  • The Best Lawyers in America© 2015: Three partners were selected by their peers for inclusion in the fields of Antitrust Law and Litigation – Antitrust
  • Global Competition Review 2013 to 2014: Antitrust practice recognized among the top practices in Washington, D.C.
  • American College of Trial Lawyers: One partner named a Fellow

News

Press Releases

Alerts

Articles

Key Contacts

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
Antitrust Advocate
Specific Guidance to Businesses Still Lacking in FTC Principles
August 31, 2015
In 1914, Congress passed the FTC Act, creating the Federal Trade Commission. Section 5 of the FTC Act declared “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce” to be unlawful and gave the FTC enforcement power over such “unfair...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
FTC Finally Offers ‘Principles’ Governing Section 5 Powers, but Specific Guidance to Businesses Still Lacking
August 26, 2015
In 1914, Congress passed the FTC Act, creating the Federal Trade Commission. Section 5 of the FTC Act declared “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce” to be unlawful and gave the FTC enforcement power over such “unfair...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Ruling on Economic Favoritism Puts ‘NC Dental’ Back in Spotlight
August 17, 2015
In a recent opinion, a divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that an economic regulation passed by a state agency solely to protect one group from competition would not violate the constitutional...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Better Late Than Never? FTC Finally Releases Guidance on Section 5
August 13, 2015
After years of academic debate and internal deliberation, the Federal Trade Commission today unveiled a “Statement of Enforcement Principles” that vaguely describes conduct prohibited by Section 5 of the FTC Act. Section 5 gives the FTC...
Read More ->
Antitrust Advocate
Patent Defeats Antitrust in Latest Test at Supreme Court
July 14, 2015
In Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, 576 U.S. ____ (2015), the U.S. Supreme Court considered whether to overturn Brulotte v. Thys, 379 U.S. 29 (1964), its 1964 decision holding that it was per se unlawful for a patent owner to charge...
Read More ->
FTC Finally Offers ‘Principles’ Governing Section 5 Powers, but Specific Guidance to Businesses Still Lacking