Find Lawyers

Jonathan Lewis is an antitrust lawyer that has represented clients in antitrust and commercial litigation matters and merger reviews.

Jonathan’s antitrust experience includes counseling clients on issues involving distribution matters (including franchising) and other business practices, substantive merger review and pre-merger integration planning, as well as litigating claims of price fixing, exclusive dealing, tying, monopolization and attempted monopolization. He has represented clients before federal and state antitrust enforcement authorities in the course of investigations concerning distribution practices and pre- and post-merger review. Jonathan also has litigated and counseled on behalf of clients involved in breach of contract, implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, tortious interference, trade secrets and state franchise law. His commercial litigation experience includes emergency litigation (i.e., TRO hearings), preliminary injunction hearings and trials on the merits.

Jonathan is a regular contributor to BakerHostetler’s Antitrust Advocate blog, providing informative commentary on the latest antitrust developments.

Representative Matters

• Advised a leading manufacturer of mining and other industrial equipment in its $8.6 billion acquisition of a manufacturer of equipment used in surface and underground mining.
• Represented a leading steel manufacturer in connection with allegations that steel producers entered into a multiyear antitrust conspiracy to reduce the production of steel products in the United States through coordinated production cuts for the express purpose of raising the price of steel products.
• Represented three affiliates of a leading wireless carrier seeking to enjoin an $11 billion transaction from closing. After expedited discovery and adverse rulings in other related litigation, the wireless carrier ultimately resolved the cases by acquiring the affiliates for approximately $831 million in cash and assumed debt.
• Represented a leading healthcare system against antitrust claims (price fixing) brought on behalf of a purported class of registered nurses employed by the defendant hospital systems. The district court denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification in a 52-page opinion. Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification sought to certify a class of approximately 19,000 registered nurses. The case settled for a nominal amount after denial of plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.
• Advised the largest single health carrier in the United States with regard to a $2.6 billion acquisition.
• Advised a leading home appliance manufacturer with regard to a (1) $1.79 billion acquisition and (2) $107 million sale of a non-core product line.
• Part of trial and appellate teams that represented an affiliate of a leading wireless carrier in a dispute regarding a breach of a management agreement between the parties. After the wireless carrier announced a $35 billion merger with a competitor, a lawsuit was filed against the wireless carrier alleging that the merger would result in a breach of certain exclusivity rights. The Illinois trial court issued an injunction requiring the wireless carrier to divest itself of the competing network and assets in the affiliate’s service area. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed this decision and the Illinois Supreme Court denied Sprint’s petition for leave to appeal. The wireless carrier ultimately resolved the case by acquiring the affiliate for approximately $831 million in cash and assumed debt.
• Part of trial team that represented two affiliates of a leading wireless carrier in a dispute regarding a breach of management agreements between the parties. The court ordered wireless carrier to cease using its trademark to promote competing products in the affiliates’ exclusive territories. The wireless carrier ultimately resolved the case by acquiring the affiliates for approximately $831 million in cash and assumed debt.
• Part of team that represented the nation’s premier marketing services company in a case in which a competitor claimed that the client’s exclusive contracts with retailers and other conduct violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Illinois Antitrust Act and various common law duties. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the client, rejecting the plaintiffs’ definition of the relevant product market. A unanimous panel of the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s order granting summary judgment.

Prior to becoming a lawyer, Jonathan was associated with MiCRA, Inc., an antitrust and regulatory economic consulting firm located in Washington, D.C. (1994 to 1996). He is a member of several American Bar Association Antitrust Section committees and is a former Chairman of the Illinois State Bar Association Antitrust & Unfair Competition Law Section Council.