Antitrust

We routinely advise clients on the antitrust risks associated with business relationships they engage in with suppliers, distributors, customers, employees, and other competitors. Clients work closely with us to develop and update their written antitrust compliance policies, tailored to their specific business and industry.

Our services include:

• Conducting compliance training programs
• Planning and conducting internal antitrust investigations and compliance audits
• Advising on issues such as refusals to deal, contractual covenants not to compete, “Most Favored Nation” clauses, “No-Poaching” agreements, and pricing policies

We strive to help clients understand how to achieve their business objectives while minimizing antitrust risks. Our competition counseling services include advice on business practices, enforcement agency investigations, litigation risk assessment, merger analysis, management and employee training, and competitor collaborations.

We handle all aspects of merger-related issues, including HSR and CFIUS filings, regulatory reviews, and investigations. Our merger control practice focuses primarily on mid-market M&A transactions in highly regulated industries such as energy, health care, financial services, and consumer goods. Our antitrust attorneys have extensive experience handling Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR)-reportable M&A deals and transactions that fall below HSR thresholds but may still be subject to scrutiny.

With prior government enforcement experience and long-standing relationships with well-known antitrust economists, we quickly assess the risk of enforcement agency review and formulate strategies for facilitating clearance. If necessary, our attorneys will negotiate remedies that meet the agency’s competition concerns while maintaining the business value of deals.

As traditional antitrust remedies for private litigants have steadily decreased, plaintiffs are turning more frequently to alternative legal regimes and forums to resolve competition disputes. The most significant of these involve state and federal unfair competition statutes (e.g., Section 5 of the FTC Act) and false advertising and related “false marking” cases under the Lanham Act.

Our firm has extensive experience in these newer arenas. Our antitrust professionals write articles and counsel clients on competition litigation, having participated in scores of state unfair competition law (UCL) class actions, including those initiated under the California Unfair Competition Law. As more and different legal regimes affect our clients’ competitive positioning, we understand that antitrust litigation is just “competition by another name.”

Criminal Antitrust Investigations and Litigation

• Represented the primary defendant in S. v. Jindal, a DOJ criminal case alleging a “wage-fixing” scheme in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. This case marked the DOJ’s first criminal charge for alleged wage-fixing. After an eight-day trial, the jury acquitted our client of antitrust claims but convicted him of obstructing the prior FTC investigation. The district court sentenced our client to probation for the obstruction of justice conviction, with no prison time.
• Successfully represented the national sales manager of a broiler chicken producer in a series of three multiweek federal antitrust criminal jury trials, ultimately obtaining a not guilty verdict on behalf of our client after 10 months and two mistrials when jurors deadlocked after weeks of trial. The case stemmed from the U.S. Department of Justice’s ongoing investigations into the poultry industry and involved allegations of price fixing and bid rigging in the sale of broiler chickens to national quick-service restaurant chains.
• Represented a large U.S. drywall manufacturer in connection with a DOJ criminal price-fixing investigation involving manufacturers that produce and sell gypsum drywall. The grand jury considering the evidence was in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. Our client was informed in 2018 that the investigation was closed. Gypsum Drywall Criminal Investigation.

Civil Antitrust Investigations and Litigation

• Represented one of the largest dental products distributors in the U.S. in an FTC investigation and administrative action alleging a conspiracy to deny discounts and refuse business with dental buying groups, violating federal antitrust laws. This action was related to separate investigations by antitrust agencies in Texas and Arizona. After a multi-week trial, the administrative law judge dismissed the FTC’s antitrust claims against our client, finding the case “considerably weaker” than against other suppliers due to evidence of continued cooperation with buying groups. The FTC did not appeal the decision. In the Matter of Benco Dental Supply Co.
• Represented a manufacturer of asphalt roofing shingles in an FTC civil investigation regarding the exchange of product shipping information among Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association members. Our client received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) and, after producing documents and negotiating with the FTC, the investigation was closed in 2019. ARMA Information Exchange Investigation.

Price-Fixing Litigation

• Obtained a complete defense verdict following a six-week jury trial in one of a series of antitrust putative class actions alleging that two agricultural cooperatives participated in an industry-wide supply restriction conspiracy to fix the prices of eggs and egg products sold in the U.S. We successfully argued the dismissal of a trade association, an additional named defendant, early in the litigation. Representation also included acting in capacity of liaison defense counsel. The defendants previously defeated the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ damages class, and we favorably settled the Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs’ claims.
• Currently representing a defendant in class action antitrust litigation brought by apartment tenants alleging a rent-fixing conspiracy involving major multifamily property owners and operators in the U.S. Plaintiffs claim that co-defendant RealPage’s revenue management software, which uses algorithms and artificial intelligence to suggest rental rates, was used to artificially inflate rental rates for multifamily housing nationwide. This multidistrict litigation (MDL) has been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee. In re RealPage, Inc. Rental Software Antitrust Litigation.
• Defended two leading pharmaceutical companies in litigation alleging a conspiracy among manufacturers to fix prices and allocate customers for certain generic drugs. The cases, brought by direct purchaser, end-payer, and indirect reseller putative classes, as well as by opt-out direct action plaintiffs, have been consolidated in an MDL. We were appointed by the court to serve as lead defense liaison counsel and have taken a central role in defense strategy.
• Represented a defendant titanium dioxide manufacturer in three separate price-fixing cases against the leading manufacturers of titanium dioxide in the U.S. These cases were pending in the U.S. District Courts in Maryland, the Southern District of Texas, and Northern District of California. In re Titanium Dioxide Antitrust Litigation.

Market Rate/Price Manipulation Cases

• Represented two related natural gas companies in class action antitrust litigation arising out of the alleged manipulation of natural gas price indices by natural gas traders. The plaintiffs, retail purchasers of unregulated natural gas, alleged that our clients and other defendants conspired to manipulate the index prices of natural gas by submitting false reports on natural gas transaction information to the price index publishers, allegedly violating various state antitrust laws. This MDL litigation was in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation.
• Currently representing two related international financial institutions in class action antitrust litigation against numerous banks and financial services companies. Plaintiffs, including bondholders, lenders, OTC investors, and exchange investors, allege that our clients and other international banks conspired to manipulate the LIBOR and similar benchmarks for U.S. dollar currency, violating antitrust laws. Multiple cases have been consolidated for pre-trial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. In re LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation.
• Currently representing two related international financial institutions in class action antitrust litigation against numerous international banks and financial services companies. Plaintiffs, including direct investors, indirect purchasers, ERISA beneficiaries, and retail foreign currency buyers, allege that our clients and other defendants conspired to manipulate foreign exchange fixing rates and spreads, violating antitrust laws. More than a dozen class action cases have been consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, and other another 1,300 opt-out plaintiffs’ cases have also been filed. In re Foreign Exchange Benchmark Rates Antitrust Litigation.

Market Allocation Cases

• Defended the largest airline in the U.S. in an antitrust action that was filed by the leaseholders of land at Dallas Love Field Airport. The plaintiffs claimed that two airlines conspired to divide the market for flights to and from North Texas in order to preserve their dominant market shares at DFW Airport and Love Field. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss, which was affirmed on appeal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
• Represented plaintiff chicken farmers in a market allocation and price-fixing case against large poultry companies. Our clients alleged the defendants entered into “no-poach” agreements and conspired to allocate markets and lower prices paid for the services of chicken farmers in certain parts of Texas and bordering states. In a related suit, our clients alleged that a large poultry company violated the Packers and Stockyards Act. These cases were settled on confidential terms following an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Group Boycott Cases

• Represented one of the U.S.’s largest distributors of dental products and supplies in antitrust litigation brought by another dental products distributor. The plaintiff alleged it was injured by a group boycott and price-fixing conspiracy involving our client and other dental equipment distributors and manufacturers. In 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision, Henry Schein, Inc. v. Archer & White Sales, Inc., 586 U.S. ___ , 139 S. Ct. 524, 2019 WL 122164 (2019), which ruled in our client’s favor on the issue of whether the alleged claims were covered by a contractual arbitration agreement. The underlying case was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Archer & White Sales, Inc. v. Henry Schein, Inc.
• Represented a petroleum products distributor and retailer that asserted numerous claims against a competitor and violations of Texas antitrust laws. The antitrust claim related to an alleged agreement between the defendant and other petroleum products suppliers to boycott our client as a customer. Following an appeal to the Texas Supreme Court, the case settled on confidential terms. AEG Petroleum LLC v. Western Marketing, Inc.

Additional Litigation

• Currently representing the founder and former CEO of Varsity Spirit, Inc., and Varsity Brands, LLC, in two related antitrust class actions. In a class action filed by competitors of Varsity and parents of cheerleaders, the plaintiffs allege violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act through the monopolization of the competitive cheerleading market. This case was dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for discovery violations committed by the plaintiffs and their counsel. A separate class action was filed by indirect purchasers of Varsity’s products and services in which the plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and more than 30 state antitrust and consumer protection laws, premised on allegations that Varsity monopolized the competitive cheerleading market. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee. Varsity Brands Antitrust Litigation.
• Represented one of the largest oil companies in the U.S. in class action wage-fixing litigation against all of the major oil companies in the U.S. The plaintiffs alleged the defendants violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act by exchanging confidential employee compensation information in furtherance of a conspiracy to reduce competition and suppress salaries for oil company employees. The case was settled following appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This MDL matter was consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In re Compensation of Managerial, Professional, and Technical (MPT) Employees Antitrust Litigation.
• Currently representing Equitable Holdings and three subsidiaries in an action that originally was filed in a Texas state court and was removed to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. The plaintiff is a life settlement provider that purchases term life insurance policies, converts them to universal life policies, then collects the death benefits when the insured dies. The antitrust claims against the defendants are asserted under Texas antitrust laws, alleging that the defendants are attempting to monopolize the market for the disposition of term life insurance policies issued by Equitable. Coventry First LLC v. Equitable Holdings, Inc.
• Represented the plaintiff in a price discrimination case filed against a security equipment manufacturer for violations of the Robinson-Patman Act and other anticompetitive conduct with regard to the pricing for security equipment. The case, which was pending in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, was resolved favorably for our client when it entered into a confidential settlement with the defendants. Security Data Supply, LLC v. Nortek Security and Control LLC.

Merger and Acquisition Investigations

• Represented Riviana Foods, Inc. in the sale of most of its U.S. pasta brands and business assets to TreeHouse Foods, Inc. We collaborated with TreeHouse’s antitrust counsel to exclude certain assets and brands to avoid antitrust issues. When the DOJ investigated, we provided information and advocated for Riviana, demonstrating that the transaction posed no competitive concerns. Less than four weeks after filing HSR notices, the DOJ granted early termination of the HSR waiting period, allowing the transaction to close shortly thereafter. DOJ Investigation of TreeHouse Foods/Riviana Foods Transaction.
• Represented Hollingsworth Oil Company (HOC) in a merger investigation that led to a negotiated consent order with the FTC. This order required the divestiture of certain retail fuel assets in a transaction with Tri Star Energy to address antitrust concerns. The consent order, facilitated quickly during the COVID-19 pandemic, resolved charges that the acquisition would harm competition in central Tennessee. Under the order, Tri Star, the other party to the transaction, divested some assets to Cox Oil Company within 10 days of the acquisition. FTC Investigation of the Tri-Star Energy/Hollingsworth Oil Company Transaction.
• Represented Avista Capital Partners in the sale of Generation Pipeline (a midstream natural gas company) to NEXUS Gas Transmission. This transaction resulted in investigations by the FTC, which issued a “Second Request” for additional information relevant to the transaction, and by the Ohio Attorney General, who issued a similar CID. In response to these discovery requests, our clients produced thousands of documents and submitted other written materials showing that the transaction would not substantially lessen competition in the relevant market. FTC Investigation of the NEXUS Gas Transmission/Generation Pipeline Transaction.

Chambers USA – Antitrust – Pennsylvania (2019-2025)

Chambers USA – Antitrust – Texas (2015-2025)

Legal 500 – Antitrust: Civil Litigation/Class Actions: Defense (2022-2025)

Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms”: Litigation – Antitrust – National (Tier 2) (2013-2019, 2022-2025)

Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms”: Litigation – Antitrust – Atlanta (Tier 3) (2013-2019, 2022-2025)

Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms”: Litigation – Antitrust – Dallas (Tier 1) (2019-2025)

Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms”: Litigation – Antitrust – Philadelphia (Tier 1) (2021-2025)

Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms”: Litigation – Antitrust – Rhode Island (Tier 1) (2024-2025)

Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms”: Litigation – Antitrust – Richmond (2013-2019)