Federal and State Government Antitrust Investigations
Represent companies in investigations conducted by federal antitrust agencies and state attorneys general.

Crowder v. LinkedIn Corporation
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represent Defendant LinkedIn Corporation in putative class action alleging monopolization, attempted monopolization, and unreasonable restraints of trade in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

In re Cattle Antitrust Litigation
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Represent Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. in putative class action alleging price fixing and market allocation agreements affecting the purchase of fed cattle.

Peterson, et al. v. JBS USA Food Co. Holdings, et al.
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Represent Defendant Tyson Foods, Inc. in putative class action alleging price fixing agreements affecting the sale of processed beef products.

CollegeNET, Inc. v. The Common Application, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
Represent plaintiff in case challenging exclusive dealing and monopoly maintenance in online college application processing services market.

U.S. v. AT&T Inc., DirecTV Group Holdings, LLC & Time Warner Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Represented third party in case challenging AT&T’s acquisition of Time Warner.

In re Thalomid and Revlimid Antitrust Litigation
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
Represented third party in case challenging monopoly maintenance in the pharmaceutical industry.

U.S., et al. v. Anthem, Inc. and Cigna Corp.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Lead trial attorney for the United States in 20-day bench trial, successfully challenging Anthem’s proposed $54 billion acquisition of Cigna Corporation. 236 F.Supp.3d 171 (D.D.C. 2017), aff’d 855 F.3d 345 (D.C. Cir. 2017).*

U.S., et al. v. Dean Foods Company
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
Lead litigation attorney for the United States in case challenging Dean Foods’ acquisition of two fluid milk processing plants in Wisconsin. Case settled after extensive discovery.*

U.S., et al. v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. and Southern Belle Dairy Co.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Lead attorney for United States in case challenging DFA’s acquisition of a partial ownership interest in a fluid milk processing plant in Kentucky. Case settled on the eve of trial.*

U.S. v. Dentsply International, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Co-lead trial attorney for the United States in 17-day bench trial, challenging exclusive dealing and monopoly maintenance by dominant manufacturer of prefabricated artificial teeth. Adverse district court opinion reversed by Court of Appeals on clear error grounds. 277 F.Supp.2d 387 (D.Del. 2003), reversed 399 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2005).*

U.S. v. UPM-Kymmene Oyj, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Member of trial staff for the United States in case successfully challenging merger in pressure sensitive label stock industry. 2003 WL 21781902 (N.D. Ill., July 25, 2003).*

U.S. v. Brown University, et al.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Member of trial staff for the United States in case successfully challenging price fixing and agreements not to compete by MIT and the eight Ivy League universities. 805 F.Supp. 288 (E.D. Pa. 1992), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 5 F.3d 658 (3d Cir. 1993).*

U.S. v. General Electric Company and InnoServ Technologies, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Lead attorney for the United States in case challenging acquisition by GE Medical Systems of competitor in market to service medical imaging equipment.*

U.S. v. Altivity Packaging, LLC and Graphic Packaging International, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Case challenging merger in coated recycled boxboard industry.*

U.S. v. Professional Consultants Insurance Company, Inc.
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
Case challenging information exchange among actuarial consulting firms.*

*Prior experience.