Skip to main content
Overview
Dilworth Paxson’s lawyers advise clients on antitrust issues at every stage of their business. At the transactional stage, Dilworth lawyers advise clients on mergers and other corporate transactions and assist with necessary filings with government agencies to facilitate such transactions, including premerger notification filings under the Hart-Scott-Rodino process. Our lawyers also advise clients on the antitrust aspects of various other business transactions, including licensing deals and non-compete agreements, as well as resale price maintenance policies. When antitrust disputes ripen into litigation, our lawyers have experience at all stages of litigation, whether in the courtroom, in pre-trial settings, or in class action settlements.
Our antitrust group includes lawyers with experience in some of the most significant antitrust matters of the last two decades. For both transactional and litigation matters, Dilworth lawyers have represented start-ups, Fortune 100 companies, and companies of all sizes in between. In addition, our lawyers have handled antitrust matters in a broad cross-section of industries in recent years, including food and beverages, manufacturing, high-tech, professional sports, and real estate.
In antitrust litigation, Dilworth lawyers represent business entities and their officers and directors as plaintiffs, defendants, and class action opt-outs or objectors, as well as businesses and consumers in class action litigation. In recent years, our lawyers have handled cases alleging violations of the following statutes, among others: Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act; the FTC Act, including that statute’s prohibition against unfair competition; state antitrust and consumer protection laws; the Robinson-Patman Act; and the Capper-Volstead Act. Our lawyers have also represented individuals and companies in responding to criminal antitrust investigations.
Representative Matters
- In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyers represented one of the defendant mushroom farms against allegations of price fixing.
- Dilworth has represented pharmaceutical manufacturers in litigation involving patent-antitrust issues and claims of antitrust violations arising from patent licensing agreements and Hatch-Waxman Act issues. Dilworth has also provided antitrust compliance training to manufacturers.
- In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyer appointed liaison counsel in antitrust litigation alleging a pay for delay scheme to limit generic competition.
- In Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyer appointed to plaintiffs’ steering committee in MDL antitrust litigation alleging bid rigging in the sale and marketing of liquid aluminum sulfate.
- In re OSB Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyers represented several corporations that objected to the terms of a class action settlement arising out of claims of price fixing and secured a modification to the settlement terms.
- In re Plastics Additives Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyers represented corporate defendants in a federal and state cases alleging a conspiracy to fix prices.
- In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyers served as co-lead counsel on behalf of a class of small businesses who purchase chocolate candy from distributors for resale and who assert claims under various state antitrust laws.
- In re Graphite Electrodes Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyers represented the largest direct purchaser, which opted out of a class action and pursued its own individual action against the defendants, alleging price fixing and market allocation.
- In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyers represented several large corporations that opted out of a class action and pursued their own individual actions against the defendants alleging price fixing and other anticompetitive conduct.
- In re Stock Exchange Options Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyers represented one of the defendants in a case alleging illegal agreements to restrict trading in stock options to a single stock exchange.
- Piazza v. Major League Baseball: Dilworth lawyers represented individuals whose attempt to purchase the San Francisco Giants was rejected by Major League Baseball.
Representative Matters
- In re Mushroom Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyers represented one of the defendant mushroom farms against allegations of price fixing.
- Dilworth has represented pharmaceutical manufacturers in litigation involving patent-antitrust issues and claims of antitrust violations arising from patent licensing agreements and Hatch-Waxman Act issues. Dilworth has also provided antitrust compliance training to manufacturers.
- In re Lipitor Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyer appointed liaison counsel in antitrust litigation alleging a pay for delay scheme to limit generic competition.
- In Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyer appointed to plaintiffs’ steering committee in MDL antitrust litigation alleging bid rigging in the sale and marketing of liquid aluminum sulfate.
- In re OSB Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyers represented several corporations that objected to the terms of a class action settlement arising out of claims of price fixing and secured a modification to the settlement terms.
- In re Plastics Additives Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyers represented corporate defendants in a federal and state cases alleging a conspiracy to fix prices.
- In re Chocolate Confectionary Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyers served as co-lead counsel on behalf of a class of small businesses who purchase chocolate candy from distributors for resale and who assert claims under various state antitrust laws.
- In re Graphite Electrodes Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyers represented the largest direct purchaser, which opted out of a class action and pursued its own individual action against the defendants, alleging price fixing and market allocation.
- In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyers represented several large corporations that opted out of a class action and pursued their own individual actions against the defendants alleging price fixing and other anticompetitive conduct.
- In re Stock Exchange Options Antitrust Litigation: Dilworth lawyers represented one of the defendants in a case alleging illegal agreements to restrict trading in stock options to a single stock exchange.
- Piazza v. Major League Baseball: Dilworth lawyers represented individuals whose attempt to purchase the San Francisco Giants was rejected by Major League Baseball.
