• Representing a leading health benefits organization in the defense of an antitrust lawsuit brought by the DOJ and Michigan Attorney General, as well as in follow-on civil class actions.
• Representing a leading integrated oil company in an antitrust matter regarding allegations of standard setting that would limit the development and use of biofuels.
• Representing a leading integrated oil company in state investigations and a related lawsuit regarding Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) issues. 
• Representing a developer, manufacturer and seller of blood reagents in an antitrust litigation involving allegations of a price-fixing conspiracy.
• Representing a defendant in a series of class action lawsuits alleging price fixing in the markets for cement and concrete in Florida.
• Representing a technology company in ongoing patent and antitrust litigation.
• Defending a major beverage manufacturer against allegations of anticompetitive collusion with retailers.
• Represented one of the world’s largest toy retailers before the FTC in connection with an investigation of the company’s compliance with the FTC’s litigated order; FTC consent decree ordered entered March 2011.
• Represented a major media company in an FTC antitrust investigation which the government closed without bringing litigation or seeking remedies.
• Represented an employee screening company in a putative class action alleging antitrust and unfair competition claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Working with counsel for numerous energy company defendants, we developed theories that lead to the dismissal of the case on the pleadings.
• Represented a major military contractor in an antitrust action in which a manufacturer of industrial automation and control products alleged that our client and an aerospace & defense parts manufacturer entered into an illegal exclusive teaming agreement. The matter presented important legal issues concerning teaming agreements and the exclusive-dealing doctrine.  Case was officially closed after the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice.
• Represented one of Africa’s leading airlines in a multidistrict class action litigation that involved claims asserted on behalf of classes of direct and indirect air cargo shipping service consumers. The putative classes included purchasers located in the United States and countries around the world, and alleged violations relating to shipments in and out of the United States, Europe, and other countries.  We demonstrated to plaintiffs that our client was not a target of related governmental enforcement actions, and convinced plaintiffs to voluntarily dismiss our client from the litigation.
• Represented a leading multiregional freight hauler in putative class actions alleging a conspiracy to fix LTL (less than truckload) fuel surcharges on LTL freight transportation services in the United States in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The judge granted our motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to adequately state a claim.
• Defended a leading forest products producer in class actions brought by direct and indirect purchasers of Oriented Strand Board, alleging that the defendant manufacturers of OSB conspired to fix prices in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act by agreeing to decrease production and align prices.
• Represented a leading wireless communication provider in numerous state and federal lawsuits (consolidated by the Multidistrict Panel and trial court into two separate federal actions), generally alleging anticompetitive practices in the wireless telephone industry. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of our client in Brook, et al. v. AT&T Wireless, et al., a series of cases alleging that each of the major wireless carriers had unilaterally tied the sale of handsets to the sale of wireless service. Defeated plaintiffs’ motion for class certification of Sherman Act section one and two claims in Freeland, et al. v. AT&T Wireless, et al. There, plaintiffs accused our client, along with others in the industry, of dividing the market and maintaining elevated prices through collective action that tied each carrier’s services to the use of a handset programmed to work only on that carrier’s network.
• Represented a leading lawn and garden products manufacturer in an antitrust action in which the plaintiff alleged that our client conspired with one of plaintiff’s fellow distributors to exclude plaintiff from various markets. The judge granted our motion for summary judgment, ruling that plaintiff’s theory was implausible and that plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence with respect to its conspiracy claim, its alleged product market, and its alleged geographic market. On appeal to the Third Circuit, we successfully argued that the judgment of the trial court was correct in all respects and should be affirmed.  The Third Circuit three-judge panel unanimously affirmed.
• Represented one of the world’s largest agricultural companies in defense of private litigation in the U.S. On behalf of the same client, prepared response to EC Statement of Objections alleging violations of EU competition laws.