Antitrust and Competition Law


Representative Matters

With over 35 years of experience in antitrust law, Butler Rubin’s Antitrust and Competition Law Practice counsels clients through all stages of antitrust and competition law-related issues, from compliance to litigation. “Highly Recommended” by Global Competition Law 100, Butler Rubin’s guidance is valued both by businesses seeking to remedy antitrust injury they have suffered from industry-wide conspiracies and by corporations in search of assistance in navigating the potential legal minefield presented by their everyday strategic decisions or litigation.  Our team includes leading practitioners in the field who have been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America and serve in the leadership of the Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association.  

Services Offered: 

  • Antitrust Litigation – from complaint through trial, we are experienced in all areas of antitrust litigation including jurisdictional challenges, Twombly motions, eDiscovery, motions for summary judgment, class certification challenges, Daubert motions, and motions in limine.  We have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in antitrust cases, giving us a unique prospective on this litigation.
  • Opt-out Litigation – we assist corporate counsel and their organizations in assessing opt-out risks and rewards, prosecuting direct action litigation, and negotiating resolutions with business partners to preserve those valuable relationships. 
  • Antitrust Counseling – on pricing, information exchange, supply and distribution chain management, trade association activity, agreements with competitors, unilateral refusals to deal, resale price maintenance, and product tying. 
  • Antitrust Investigations – providing antitrust training seminars and compliance audits, representing both companies and individuals in criminal antitrust matters, responding to subpoenas, civil investigative demands and grand jury summonses in federal and state antitrust investigations. 
  • Unfair Competition Litigation – representing clients in a wide variety of antitrust, good faith and fair dealing, and dealer litigation including injunctions, trial and appeal. 
  • Trade Secrets/Business Torts Counseling and Litigation – from structuring relationships with new or existing employees, contract review and trade secret protection strategies through litigating matters for breach of agreement, misappropriation of trade secrets and employee theft
  • Franchise/Distribution Relations – helping clients with the addition or termination of new dealers or franchisees. The firm maintains a summary of industry-specific state laws, outlines relevant case law across one state or all 50 states, and develops a case-specific approach to minimizing a company’s legal risks.

Representative Matters

From our first antitrust case as counsel for the plaintiff in the ground-breaking Spray-Rite v. Monsanto litigation to our representation of a Fortune 500 company in In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, Butler Rubin has litigated antitrust and competition law disputes to a successful conclusion for a wide range of businesses in a wide variety of industries:  

  • Researching and investigating representation of direct action plaintiffs in ongoing generic drug antitrust litigation. (In re Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, E.D. Pa.).
  • Defended an insurer accused of conspiring to prevent issuance of surety bonds to a municipality. Our client prevailed on a motion to dismiss. (Guarantee Co. of America v. City of Grand Rapids, W.D. MI).
  • Represented an opt-out antitrust plaintiff charging the corrugated industry with coordinating downtime at its mills. The case settled favorably for our client and for other opt-outs after the firm led a negotiated resolution. (In re Linerboard Antitrust Litigation, E.D. Pa.).
  • Represented and advised large magazine publisher regarding opt-out options and in maximizing a settlement with the publication papers industry. (In re Publication Papers Antitrust Litigation, D. CT).
  • Prevented former employee of an on-line trading company from disclosing key company secrets, including salary and other compensation information he unlawfully obtained concerning the company’s top executives. (Trading Technologies v. Nguyen, Circuit Court of Cook County, IL).
  • Represented Fortune 500 Company as opt-out plaintiff in massive civil litigation to recover damages from multi-national manufacturers convicted of fixing prices on items used in the production of its goods. Our client obtained a larger, pro rata settlement than other opt-outs given our unique theory of liability and damages that we pursued after defendants unsuccessfully moved to dismiss. (In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, D.D.C.).
  • Represented an executive of a meat processing corporation targeted in a grand jury investigation of an alleged conspiracy to restrain trade in the foodstuffs industry. (Confidential Representation).
  • Prosecuted an unfair competition case on behalf of largest franchisee in retread tire industry against market leader. Case settled in the midst of arbitration after firm had presented client’s case to the tribunal. (Treadco v. Bandag, American Arbitration Association).
  • Defended a manufacturer in dealer termination litigation alleging violation of franchise and antitrust laws. Firm fended off preliminary injunction and ultimately client prevailed on summary judgment. (Argo Int’l v. Viking Pump, N.J.).
  • Defended LCD manufacturer in opt-out litigation involving alleged price-fixing. The matter was resolved on summary judgment that stripped away the opt-out’s non-U.S. damages and drastically mitigated our client’s risk exposure. (Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., N.D. Ill.).
  • Defended a company accused of price-fixing in the automobile and truck industries. The case settled on favorable terms to our client after discovery and a successful mediation with a U.S. Magistrate Judge. (In re Aftermarket Filters Antitrust Litigation, N.D. Ill.).
  • Defended a market maker in private litigation alleging a conspiracy discriminating against certain options traders. The Court rejected plaintiff’s antitrust claims on the grounds they were preempted by federal securities laws. (Last Atlantis v. Chicago Bd. Of Options Exchange, N.D. Ill.).