Premier Destination for Sophisticated Buyers of Legal Services
Home > Dickstein Shapiro LLP > Practice Areas & Industries > Group Profile

Practice Areas & Industries: Dickstein Shapiro LLP

 




Antitrust & Dispute Resolution Return to Practice Areas & Industries

Group Profile Lawyers in this Group Offices Locations for this Group
 

Practice/Industry Group Overview

Dickstein Shapiro LLP provides clients with creative and sophisticated strategies to resolve some of the most complex, multifaceted disputes in the United States and abroad. The Firm’s highly qualified team of attorneys has the experience to provide exceptional counsel in all types of antitrust and class action cases. In addition, Dickstein Shapiro is widely known for its settlement and litigation capabilities and ability to resolve disputes using a combination of innovative approaches, including litigation, negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. The Firm also is well equipped to resolve the unique disputes that arise from State Attorneys General investigations and litigation.


 

Services Available

Antitrust & Financial Services
Dickstein Shapiro has litigated a large number of widely recognized antitrust cases for both plaintiffs and defendants. The Firm has significant experience in all aspects of class actions, including the use of classes for global settlement purposes; advocacy for and against certification of classes; and, conversely, advice to, and representation of, companies that are members of certified plaintiff classes, but whose larger claims are often best served by “opting out” for separate litigation or settlement.

In addition, Dickstein Shapiro has successfully defended numerous corporations throughout the country in multiparty civil cases instituted by competitors and customers, and has successfully defended both corporations and individuals in investigations and enforcement actions brought by the U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, and state authorities. The Firm’s antitrust litigation and trial capabilities are complemented by its experience in antitrust counseling, development and implementation of compliance programs, and administrative practice (including Hart-Scott-Rodino pre-merger reporting requirements).

Complex Dispute Resolution
The Complex Dispute Resolution practice focuses on resolving disputes through a combination of approaches, including litigation, negotiation, legislation, mediation, and arbitration — often in the context of complex, multiparty disputes. Dickstein Shapiro attorneys have represented large corporate defendants in mass tort and product liability disputes involving asbestos, silica, IUDs, breast implants, heart valves, pharmaceuticals, fiber-optic cable, lead paint, mold, synthetic stucco, and environmental contaminations. The Firm continuously explores cutting-edge initiatives, settlements, legislation, and other strategies to resolve significant and often company-threatening potential liabilities. Dickstein Shapiro has substantial experience in successfully resolving disputes concerning insurance coverage, insurance company insolvencies, antitrust, bankruptcy, employment, energy, environmental, and product liability issues.

State Attorneys General
State Attorneys General (AGs) are an emerging legal force in the United States. Companies are increasingly facing investigations and litigation involving a wide range of issues initiated by an AG or groups of AGs working cooperatively. Resolving State AG investigations and litigation requires approaches that are far different from those used to resolve private litigation, or even litigation and investigations involving federal agencies. For the past 30 years, Dickstein Shapiro has earned the trust and respect of State AGs. The Firm has successfully represented Fortune 100 companies, including cable, satellite, energy, pharmaceutical, chemical, banking and credit card companies, in multistate AG antitrust, consumer protection, privacy, and environmental investigations and litigation.

For more information, please visit www.dicksteinshapiro.com/services/litigation.


 
 
Articles Authored by Lawyers at this office:

Litigating Global Cartel Cases
Kenneth L. Adams, Elaine Metlin, James Robertson Martin, February 27, 2004
International price-fixing conspiracy cases present a number of unique litigation challenges. While some of these issues are common to most antitrust litigation, this paper is devoted primarily to issues that are unique to international cartel cases.

Recent Developments In The Scope Of U.S. Jurisdiction In Discovery And Treble Damage Actions
Kenneth L. Adams, Elaine Metlin, James Robertson Martin, February 27, 2004
In treble damage litigation in the District of Columbia arising from the price- fixing activity of a global cartel in the bulk vitamin industry, Chief Judge Thomas Hogan ordered the defendants in April 2002 to produce inculpatory submissions made to foreign governmental agencies. Most of the...

Supreme Court Ruling Taking Antitrust Off Table In Telecom Seen As Boon For Grid Owners
Milton A. Marquis, February 27, 2004, previously published by Power Markets Week
A Supreme Court ruling earlier this month in a telecommunications case could make it more difficult for companies having trouble getting access to the transmission grid, because the decision essentially closes the door on using antitrust law in seeking relief, several attorneys said last...

In Re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation: Discovery Issues Relating to Counsel's Investigation and Cooperation With Foreign Governmental Authorities
Elaine Metlin, July 29, 2003
In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation ("Vitamins"), MDL No. 1285, currently pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleges the existence of a massive global conspiracy, lasting for more than ten years, in which the major vitamins manufacturers and producers agreed...

Procedural Issues Unique to International Cartel Litigation
Kenneth L. Adams, Elaine Metlin, July 29, 2003
The focus of this paper is on procedural issues that are unique to international cartel litigation, and which do not arise in cases involving price fixing in purely domestic markets.