BakerHostetler (Washington)

Danyll W. Foix

BakerHostetler (Washington)
Lawyer (Partner)

Dan Foix is a Partner at BakerHostetler. He represents clients in commercial disputes, with a particular focus on antitrust litigation, investigations, and class actions. Serving a number of clients in the agriculture and food industries, Dan also advises on agricultural issues, such as strategies for commodities procurement and marketing practices. Having represented both plaintiffs and defendants in large matters, Dan brings a comprehensive perspective to litigation. Understanding the importance of developing arguments that address all angles of a matter, he puts a focus on details and distills case information into applicable arguments in order to advocate effectively for his clients. Dan also is the editor and a regular contributor to BakerHostetler’s Antitrust Advocate blog and the antitrust newsletter, providing information and commentary on the latest developments in the antitrust litigation sector.

Linked authors

BakerHostetler (Philadelphia)
BakerHostetler (Philadelphia)
BakerHostetler (Washington)


306 Bulletin

Danyll W. Foix A US District Court rules that it could assume the umbrella theory of antitrust injury is viable for the purposes of determining whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary injunction (Boardman / Pacific Seafood)


Oregon Federal Court Weighs In on Disputed Umbrella Theory of Damages* An Oregon federal court recently relied on the so-called umbrella theory of damages to decide that the plaintiffs had an antitrust injury necessary to pursue an injunction. While this decision has garnered attention for (...)

Danyll W. Foix The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania rules that claims of “good faith reliance on counsel” were not sufficient to maintain a Capper-Volstead affirmative defence to the antitrust laws (Mushroom Direct Purchaser)


Mushroom Court Ruling Sprouts Controversy on Whether Reliance on Lawyer Advice Maintains Affirmative Defense to Antitrust Claims* A federal district court recently ruled that claims of “good faith reliance on counsel” were not sufficient to maintain a Capper-Volstead affirmative defense to the (...)

Send a message