John F. Collins

Haug Partners (New York)

John F. Collins is a partner in the New York Office of Frommer Lawrence & Haug LLP. He has extensive experience in representing and counseling clients in complex commercial litigation, anitrust litigation, securities and corporate governance litigation, intellectual property litigation, franchisor-franchisee litigation, merger and acquisitions litigation, and administrative proceedings and arbitrations, among other areas. He has over 35 years of experience representing clients as plaintiffs and defendants in jury and non-jury civil commercial litigations in federal and state courts throughout the United States, and has represented clients in administrative proceedings before the Federal Trade Commission, the International Trade Commission, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, and the Securities and Exchange Commission. He has also represented clients and served as an arbitrator in American Arbitration Association sanctioned proceedings. Mr. Collins also has extensive experience in briefing, and arguing matters in various state and federal appellate courts. In the mergers and acquisitions (M&A) area, Mr. Collins has frequently represented clients before the Federal Trade Commission and Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice in connection with the premerger notification proceedings required by the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976. In addition to this experience before federal antitrust enforcement agencies, he has also represented clients in negotiations with state antitrust enforcement agencies, as plaintiffs and defendants in civil antitrust litigations, and in connection with antitrust grand jury investigations conducted by the Department of Justice. In the M&A area, Mr. Collins also customarily represents clients in the securities and corporate governance litigation that typically accompanies or follows merger and acquisition transactions in federal and state courts, such as the Delaware Chancery Court, and has many years of experience in litigating contested tender offers.


2284 Bulletin

A. Paul Victor, David S. Turetsky, Eamon O’Kelly, John F. Collins The US Supreme Court overturns the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision adopting a new two-part standard for assessing "price-squeeze" antitrust claims (Pacific Bell / linkLine)


The Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous decision in a notable "price-squeeze" case under § 2 of the Sherman Act involving rival telecom companies. Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. Linkline Commc’ns, Inc., No. 07-512 (Feb. 25, 2009). The Court held that a vertically integrated company that had no (...)

A. Paul Victor, Eamon O’Kelly, Jeffrey L. Kessler, John F. Collins The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirms dismissal of conspiracy and monopolization in the elevator industry for failure to meet Twombly pleading standards (In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation)


On September 4, 2007, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of all claims in In re Elevator Antitrust Litigation, No. 06-2138-cv, 2007 WL 2471805 (2d Cir. Sept. 4, 2007) (slip opinion available at, finding that the complaint failed to satisfy (...)

A. Paul Victor, Eamon O’Kelly, Jeffrey L. Kessler, John F. Collins The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rules that bundled discounts will not support a claim under s. 2 of the Sherman Act unless the discounts are below an appropriate measure of costs (Cascade Health Solutions / PeaceHealth)


On September 4, 2007 the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its much-anticipated decision in Cascade Health Solutions (fka McKenzie- Williamette Hospital) v. PeaceHealth, et al., No. 05-35627, 2007 WL 2473229 (9th Cir. Sept. 4, 2007). The court held that bundled pricing (...)

A. Paul Victor, Eamon O’Kelly, Jeffrey L. Kessler, John F. Collins The US Supreme Court rules that federal and state antitrust claims related to certain IPOs are preempted by federal securities laws (Credit Suisse Securities / Billing)


In a decision announced earlier today, the United States Supreme Court held that federal securities laws implicitly preclude the application of antitrust laws to claims filed against ten leading investment banks over alleged conduct on initial public offerings during the technology boom of the (...)

Send a message