John Majoras is a partner and co-lead of Jones Day’s Business & Tort Litigation Practice, he is based in their Washington office. He has more than 20 years of experience in general commercial litigation, with a particular focus on antitrust matters. He also has handled business disputes concerning product liability, hostile corporate takeovers, copyright, tax, contract, and entertainment law. He recently has defended significant civil antitrust cartel challenges, including multidistrict class actions, in the pharmaceutical, credit card, paper, packaged ice, marine hose, and waste hauling industries. In addition to his trial practice, John advises clients on antitrust and FDA regulatory issues, particularly in patent and pharmaceutical matters, and coordinates Jones Day’s competition law litigation practice worldwide. John’s experience includes appearing before state and federal courts, representing clients in governmental investigations, and coordinating defense of worldwide litigation involving competition law issues. As an example, he acted as lead counsel for sanofi-aventis, S.A., one of the principal defendants in worldwide investigations and litigation concerning synthetic vitamins. This wide-ranging representation included responding to investigations by the U.S. Justice Department and enforcement agencies in Europe, Canada, Australia, Mexico, and Brazil. John also led the defense of more than 200 state and federal cases and represented sanofi-aventis before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Empagran case. John is a member of the Antitrust and Litigation Sections of the American Bar Association and is a frequent speaker at national and international antitrust and litigation conferences. He is active in pro bono matters related to unfair housing practices and is involved in attorney recruiting and trial skills training at Jones Day.
68
Seeking divestitures in a criminal case sets precedent for DOJ and is consistent with the Administration’s mantra of "every tool in the kit" approach to aggressive antitrust enforcement. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division ("DOJ") recently resolved a criminal case with Teva (...)
1642
A Connecticut district court acquitted six defendants of criminal antitrust violations arising out of alleged employee no-poach agreements, marking the first dismissal of a U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division’s ("DOJ") criminal antitrust charges as a matter of law since the early (...)
311
A plea deal with a paving contractor follows the Department of Justice Antitrust Division’s ("DOJ") threat to resurrect criminal enforcement of the Sherman Act § 2 prohibition on monopolization and attempted monopolization. A paving contractor pleaded guilty to attempted monopolization in (...)
426
For the first time in history, DOJ’s Antitrust Division plans to use binding arbitration to resolve an important element of a merger challenge. As part of its lawsuit to block the proposed acquisition of Aleris Corporation by Novelis Inc., the parties and DOJ agreed to resolve the issue of (...)
2592
In Short: The Situation: The United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division ("DOJ") has provided details on the unprecedented use of arbitration to resolve its challenge to the proposed acquisition of Aleris Corporation by Novelis Inc. The Significance: Companies now have greater (...)
417
The U.S. Department of Justice indicted Bumble Bee Foods CEO Christopher Lischewski on price-fixing charges. Lischewski is the first CEO to be charged for his role in the alleged U.S. conspiracy to fix the price of packaged seafood. The Northern District of California grand jury indictment (...)
172
This article has been nominated for the 2016 Antitrust Writing Awards. Click here to learn more about the Antitrust Writing Awards. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division will consider individual civil enforcement actions against executives implicated in corporate wrongdoing, (...)
253
U.S. DOJ Obtains First-Ever Extradition on Antitrust Charge* On April 4, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced its first successful extradition to the United States on an antitrust charge. Romano Pisciotti, an Italian national and a former executive with Parker ITR Srl, was (...)
230
The U.S. Supreme Court has reaffirmed that courts must conduct a "rigorous analysis" to determine whether antitrust class action plaintiffs meet the requirements for class certification, even when that requires inquiry into the merits of the underlying claims, and individual issues of damages (...)
140
The U.S. magistrate judge in the consolidated civil antitrust cases challenging alleged collusion in air cargo charges has authorized disclosure of portions of the grand jury testimony of two witnesses who had testified during the criminal investigation conducted earlier by the U.S. Department (...)
296
Companies and individuals that are accused of price-fixing rarely go to trial. Indeed, in the last 10 years, no corporate defendant (and only a handful of individuals) has elected to litigate an international criminal cartel case in a U.S. court. The vast majority of cases are resolved through (...)
495
On November 19, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (« DOJ ») issued new guidance on its leniency program, under which cartel participants that cooperate with the government may avoid prosecution. This detailed guidance, « Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Antitrust (...)
544
This week, in separate new matters, the United States and the European Union announced the detection and prosecution of price fixing agreements among competitors. The U.S. Department of Justice reported guilty pleas and fine agreements by three Asian manufacturers of liquid crystal display (...)
586
This week, in separate new matters, the United States and the European Union announced the detection and prosecution of price fixing agreements among competitors. The U.S. Department of Justice reported guilty pleas and fine agreements by three Asian manufacturers of liquid crystal display (...)
928
In antitrust, the Supreme Court is on a roll. After giving scant attention to antitrust cases over the last two decades, the Supreme Court has now issued five substantive antitrust decisions in the last 17 months-one of the most intense periods of antitrust activity in the Court’s history. And (...)
