John M. Majoras

Jones Day (Washington DC)
Lawyer (Partner)

John Majoras 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.

Distinctions

[Winner, 2016 Antitrust Writing Awards: Business, Private Enforcement - >http://awards.concurrences.com/article/2016-award-winning-articles]

win-2016

Linked authors

Jones Day (Washington DC)
Jones Day (Brussels)
Jones Day (Washington DC)
Jones Day (Atlanta)
Jones Day (Cleveland)
Jones Day (Beijing)
Jones Day (Tokyo)
Jones Day (Los Angeles)

Articles

2718 Bulletin

David P. Wales, J. Bruce McDonald, John M. Majoras, Kathryn M. Fenton, Michelle K. Fischer, Ryan C. Thomas, Stephen J. Squeri The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division considers individual civil enforcement actions against executives implicated in corporate wrongdoing (Yates Memo)

85

The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division will consider individual civil enforcement actions against executives implicated in corporate wrongdoing, according to recent comments by DOJ Assistant U.S. Attorney General Bill Baer. His comments follow a September 2015 memo, "Individual (...)

Jeffrey A. LeVee, John M. Majoras, Paula W. Render The US Supreme Court confirms that courts must conduct a rigorous analysis to determine whether antitrust class action plaintiffs meet the requirements for class certification (Comcast)

132

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 (...)

John M. Majoras, Stephen J. Squeri A NY District Court authorizes disclosure of portions of the grand jury testimony of two witnesses who had testified during the criminal investigation in the consolidated civil antitrust cases challenging alleged collusion in air cargo charges (Air Cargo Shipping Services)

50

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 (...)

Bernard Amory, Hiromitsu Miyakawa, John M. Majoras, Peter J. Wang, Ryan C. Thomas A Federal jury in San Francisco returns verdicts in rare price-fixing trial of global liquid-crystal displays conspiracy (AU Optronics)

130

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 (...)

John M. Majoras, Robert A. Schmoll The US Supreme Court holds that mere parallel conduct in a complaint is insufficient to state a claim of conspiracy under the Sherman Act (Bell Atlantic / Twombly)

813

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 (...)

Send a message