Joseph Ostoyich
Baker Botts (Washington)
Lawyer (Partner)
Joseph Ostoyich is Chair of the firm’s Litigation Department in Washington, D.C. He has more than two decades of experience representing some of the world’s leading companies in bet-the-company price fixing, monopolization and the full gamut of antitrust litigation in U.S. courts and in investigations in industries ranging from high-technology to paper, chemicals, foundry, energy, transportation and agricultural commodities.Mr. Ostoyich also represents parties in merger reviews by the Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, the European Commission and government authorities around the world. In 2015, he is recognized as a leading antitrust lawyer in Chambers USA and Legal 500, rated “Preeminent” by Martindale-Hubbell, and named a D.C. Super Lawyer for Antitrust. The Legal 500, stated that Mr. Ostoyich “provides clients with a considerable pedigree in relation to a range of federal and state private antitrust litigation.” He is a member of the Antitrust Council of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and frequently speaks at industry conferences and client retreats about antitrust law developments. He has written and edited several dozen articles and analyses of the antitrust laws and co-authored a chapter on the law and economics of antitrust damages in a leading treatise. He is a former student of the University of Chicago Law School (J.D.) and of the Cornell University (B.A. with distinction).
Linked authors
Ella Adler
Baker Botts (Brussels)
Julie Albert
Baker Botts
Stuart Blythe
Baker Botts (London)
Michael P. Bodosky
Baker Botts (Washington)
Sean Boland
Baker Botts (Washington)
1227 | Conferences
Videos
Articles
686 Bulletin
80
On February 18, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit upheld the first divestiture order in an antitrust suit brought by a private plaintiff which challenged its rival’s acquisition four years after the transaction. Post-consummation merger challenges are rare and—until now—have (...)
58
Clients that do business with the federal government should take note: despite the pandemic and the upcoming election, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) continues to prioritize its focus on punishing fraudulent and anticompetitive conduct by government contractors, carrying out dozens of (...)
92
A senior official at the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) recently confirmed that the Antitrust Division has opened multiple grand jury investigations in connection with the Procurement Collusion Strike Force (“Strike Force”) formed in November of last year. Speaking at a conference on February (...)
78
On February 5, 2020, the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced the indictment of a Missouri man – the third individual to be charged – for participation in a conspiracy to rig bids submitted to the General Services Administration (“GSA”) at online auctions for (...)
174
On November 5, 2019, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced the creation of a new “strike force” designed to combat criminal antitrust violations in the government procurement process. The newly-formed Procurement Collusion Strike Force (“PCSF”) will include prosecutors from DOJ’s (...)
50
On May 13, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a major antitrust decision in Apple v. Pepper, which could have far-reaching implications for retailers and platforms accused of monopolistic conduct. For example, the case increases the risk that any online marketplace with exclusive rights to (...)
55
On March 21, 2018, the Chief Judge for the United States District Court for the Northern District of California sentenced Michael Marr to serve 30 months in federal prison and pay $1.4 million for his conviction on bid-rigging in violation of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. Marr was indicted in (...)
66
On May 4, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit announced its decision in Eisai, Inc. v. Sanofi Aventis U.S., LLC, rejecting antitrust claims predicated on a supplier’s market-share discount program and other promotional tactics. While the court’s decision adds some definition to (...)
33
Last week, President Obama issued an Executive Order ostensibly designed to further promote competitive conditions and root out antitrust abuses in industries across the American economy, including the healthcare, energy, and broadband industries which were specifically identified in the (...)
