Sheppard Mullin (Los Angeles)

Leo Caseria

Sheppard Mullin (Los Angeles)

Leo Caseria is chair of the firm’s antitrust and competition practice group and a partner in the Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles offices. His practice focuses on antitrust law and complex commercial litigation, in both state and federal courts. He has represented global companies in connection with a wide variety of antitrust matters, including matters involving alleged exclusionary conduct, price-fixing, and international cartels, as well as matters involving the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property. He has frequently defended companies in class actions and multidistrict litigation. He is also knowledgeable regarding the enforceability of class action waivers, and has authored articles and counseled on the inclusion of class action waivers in arbitration agreements. Leo Caseria has also represented companies in connection with antitrust investigations by the United States Department of Justice. He has represented clients including Samsung, Philip Morris and Live Nation in connection with major antitrust matters.

Linked authors

Sheppard Mullin (Brussels)
Sheppard Mullin (Brussels)
Sheppard Mullin (Washington)
Sheppard Mullin (Brussels)
Sheppard Mullin (Brussels)


2258 Bulletin

Ann M. O’Brien, John D. Carroll, Leo Caseria, Lindsey Olson Collins, Rachel Guy, Kate Rumsey The US DoJ announces a mergers & acquisitions safe harbor policy for companies that discover wrongdoing by the acquired business in the course of a transaction and voluntarily disclose it


DOJ Announces Mergers & Acquisitions Safe Harbor Policy* The Department of Justice (DOJ) announced last week the advent of a new safe harbor for companies that discover wrongdoing by the acquired business in the course of an M&A transaction. Buyers hoping to take advantage of this (...)

John D. Carroll, Leo Caseria, Malika Levarlet, Joseph Antel The US FTC announces its return to the prior merger regime which requires approval from the FTC before closing future transactions affecting any relevant market


Back to the “Good Old Days”: FTC Announces Return to Prior Merger Approval Regime* FTC announces that its merger enforcement orders will once again require prior approval before the subject firm can make a future acquisition affecting any relevant market for which a violation was alleged. (...)

Leo Caseria, Robert L. Magielnicki, Malika Levarlet The US Senate Judiciary Committee approves new HSR filing fees for large mergers and would require them to be adjusted annually based on changes in the consumer price index


HSR Filing Fees For Large Acquisitions May Be Increased* On May 13th, the Senate Judiciary Committee approved and sent on to the full Senate the “Merger Filing Fee Modernization Act of 2021.” The Bill, sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar and Chuck Grassley, and approved with bipartisan (...)

Leo Caseria, Malika Levarlet, Robert L. Magielnicki The US FTC issues a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the premerger notification rules that implement the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act


Tell Me More – Antitrust Agencies to Demand More Information from Investment Funds* The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to amend the premerger notification rules (the “Rules”) that implement the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of (...)

Leo Caseria, Robert L. Magielnicki, Malika Levarlet, Bevin M.B. Newman The US FTC introduces temporary electronic HSR filing and stops granting early terminations for all filings due to COVID-19 measures


In response to COVID-19, the FTC’s Premerger Notification Office (PNO) just announced several changes for all Hart-Scott-Rodino (HSR) filings going forward. While these changes have been described as temporary, no specific end date has been identified. Hard copy HSR filings will no longer be (...)

Leo Caseria US District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia rules that participating in a standard-setting body or being a member of a trade association is insufficient to state an antitrust conspiracy claim (SD3 / Black & Decker)


SD3 v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc. – District Judge Axes Complaint Alleging Table Saw Safety Standards Conspiracy* The pen may be mightier than the sword, but not necessarily mightier than the table saw. On July 15, 2014, in SD3 v. Black & Decker (U.S.), Inc., Case No. 1:14-cv-191 (...)

Leo Caseria The US Supreme Court holds that a claim for monetary relief shall not be certified under Federal Class Actions Rule, if it is not secondary to obtaining an injunction or declaration (Wal-Mart Stores / Dukes)


Wal-Mart v. Dukes: Implications For Antitrust Class Actions* On June 20, 2011, the United States Supreme Court decided Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, No. 10-277, holding that 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees around the nation could not bring discrimination claims under Title VII of the (...)


Total visits

Number of readings per contribution

Number of contributions

Author's ranking
In number of contributions
In number of visits
In average number of visits
Send a message