Joseph Antel

Jones Day (Washington DC)
Lawyer (Associate)

Joe Antel represents clients in antitrust and competition matters involving merger reviews, civil and criminal government investigations, and antitrust litigation. He has represented parties in a variety of industries, including aerospace, information technology, consumer goods, waste management, manufacturing, retail, health care, pharmaceuticals, and oil and gas. Joe’s recent experience includes representing Marathon Petroleum in connection with its $23.3 billion acquisition of Andeavor. Before joining Jones Day, he practiced antitrust law at a boutique firm in New York, representing clients in a number of high-profile mergers and litigations, including advising Ball Corporation in its $6.85 billion acquisition of Rexam and obtaining summary judgment for Stanley Black & Decker in a Section 1 litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Prior to entering private practice, Joe served as an Assistant Attorney General in the Antitrust Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s office where he litigated New York v. Actavis plc, et al., a Section 2 "product hopping" case. While at the AG’s office he was awarded the Louis J. Lefkowitz Award in recognition of superior service on behalf of the People of the State of New York. Joe is active in the American Bar Association’s Section of Antitrust Law. He also maintains an active pro bono practice, volunteering at the Landlord Tenant Resource Center, which provides free legal information to unrepresented landlords and tenants who have residential housing disputes in the District of Columbia.

Distinctions

Linked authors

Jones Day (Houston)
Jones Day (Washington DC)

Articles

183 Bulletin

Bruce McDonald, Julia McEvoy, Joseph Antel The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia orders to a defendant in private antitrust litigation to divest a manufacturing plant following a competitor’s merger challenge (Steves & Sons / Jeld-Wen)

183

A federal district court has ordered a defendant in private antitrust litigation to divest a manufacturing plant following a competitor’s merger challenge. Although the decision is certain to be appealed, it may embolden customers or competitors wishing to challenge a transaction and create new (...)

Send a message