Adam Acosta is a litigation partner at White & Case based in Washington, D.C. He focuses on complex and high-stakes disputes, often involving antitrust, consumer-protection, and other commercial claims. He has helped clients achieve significant victories at virtually all stages of complex litigation in federal and state courts. Prior to joining White & Case, Adam Acosta completed a two-year clerkship in the US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. He currently serves as an elected board member for the Hispanic Bar Association of DC and is active in the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section.
120
Latin America has emerged as a major growth market for the tech sector and digital markets, particularly in the tech hotbeds of Brazil, Chile, Colombia, and Mexico. While digital markets have been in the crosshairs of the US Department of Justice (DOJ) for quite some time, Latin American (...)
78
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) kicked off 2023 by using Section 5 of the FTC Act to take legal action against three companies and two individuals, forcing them to drop noncompete provisions. This is the first time that the FTC has brought an enforcement action to halt the use of noncompete (...)
53
In addition to the specific enforcement areas above, the Antitrust Division seems reinvigorated to pursue international price-fixing and cartel activities more broadly. Latin American enforcers are expected to play key roles in the multi-jurisdictional investigations of alleged cartels. For (...)
42
US and Latin American antitrust authorities are also focusing on competition in labor markets, particularly when employers allegedly restrict worker mobility or limit wages and other employment benefits. In the US, the Antitrust Division obtained early victories before the US District Court (...)
214
Climate change has shifted investor focus to how companies incorporate ESG factors into their business strategy. Certain antitrust authorities, governments, and academics have discussed relaxing competition laws to grant exemptions from competition law to support sustainability and to (...)
328
In February 2022, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California held that California Assembly Bill 824—which established a first-of-its kind presumption that certain pharmaceutical patent settlements are anticompetitive and which the California Attorney General had previously (...)
375
While Congress has been the epicenter of an ongoing antitrust debate—with US legislators on both sides of the aisle urging vast reforms—the New York State legislature is pursuing a state bill that would arguably ensnare more conduct and transactions in antitrust law’s web than anything (...)
308
On December 3, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published its annual report on pharmaceutical patent settlements filed with the FTC under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA)—its fourth annual review since the Supreme Court’s seminal decision (...)
127
A Nov. 30 decision by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, In re : Sensipar Antitrust Litigation, contradicts controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent and, if followed, could have significant implications for patent settlements well outside the pharmaceutical context in which (...)
129
On February 3, 2020, the Federal Trade Commission ("FTC") and the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") issued a joint statement and plan seeking to advance biosimilar competition and combat deceptive and anticompetitive practices in the "biologic marketplace." As discussed below, the FTC and (...)
21
On May 23, 2019, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published its annual report on pharmaceutical patent settlements filed with the FTC under the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA), followed a week later by a retrospective analysis of the thirteen MMA (...)
