Ben Holt is a partner in the Washington office of Hogan Lovells. He litigates and resolves antitrust and competition disputes and helps clients navigate complex antitrust issues and handle government and internal investigations. Ben has significant experience defending class actions following governmental investigations and coordinating litigation and investigations across borders. He has also handled numerous stand-alone antitrust lawsuits and investigations covering a range of competition issues from mergers to price-fixing, and everything in between. Ben has litigated antitrust cases on both sides of the "v" and brings this experience to his counseling practice. He regularly advises clients on antitrust and competition issues arising from business deals and disputes and provides counseling on compliance with federal and state antitrust laws. He has experience in a wide range of industries, but has focused most of his work on financial services, automotive, and health care. Ben has published a variety of articles on antitrust and antitrust litigation topics and regularly presents to clients and others on developments in the field and relevant antitrust topics such as antitrust compliance for trade associations and strategies to defend antitrust class actions. He is the co-editor of Global Competition Review’s "Private Litigation Know How" publication and the co-author of Antitrust Compliance, published by Bloomberg BNA as part of the Corporate Practice series. Ben also serves as an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, teaching a seminar on antitrust practice and writing.
82
On 5 January 2023, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for the Non-Compete Clause Rule. The proposed rule, if adopted, would effectively ban the use of non-competes with employees by making the use of such non-competes a violation of Section 5 of (...)
376
On 25 February the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) submitted a statement of interest in a Nevada State court lawsuit filed by a group of anesthesiologists alleging that non-compete provisions in their employment agreements with Pickert Medical Group violate state law. DOJ did not weigh in on (...)
345
On 16 June 2020, the former CEO of Bumble Bee Foods LLC was sentenced to 40 months in prison and fined US$100,000 for his role in a tuna price-fixing conspiracy involving two competitors. This sentence is one of the most significant penalties ever imposed on a corporate executive in a criminal (...)
28
Brief summary of facts After merchant plaintiffs brought a private enforcement action against American Express in 2008, [1] the United States and several individual states similarly brought suit in 2010, alleging that American Express’s use of anti-steering provisions in its contracts with (...)
25
Brief summary of facts Claimants were purchasers of vitamin C, and brought suit alleging that a group of Chinese manufacturers/exporters of the vitamin had illegally fixed prices. In denying the Chinese companies’ motion to dismiss, the District Court for the Eastern District of New York (...)
15
Brief summary of facts Claimant food manufacturers alleged that defendant egg producers conspired to reduce the population of egg-laying hens, resulting in supracompetitive pricing in the market for shell eggs and egg products. Defendants argued that a portion of the total amount of egg (...)
39
Brief summary of facts Valspar sued DuPont for conspiring to fix prices for titanium dioxide in violation of the Sherman Act. Valspar – a purchaser of titanium dioxide – alleged that the conspiracy resulted in supracompetitive prices and sued to recover US$176 million that Valspar claimed it was (...)
27
Brief summary of facts Claimants — purchasers of iPhones and iPhone apps — brought suit alleging that Apple had monopolised the market for iPhone apps. In the iPhone "closed system," Apple controls which apps will run on the iPhone software and, through its App Store, Apple earns a 30% (...)
14
Brief summary of facts Claimants were purchasers of financial instruments whose rate of return was indexed to the London Interbank Offered Rate, and the defendants were members of the panel that determined the LIBOR each day. Claimants alleged that the defendant banks colluded to artificially (...)
19 avenue Jean Aicard
75011 Paris, France
106 West 32nd Street, Suite 149
New York, NY, 10001, USA
563 Chiswick High Road
W4 3AY London, UK
