In 2016, we were the first to bring an antitrust class-action against the world’s largest retailer of contact lenses. We alleged that it used sham litigation and restrictive settlement agreements to allocate markets and restrain trade. Our case and others that followed led to a total recovery of $40 million.

In an antitrust case, we persuaded the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a federal district court’s dismissal of our client’s most important claim. This appeal depended on the proper meaning and application of the doctrine of antitrust injury. The case thereafter settled on confidential terms.

We persuaded a California Superior Court to treat resale price maintenance as a per se violation of California’s Cartwright Act after the federal courts had ceased to do so. We also raised related challenges to the defendants’ restrictive covenants. The case thereafter settled on favorable, confidential terms.

We concluded a favorable, confidential settlement for a major, publicly-traded retailer after obtaining a highly favorable published decision that vindicated our federal claims for restraint of trade and false advertising against the largest retailer of hardware in the United States.

We obtained comprehensive antitrust amnesty for our client for its alleged role in a price-fixing conspiracy in the marine-fender industry. The other alleged conspirators subsequently paid substantial criminal fines and civil damages, but our client paid nothing and owed no liability, criminal or civil.

Early in his career, Mr. Markham worked as an associate in the antitrust practice of a major international law firm. During this period, he principally litigated antitrust claims and cross-claims that alleged unlawful tying arrangements in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act.

“Antitrust law is the law of competition and is perhaps the least understood law of all. This article provides an overview and explanation of the essential principles of antitrust law.”

“Over the years, Congress and the federal courts have established various immunities from federal antitrust law, removing from its reach specified commercial activities and even entire lines of commerce.”