Melissa H Maxman
Partner, Washington, D.C.
Melissa H Maxman
Partner, Washington, D.C.
Melissa H. Maxman is the Managing Partner of the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. She has decades of litigation experience at both the trial and appellate levels, primarily in the areas of antitrust, RICO, environmental law, complex commercial disputes, and white collar defense. She has extensive experience advising domestic and foreign corporations on global antitrust issues. She has represented clients in complex civil and criminal matters before the Federal Trade Commission, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice, and in private civil matters.
Melissa has been recognized in The Legal 500’s U.S. guide in the antitrust: civil litigation/class actions: defense category. The guide has described her as a “brilliant thinker and lawyer.” She has also been recognized by Chambers USA in the antitrust litigation specialists category, in which she was described as “strong knowledgeable counsel with strong litigation, policy, and legislative skills and experience.” Chambers USA has also pointed to Melissa’s sophistication as an antitrust lawyer and has noted that she is “smart, practical and really works to make sure she is responsive to the client’s needs.” Melissa has also been named one of Washington, D.C.’s Super Lawyers each year since 2011. She has also been recognized by Lawdragon as one of the 500 Leading Litigators in America in 2023 and 2024.
Prior to joining Cohen & Gresser, Melissa was the Chair of the Antitrust and Trade Regulation Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. offices of two large national law firms. She served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and was a law clerk for the Honorable Harry T. Edwards of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Melissa is a cum laude graduate of the University of Michigan Law School, where she was editor-in-chief of the Michigan Law Review.
Melissa has been a member of the American Law Institute since 2003, and is also a member of the Advisory Board for the Institute for Consumer Antitrust Studies. She serves as a council member of the American Bar Association Antitrust Section, and was a former co-chair of its Exemptions and Immunities Committee and its National Institute on Class Actions.
Melissa H. Maxman is the Managing Partner of the firm’s Washington, D.C. office. She has decades of litigation experience at both the trial and…
Education
University of Michigan Law School (J.D., cum laude, 1988); George Washington University (B.A., 1983)
Bar Admissions
District of Columbia; State of Maryland; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Commonwealth of Virginia; Superior Court of Pennsylvania; U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia; U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania; U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan; U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Virginia; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin; U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Third, Fourth, and Tenth Circuits
Activities and Affiliations
Advisory Board Member, American Antitrust Institute
Member of Council, American Bar Association Antitrust Section
Member, American Bar Association Antitrust Section Long Range and Strategic Planning Committee
Member, American Bar Association Antitrust Section Transition Task Force
Life Fellow, American Bar Foundation
Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America
Advisory Board Member, Institute of Consumer Antitrust Studies
Member, American Law Institute
Member, International Women's Forum of Washington, DC
Member, Women's White Collar Defense Association
Former Chair and Advisory Board Member, The George Washington University Columbian College of Arts and Sciences Dean's National Council
Former Member, William B. Bryant Inn of Court
Former Vice Chair, Global Private Litigation Committee of the American Bar Association Antitrust Section
Former Co-Chair, Exemptions and Immunities Committee of the American Bar Association Antitrust Section
Former Co-Chair, American Bar Association National Institute on Class Actions
Former Advisory Board Member, Civil RICO Report
Former Board Member, Sewall-Belmont House and Museum / National Women’s Party
Former Trustee, Philadelphia Prison System
Representative Civil and Criminal Antitrust Matters
Representing a company in a highly concentrated sector of the entertainment industry in seeking DOJ and state AG review of the anticompetitive effects of a decade-old merger. The merger involved two companies that held dominant positions in their respective, adjacent markets, and was resolved by a consent decree between the DOJ, several state AGs, and the merging parties.
Serving as primary antitrust counsel to Roku in its capacity as a third party in various civil investigations and litigation brought by the FTC and certain U.S. state attorneys general in which Roku’s interests are impacted by the actions of the largest Big Tech Companies (Amazon, Google, Facebook, and Apple).
Representing DuckDuckGo as a third party in a landmark antitrust lawsuit brought against Google LLC (“Google”) by the United States and 14 state attorneys general, as well as a related antitrust lawsuit brought against Google by the attorneys general of 38 states and U.S. territories. The lawsuits, which have been consolidated for pretrial purposes in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, allege that Google has violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by unlawfully monopolizing markets that include general search services, general search advertising, and general search text advertising.
Representation of a gasoline and diesel sales and distribution company defending allegations of monopolistic behavior brought in private litigation.
Read MoreRepresentative False Claims Act/Qui Tam Matters
Representation of a company defending allegations of improper labeling brought by the Federal Trade Commission.
Represented manufacturer of dental and medical OTC products in U.S. Attorney’s Office investigation into Defense Department fraud relating to sales of medical products to soldiers.
Obtained non-prosecution agreement with the DOJ following defense of international manufacturer of transit buses in a DOJ investigation into suspected criminal False Claims Act violations in connection with allegedly falsified customs records.
Obtained dismissal of civil False Claims Act suit relating to allegations of falsified customs records on behalf of an international manufacturer of transit buses as well as represented client in related breach of contract and employment disputes.
Conducted internal investigation into possible Medicare fraud and improper record keeping for large doctor-owned orthopedics practice and drafted follow-up compliance program.
Other Representative Civil Litigation Matters
Represented a group of automotive dealers in litigating civil RICO and antitrust claims against a car manufacturer, its parent company, and other defendants.
Defended a non-profit corporation in a lawsuit under the Colorado RICO and other state statutes regarding ownership and valuation of a golf resort.
Represented well-known professional athlete in contract litigation over the terms of a shoe endorsement deal.
Defended one of the largest manufacturers of disposable cups against claim before the Better Business Bureau regarding adequacy of company’s advertising language with respect to environmental issues.
Represented family planning organization in the first civil Freedom of Access of Clinic Entrances Act case litigated in the Third Circuit; winning summary judgment for enforcement of the Act.
Read MoreOther Representative White Collar Defense & Regulation Matters
Representation of key witnesses in government investigations and lawsuits brought by the United States DOJ, the Federal Trade Commission, and various state Attorneys General.
Representation of witnesses subpoenaed to testify before Congress.
Represented the audit committee of a transportation company in a major FCPA internal investigation arising out of its bus sales in Angola.
Defended a power authority against Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act criminal environmental claims brought by the DOJ Environmental Crimes Section; and in follow-up private civil suits with the power authority’s supplier regarding indemnification claims and with community groups suing for environmental injury.
Represented former Congresswoman in a grand jury investigation into then-spouse’s financial fraud.
Represented a former state-wide elected official in guilty plea to corruption charges.
- Mark S. Cohen – Commercial Litigation, including Real Estate, Antitrust, and White Collar
- Lawrence T. Gresser – Complex Commercial Litigation
- Melissa H. Maxman – Litigation, including White Collar and Antitrust
- Douglas J. Pepe – Complex Litigation, Law Firm Malpractice, Blockchain
- John Roberti – Antitrust & Competition Law, including Litigation
- Ronald F. Wick – Antitrust & Competition Litigation
This year’s Lawdragon guide highlights "the best litigators the U.S. has to offer" across various categories, following an extensive review of a record number of submissions. The guide focuses on lawyers who have made a significant impact, particularly in recent high-profile matters. The selection process includes in-depth analysis of major litigation and the attorneys consistently sought for key cases.
With the financial assurance of a multi-year take-or-pay contract that obligated BTS to make minimum monthly payments regardless of the services it used, Eddystone spent about $170 million to build a transloading facility that transferred oil from railcars to boats. Soon after the Eddystone transloading facility went into operation, BTS and many of its corporate affiliates were sold to Ferrellgas. At the time, BTS’s value was well over $200 million. Within months, though, the transloading arrangement became uneconomical for BTS’s corporate affiliates, so Ferrellgas stripped all of BTS’s assets and sold BTS for $10, causing BTS to default on its remaining obligations to pay Eddystone about $140 million. Eddystone brought an action in Philadelphia in 2017 to recover the fraudulent transfers involved in stripping BTS’s assets.
While the Philadelphia initial transfer action was pending, C&G filed an action for Eddystone in the Southern District of New York in 2019 alleging that Ferrellgas used former BTS assets to pay two groups of lenders, making the lenders subsequent transferees of the fraudulently transferred assets. Significantly, a protective order in the Philadelphia action barred Eddystone from using documents produced in that action in drafting its initial complaint against the lenders.
The Southern District granted the lenders’ initial motions to dismiss the complaint, finding that the complaint did not sufficiently demonstrate that the assets used to pay the lenders derived from former BTS assets. However, the court also rejected all of the lenders’ many additional arguments that the complaint was legally insufficient.
Following the dismissal of the initial complaint in September 2021, Eddystone overcame hard-fought opposition to get the protective order in the Philadelphia action modified in March 2022 to permit it to use discovery from that action to amend its Southern District complaint against the lenders. Eddystone then prepared a proposed amended complaint in April 2022 with charts showing specific cash transfers from BTS to one set of lenders through Ferrellgas and its subsidiaries. The proposed amended complaint also detailed how other specific BTS assets were assigned to corporate affiliates for no consideration at all and how the proceeds from later sales of those assets were transferred to another set of Ferrellgas lenders.
The Southern District nevertheless denied Eddystone leave to file the proposed amended complaint, finding that it would be futile because the factual allegations were still insufficient to show that assets from BTS reached the lenders. The court also found that the three years between Eddystone’s filing of its initial complaint and its request to amend was an undue delay that prejudiced the lenders.
Following oral argument that Judge Gerard Lynch of the Second Circuit called “great,” the Second Circuit reversed the District Court on both of its bases for denying Eddystone’s request to file an amended complaint. First, the Second Circuit found that Eddystone had alleged sufficient details to show that it was plausible that BTS’s assets were later transferred to the lenders. Then, the Second Circuit ruled that the District Court had exceeded its discretion in finding that undue delay and prejudice barred Eddystone’s effort to amend its complaint, finding that the District Court had not identified any prejudice to the lenders and that “Eddystone cannot be penalized for waiting until it received the District Court’s decision granting the motions to dismiss before determining what it needed to do to amend its Complaint, including modifying the protective order in the Pennsylvania litigation.”
The victorious C&G team includes Dan Tabak, Steve Sinaiko, Marvin Lowenthal, Ben Zhu, and Camille Delgado. Melissa Maxman was also part of the team that obtained the modification of the Pennsylvania protective order.
Mark Cohen is once again recognized as a Leading Partner in both Securities Litigation and Corporate Investigations & White-Collar Crime: Advice to Individuals.
The 2024 guide also recognizes Lawrence T. Gresser, Jonathan Abernethy, Jason Brown, S. Gale Dick, Christian Everdell, Jeffrey Lang, Alisa Lu, Melissa Maxman, Douglas Pepe, John Roberti, Daniel Tabak, and Ronald Wick as recommended lawyers.
This 17th edition of The Legal 500 United States guide, which identifies the “true superstars of the profession,” involved a detailed assessment of various factors, including work conducted by law firms over the past 12 months and historically; experience and depth of teams; and client feedback.
Founded in 2002, Cohen & Gresser’s New York office serves as the firm’s headquarters. Our New York attorneys are particularly strong in complex litigation, investigations, and transactions. The firm’s Washington, D.C. office handles a range of commercial litigation and regulatory enforcement actions, with a focus on domestic and foreign antitrust issues.
The firm’s White Collar Defense & Regulation practice is once again ranked in the guide, maintaining its position as one of the “Elite” firms in the Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations category. Chambers recognized the firm’s “strong regulatory investigations and enforcement practice,” specifically highlighting its “expert financial services practice which offers particular strengths in FINRA and SEC proceedings.” Client feedback praises the team for its “strong expertise with the DOJ and with prosecutors.”
The Commercial Litigation practice is also ranked in the Litigation: General Commercial: Highly Regarded category, receiving high praise from clients for having a “strong understanding of the client’s needs” and for being “smart, creative and willing to try difficult strategies and aggressive approaches.”
The firm’s Antitrust & Competition practice is ranked in the Antitrust category, with Chambers noting that “Cohen & Gresser houses a strong practice across a range of antitrust disputes [including] sophisticated litigation.” Client feedback praises the team for being “creative and responsive” and having “strong knowledge of antitrust class actions.”
Partners throughout Cohen & Gresser’s US practices also earned individual rankings in the following categories:
Antitrust: Litigation Specialists (DC)
Litigation: General Commercial (NY)
Litigation: Securities (NY)
Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations (NY)
Chambers is the world’s leading legal data and analytics provider, highlighting the top lawyers and law firms across the USA based on in-depth research that includes reference feedback, client satisfaction, reputation in the market, peer knowledge, and other discreet independent market sources.
Each year, Super Lawyers identifies outstanding lawyers nationwide and regionally who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only 5 percent of lawyers are selected as Super Lawyers, and only 2.5 percent are selected as Rising Stars. This latest guide recognizes 100 percent of our D.C. partners and associates.
The C&G lawyers recognized as Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers are:
- Melissa H. Maxman – Antitrust Litigation
- John Roberti – Antitrust Litigation
- Ronald F. Wick – Antitrust Litigation
The C&G lawyers recognized as Washington, D.C. Rising Stars are:
- Derek Jackson – Business Litigation
- Alisa Lu – Business Litigation
Recognized Lawyers
• Mark S. Cohen – Commercial Litigation, including Real Estate, Antitrust, and White Collar
• Melissa H. Maxman – Litigation, including White Collar and Antitrust
• John Roberti – Antitrust & Competition Law, including Litigation
• Ronald F. Wick – Antitrust & Competition Litigation
Lawdragon is a legal media company providing news content and editorial features, including guides to the nation’s leading lawyers. This is Lawdragon’s second edition of the guide, assessing America’s top talent among those principally representing corporations and other organizations litigating claims involving antitrust, financial and securities litigation, intellectual property, commercial, M&A, cybersecurity and data privacy, and white collar and investigations.
Recognized Lawyers
• Mark S. Cohen – Commercial Litigation, including Real Estate, Antitrust, and White Collar
• Melissa H. Maxman – Litigation, including White Collar and Antitrust
• John Roberti – Antitrust & Competition Law, including Litigation
• Ronald F. Wick – Antitrust & Competition Litigation
Lawdragon is a legal media company providing news content and editorial features, including guides to the nation’s leading lawyers. This is Lawdragon’s first guide dedicated to attorneys principally representing corporations and other organizations in litigating claims involving Antitrust, Securities, Financial, M&A, Intellectual Property and Patents, Product Liability, Mass Tort, White Collar, Government Investigations, and Energy disputes.
C&G’s Commercial Litigation practice is once again ranked in Litigation: General Commercial: Highly Regarded. The practice is recognized for being “regularly sought after by individuals and corporates for representation in securities class actions and derivative matters, as well as various shareholder and product litigation.” Clients note that the team is comprised of “litigators that you don’t want to mess with” and is one that “you can rely on.”
C&G’s White Collar Defense & Regulation practice is ranked in Chambers USA for the ninth consecutive year. The practice maintains its position as one of the “Elite” firms in Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations. Chambers highlights the practice’s “talented pool of litigators with a wealth of government experience” and its “international presence” as key reasons for its continued ranking. Commentary from the guide notes that the practice is “a substantial player in the New York white-collar world” that has “burst onto the scene with strong former prosecutors” and “good results for their clients.”
Ranked Departments:
- Litigation: General Commercial: Highly Regarded
- Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations: The Elite
District of Columbia
Antitrust: Litigation Specialists
New York
Litigation: General Commercial
Litigation: Securities Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations
Super Lawyers ranks outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only five percent of the lawyers in each state are selected as Super Lawyers, and only 2.5 percent are selected as Rising Stars.
Super Lawyers
Jonathan S Abernethy: Criminal Defense: White Collar
Kwaku Andoh: Mergers & Acquisitions
Elizabeth Bernhardt: Business Litigation
Thomas E Bezanson: Personal Injury – Products: Defense
Colin C Bridge: Criminal Defense: White Collar
Karen H Bromberg: Intellectual Property
Jason Brown: Criminal Defense: White Collar
Joanna K Chan: Securities Litigation
Mark S Cohen: Business Litigation
S Gale Dick: Business Litigation
Christian R Everdell: Criminal Defense: White Collar
Lawrence T Gresser: Business Litigation
Oliver S Haker: Business Litigation
Johannes Jonas: Mergers & Acquisitions
Nicholas J Kaiser: Real Estate
Jeffrey I. Lang: Business Litigation
Melissa H Maxman: Antitrust Litigation
Ellen Paltiel: General Litigation
Nathaniel P T Read: Business Litigation
Bonnie J Roe: Securities & Corporate Finance
Stephen M Sinaiko: Business Litigation
C Evan Stewart: Securities Litigation
Daniel H Tabak: Business Litigation
Scott D Thomson: Business Litigation
Alexandra Wald: Business Litigation
Ronald F Wick: Antitrust Litigation
Rising Stars
Luke Appling: Civil Litigation
Sharon L Barbour: Criminal Defense: White Collar
Drew S Dean: General Litigation
William Kalema: Business Litigation
Sri Kuehnlenz: Civil Litigation
Winnifred A Lewis: Securities Litigation
Marvin J Lowenthal: Criminal Defense: White Collar
Barbara K Luse: Criminal Defense: White Collar
Matthew V Povolny: Business Litigation
Benjamin Zhu: Criminal Defense: White Collar
- Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Criminal Defense: Advice to Individuals
- Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Criminal Defense: Advice to Corporates
- General Commercial Disputes
- Securities Litigation: Defense
- Corporate Investigations and White Collar Criminal Defense: Advice to Individuals
- Corporate Investigations and White Collar Criminal Defense: Advice to Corporates
- General Commercial Disputes
- Securities Litigation: Defense
- Corporate Investigations/White Collar
- Corporate Investigations/White Collar – Advice to Individuals
- General Commercial Disputes
- Securities Litigation Defense
C&G helped secure a victory in a case alleging that President Trump violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution by accepting benefits from foreign governments without seeking and obtaining congressional consent. C&G represents five legal historians who filed an amicus brief citing extensive historical sources demonstrating that the Founding Fathers shared the plaintiffs’ definition of emoluments. Judge Emmet Sullivan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, in denying Trump’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, expressly stated that “[t]he Court appreciates the illuminating analysis provided by the amici,” and that “Amici Legal Historians soundly reject the President’s narrow definition of Emolument as inaccurate, unrepresentative, and misleading.”
The National Law Journal published a piece about the importance of our clients’ amicus brief, mentioning Cohen & Gresser’s role, and quoting Washington, D.C. Managing Partner, Melissa Maxman, linked here.
This is the second time a district judge has relied in large part upon our legal historian clients’ brief in construing the Emoluments Clause.
- Corporate Investigations/White Collar – Advice to Corporates
- Corporate Investigations/White Collar – Advice to Individuals
- General Commercial Disputes
- Securities Litigation Defense
Melissa H Maxman was quoted in a Bloomberg article regarding Google’s internet dominance and the effects on internet searches, noting that “bringing plaintiff cases in the U.S. will be challenging, especially after the Federal Trade Commission closed its investigation of Google in 2013.”
See Politico’s coverage of the event here.
The Capitol Forum Interview Series features a discussion with Melissa H Maxman, Managing Partner of C&G's Washington, D.C. office.
View the interview here.
Cohen & Gresser is pleased to announce the opening of its fourth office in Washington, D.C. The Washington office will be led by partner Melissa H Maxman, and will handle a range of commercial litigation and regulatory enforcement matters, with a focus on U.S. antitrust issues, criminal and civil litigation, and compliance and regulatory disputes in the federal agencies.
According to the DOJ announcement released on May 9, 2024, the Task Force on Health Care Monopolies and Collusion (“HCMC”) will consider “widespread competition concerns shared by patients, health care professionals, businesses and entrepreneurs.” Issues to be addressed include payer-provider consolidation, serial acquisitions, labor and quality of care, medical billing, health care information technology services, and access to and use of health care data. The task force will include both civil and criminal enforcement attorneys, as well as economists, industry experts, technologists, data scientists, investigators, and policy advisors from across the Antitrust Division’s sections and offices.
The announcement of the HCMC is unsurprising in many respects. The health care industry has long been a major target of antitrust enforcement, and the Biden DOJ has previously signaled its continued focus on health care competition. In December 2022, the Antitrust Division entered into a formal collaboration with the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services aimed at preventing collusion and promoting competition in health care markets. And just last month, the Antitrust Division launched an online portal for the public to report potentially anticompetitive health care practices.
Moreover, there is precedent for efforts to consolidate antitrust enforcement expertise in complex industries. Last week’s announcement is reminiscent of the Federal Trade Commission’s 2019 formation of a task force focused on competition in technology markets. Notably, like that task force, the HCMC appears to be drawing on the agency’s current resources rather than hiring additional staff, suggesting that the Antitrust Division’s focus is on more efficient, and not necessarily broader, enforcement.
In a National Law Journal article about the HCMC, Melissa H. Maxman, Washington DC Office Managing Partner, was quoted as noting that there are smaller health care companies that will be relieved to be examined under an enforcement approach that is targeted at their specific factual situations. “Task forces sometimes can be inefficient,” she added, “[b]ut if ever there were a need for one, it would be in health care competition.” While the impact of the HCMC remains to be seen, the Antitrust Division’s approach has the potential to facilitate a better informed and more comprehensive analysis of a market that poses unique regulatory and enforcement challenges.
The Cohen & Gresser antitrust team has extensive experience representing businesses in the health care industry, including physicians, pharmacies, and manufacturers. If you have any questions about potential areas of focus for the HCMC, please contact either of the authors of this article.
- Last month, the FTC released a new policy statement noting its broadened view of the scope of its power under Section 5 of the FTC Act, signaling that it may find certain private equity rollups violate its interpretation.
- The FTC policy statement came on the heels of a DOJ announcement that it would be increasing the enforcement of Section 8 of the Clayton Act.
- These developments underscore the need for private equity companies to take particular care in observing U.S. competition laws, as there will be greater scrutiny of private equity firms.
In this client alert, Melissa Maxman, Ronald Wick, and Alisa Lu analyze what these actions mean for the future of antitrust enforcement in the private equity sector and provide insight into how PE firms can prepare themselves for continued additional scrutiny.
- The consent decrees allow the private equity fund JAB Consumer Partners SCA SICAR's National Veterinary Associates to close two recent deals with some divestitures but also impose a series of strict prior notice requirements that are unprecedented in their breadth.
- The announcements come a month after the confirmation of a fifth commissioner that gave the Democrats a 3-2 majority on the FTC.
- As long as Democrats control the majority, private equity firms should be prepared for additional scrutiny and be cognizant of other competition issues that may impact them.
- Juries acquitted two sets of defendants of antitrust claims involving labor markets.
- The Antitrust Division will continue to pursue labor cases and has three more trials pending.
- The Division is willing to accept some losses in trials as a cost of taking a more aggressive enforcement position.
Melissa H Maxman co-authored a New York Times OpEd advocating that the U.S. Senate open its upcoming impeachment debate to the public.
In this C&G Client Alert, Melissa H Maxman, Ronald F Wick, Erica Lai, and Danielle Morello discuss the U.S. Department of Justice's (DOJ) announcement that it will now consider crediting companies for “robust” compliance programs at the charging stage of criminal antitrust investigations. This signals a reversal of the DOJ’s longstanding policy of allowing substantial penalty reductions only for “early-in” whistleblowers.
C&G partner Melissa H Maxman discussed alternative dispute resolution in the U.S. for Financier Worldwide’s global Annual Review on the topic.
Melissa H Maxman and Ronald F Wick examine the impact of the Leegin Creative Leather Products Inc. v PSKS Inc. ruling a decade after the decision.
In the episode, the DOJ Antitrust Division’s Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals Andy Forman and Michael Kades speak with Melissa and co-host Anora Wang of Arnold & Porter about the background, guiding principles, and some specific language in the draft Guidelines.
In recent congressional testimony, FTC Chair Lina Khan definitively declared that there is no ESG antitrust exemption. How can companies avoid violating the antitrust laws while still complying with demands from their shareholders and other constituents to conduct business consistent with policies that are environmentally and socially sensitive, and promote good public policy?
Melissa Maxman participated in the discussion, which addressed the intersection between ESG and the Sherman Act.
Listen to this episode to learn more about whether existing antitrust exemptions, such as Noerr-Pennington, can affect business decisions about ESG.
In June 2021, the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held that the National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") has violated the Sherman Act with its rules limiting the amount of education-related compensation colleges and universities can provide to student-athletes. However, the Court did not define what constitutes education-related compensation, and the NCAA still has the ability to define the outer boundaries of that term.
This webinar will consider NCAA v. Alston as it relates to the Sherman Act and the implications the Court's decision will have.
Join Cohen & Gresser on September 28 for an international webinar that will offer practical solutions and discuss immediate steps businesses can take to develop and shape their global legislative strategy moving forward. C&G’s Miriam González Durántez, Jeffrey Bronheim, and Melissa Maxman will discuss some of the G7’s top priorities and how the individual member nations are implementing them, with a particular focus on the U.S. budget process and spending priorities and global tax and trade regulations.
Date: September 28, 2021 Time: 5 PM BST / 12 PM EST
Topics will include:
- An overview of the G7 summit and top priorities moving forward
- Tax and spending priorities, including:
- U.S. fiscal policy and the budget process
- The global minimum tax
- International investment
- International trade policy, including:
- Priorities of the European Union
- The impact of Brexit on global trade policy
- The U.S. trade agenda
- Steps that companies can take right now to craft and strengthen their legislative/policy strategy.
C&G’s Melissa H Maxman co-hosts this episode of the podcast “Our Curious Amalgam,” presented by the American Bar Association’s Antitrust Section, where she spoke with Bill Kovacic, Former Chair of the FTC and Director of the Competition Law Center at George Washington University, to discuss how the nearly decade-long debate about antitrust reform may play out in the new administration.
Melissa H Maxman guest lectured at Fordham Law School’s Global Cartels course on the topic of International Cartel Enforcement and The Globalization of Antitrust.
Melissa H Maxman moderated an American Bar Association panel during the Class Actions National (Virtual) Institute that examined the ethical challenges and boundaries to class action settlements. The panel explored several themes, including attorney communications with absent class members; potential conflicts of interest between class members; and objectors to class action settlements.
Melissa H Maxman presented a CLE on "Preventing and Defending a Private Civil Class Action Price-Fixing Lawsuit: Best Practices for a New Decade" at a program hosted by Lawline. She outlined clear steps to ensure the best strategies to prevent and defend against different types of anticompetitive allegations.
Melissa H Maxman appeared on an episode of Our Curious Amalgam’s podcast series, titled “When is Doing Good Bad? Antitrust in Social Responsibility Agreements,” hosted by John Roberti, leader of the Antitrust Section of the American Bar Association.
Listen to the episode here.
Melissa H Maxman participated in a presentation, titled “The Incoherent Justification for Naked Restraints of Competition: What the Dental Self-Regulation Cases Tell Us about the Cavities in Antitrust Law” at the 19th Annual Loyola Antitrust Colloquium at the Loyola University Chicago School of Law.
Partner Melissa Maxman appeared on Legal Talk Network’s podcast series ‘On the Road’ on the ‘Antitrust Exemptions in Sports--& More!’ episode. She joined host Creighton Macy of Baker McKenzie, and panelists Sathya Gosselin of Hausfeld and Kim Scott of Miller Canfield, in a discussion about antitrust exemptions in sports, antitrust careers, and litigating sports cases.
Consumer Antitrust Institute in Chicago
ABA Antitrust Spring Meeting Panel, Washington DC
International Association of Korean Lawyers, IAKL Seoul Conference Program, Washington, D.C.
Association of Transportation Law Professionals (“ATLP”) 87th Annual Meeting in New Orleans
Melissa Maxman moderated this event.
Melissa Maxman was a panel chair for this event.
Melissa Maxman was a panelist at this event.
Melissa was a panelist at this event.
Melissa was a speaker at this event.
Melissa was a panelist for this event.
Melissa was a primary commentator at this event.
Melissa was a speaker at this event.
Melissa was a panelist at this event.
Melissa was a panelist at this event.
Melissa was a panelist at this event.
Melissa was a speaker at this event.
Melissa was a speaker at this event.
Melissa was a speaker at this event.
At this CLE presentation, Melissa Maxman and Ronald Wick addressed the question: Will enforcement agencies and private parties be able to keep up with the fast-paced IT world as it continues to accelerate?
Topics discussed included:
- Government enforcement in a post-Microsoft environment:
- From Microsoft to Google: Do recent developments suggest that traditional enforcement doctrines are beginning to catch up?
- From Microsoft to Intel: Intel’s conduct is being challenged by antitrust authorities around the globe.
- Trial and Evidentiary changes:
- Economic Analysis: The relevance of traditional market metrics given the new business environment.
- Proof issues: Groundbreaking opinions in the cases of Zubulake v. UBS Warburg, addressing discovery, trial, and evidentiary issues regarding metadata, data sampling, and related electronic issues and in Pension Comm. of Univ. of Montreal Pension Plan v. Bank of Amer. Secs., further demonstrates that discovery is now firmly in the electronic age.
Melissa was a speaker at this event.