David Marx, Jr. is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP based in the Firm's Chicago office, where he serves as head of the Firm's Chicago Antitrust & Competition Practice Group. His practice focuses on civil and criminal antitrust litigation and counseling, distribution issues and trade regulation matters. He also counsels corporate and health care industry clients, and individuals who are the subjects or targets of investigations or enforcement proceedings initiated by federal or state antitrust agencies, as well as parties in private civil litigation.
Additionally, David develops, implements and monitors antitrust and trade regulation compliance programs for a variety of corporate clients.
David is listed in 2007 Chambers & Partners USA's "America's Leading Business Lawyers" and is ranked in the 2007 edition of Chambers USA as a top antitrust attorney. He has also been named an Illinois Super Lawyer by Law & Politics.
David is a past chair of the Antitrust Committee of the Chicago Bar Association and the former chair of the Antitrust Law Committee of the American Health Lawyers Association. David is a former senior trial lawyer with the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission. He is a frequent speaker before industry groups and trade associations on antitrust and trade regulation compliance issues. He has also written several articles as a guest commentator on antitrust issues for the National Law Journal and Competition Law360.
David is admitted to the Illinois and New York bars, the Supreme Court of the United States, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, and the 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Circuit Courts of Appeals. He is also a member of the American Bar Association.
For a complete list of David's publications, presentations and other professional activities, please click here.
United States v. Stora Enso North America Corp., Crim. No. 03:06cr323 (CFD) (D.Conn. 2007): We served as trial counsel in the defense of Stora Enso North America, which was charged with conspiring to fix the price of publication paper in violation of the federal antitrust laws. Following a five-day trial in Hartford, Connecticut, the jury returned a verdict of "Not Guilty," bringing to a close a 3 1/2 year investigation by the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. This is one of the few cases taken to trial when the alleged co-conspirator was granted amnesty by the government pursuant to its Amnesty Program.
United States v. Baker Hughes, Inc., 731 F. Supp. 3 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 900 F.2d 981 (D.C. Cir. 1990): We served as lead trial and appellate counsel on behalf of the acquiring company in connection with the U.S. DOJ Antitrust Division's challenge of Tampella's acquisition of the hydraulic hardrock underground mining business from Baker Hughes. This case is one of the leading cases on "entry analysis" and, according to some commentators, led the federal antitrust enforcement agencies to revise their Horizontal Merger Guidelines in 1992.
Serfecz v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., 67 F.3d 591 (7th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1042 (1996): We represented Jewel Food Stores in connection with a claim by the owner of a shopping center that Jewel's closure of its store in plaintiff's mall and its refusal to return the leased premises to the owner for no consideration constituted a violation of the antitrust laws. The court of appeals, affirming the decision of the district court below, upheld a grant of summary judgment to Jewel on the grounds that plaintiff lacked standing to assert a monopolization claim and failed to create a question of fact on its alleged conspiracy claim.
Maureen Baker, et al. v. Jewel Food Stores, Inc., et al., 2003-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) Para. 73,965 (Ill. Cir. Ct.), aff'd, 2005-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) Para. 74,668 (Ill. App. Ct.): We represented Jewel Food Stores, Inc. in a consumer class action alleging that Jewel and one of its competitors conspired to fix the price at which they sold milk in their grocery stores in the nine-county Chicago metropolitan area. The case was tried before a judge in February 2003 and after three and one-half weeks of trial, at the close of plaintiffs' evidence, the judge granted defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint (without the defendants' having to present their defense case), a ruling that was unanimously affirmed on appeal.
Ozark Heartland Electronics, Inc. v. Radio Shack, et al., 278 F.3d 759 (8th Cir. 2002): We represented Primestar, a direct satellite broadcast service, in defense of a former Radio Shack dealer's claim that defendants engaged in resale price maintenance in connection with Radio Shack's marketing of the Primestar service to potential subscribers. The district court, in a decision affirmed by the court of appeals, granted summary judgment to defendants, finding that a principal and its marketing agent could not engage in resale price maintenance.
Woman's Clinic, Inc. v. St. John's Health System, Inc., 2003-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) Para. 74,074 (W.D. Mo. 2002): We represented St. John's Health System in connection with a challenge by three physician practice groups to the health system's enforcement of covenants not to compete to which the physicians had agreed with they sold their practices to the system. The district court ruled that the restrictive covenants were enforceable, and that the physicians' challenge to the health system's exclusive contracts with certain payors did not violate federal or state antitrust laws.
Syracuse University College of Law, J.D., 1975
Amherst College, B.A., 1972