Overview

Adam Hudes is a partner in Mayer Brown’s Washington DC office and a group leader of Mayer Brown’s Antitrust & Competition practice. Adam represents clients in complex private antitrust and commercial disputes and before government agencies in antitrust investigations. He places a particular emphasis on the application of the antitrust laws to pricing and distribution practices and to high technology industries.

Adam's representations have included some of the largest antitrust cases filed in recent years by private plaintiffs and the class action bar. These cases have addressed a variety of legal theories including price-fixing, monopolization, Robinson-Patman Act violations, exclusive dealing, bid rigging, sham litigation, patent misuse, and the appropriateness of class certification. Adam has also represented companies in merger and nonmerger investigations conducted by the Federal Trade Commission, US Department of Justice, and state authorities.

As recent examples of these engagements, Adam represented Nestlé USA in In re Chocolate Confectionery Antitrust Litigation, one of the largest multi-district antitrust litigation matters to date involving allegations of a conspiracy to fix the price of chocolate candy products. The successful defense of Nestlé USA was nominated by Global Competition Review for 2015 “Litigation of the Year – Cartel Defense.” Earlier this year, Adam obtained dismissal of claims against a multinational oil company alleging that it conspired with other defendants in a decade-long conspiracy to bribe Venezuelan officials and rig bids for the sale and purchase of oil submitted to the Venezuela’s national oil company PDVSA. Dismissal was obtained after an evidentiary hearing on the issue of standing.

Adam also maintains a robust counseling and compliance practice. He regularly advises clients on marketing, distribution, resale pricing, brand protection, promotional allowances, and other trade practice matters. He often speaks at client retreats on antitrust compliance and advises on the design and implementation of antitrust compliance programs. Adam has authored numerous articles and analyses regarding antitrust law developments, distribution matters, and litigation practice.

In addition to his antitrust work, Adam has represented clients in a variety of commercial litigation matters involving claims of false advertising, violation of state unfair competition statutes, warranty claims, breach of contract, and other business torts. He has substantial experience defending legal claims relating to dealer terminations, the design and defense of expert consumer surveys, and the jurisdictional defense of foreign defendants.

Spoken Languages

  • English

Experience

  •  PDVSA US Litigation Trust v. Lukoil Pan Americas LLC (S.D. Fla.). Obtained dismissal of claims against multinational energy corporation alleging that it engaged with other defendants in a decade-long conspiracy to bribe Venezuelan officials and rig bids for the sale and purchase of crude oil submitted to PDVSA, allegedly costing PDVSA billions of dollars in lost revenue. The trust was purportedly assigned the claims of PDVSA and the Venezuelan government so that it could litigate on PDVSA’s behalf in the U.S. courts.
  • In re Chocolate Confectionery Antitrust Litigation, 999 F. Supp. 2d 777, (M.D. Pa. 2014), aff’d, 801 F.3d 383 (3rd Cir. Sept. 15, 2015). Represented Nestlé USA in one of the largest multi-district antitrust litigations to date. The litigation consisted of over 90 federal lawsuits alleging a conspiracy with Mars, Hershey and Cadbury to fix the price of chocolate candy products sold in the United States. These complaints were brought on behalf of direct and indirect putative class plaintiffs and large opt out corporate plaintiffs (e.g., Safeway, Kroger, CVS). Obtained summary judgment in an important ruling that limits the range of inferences that can be drawn from an alleged foreign price-fixing conspiracy. The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court’s summary judgment ruling in a unanimous opinion.
  • Nespresso USA v. Ethical Coffee Company SA (D. Del.). Representing Nespresso USA against claims that it has monopolized the alleged espresso market by redesigning its Original Line machines to exclude competing espresso capsules. Secured dismissal of the foreign parent company for lack of personal jurisdiction and defeated Lanham Act claim at the pleading stage.
  • Nestle USA, Inc. v. Crest Foods, Inc. Representing Nestlé  USA in litigation brought against Crest Foods for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and breach of contract arising out of Crest’s misuse of the “Nestlé” and “Toll House” trademarks in connection with its oversight of the Nestle Toll House Café franchise system.
  • I and U, Inc., et al. v. Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. (C.D. Cal.). Obtained dismissal of claims alleging that Wolters Kluwer monopolized of the market for health science periodicals through exclusive sales agreements and false statements to customers.
  • American Specialty Health v. Healthways, Inc. (S.D. Cal.). Represented American Specialty Health in action alleging that competitor had monopolized the Medicare Advantage fitness benefits market through exclusive contracts with fitness facilities in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act and California consumer protection statutes. Litigation settled favorably with defendant agreeing to waive the challenged provisions in contracts with certain facilities.
  • Masimo Corporation v. Philips Electronics North America Corporation (D. Del.). Represented Philips Electronics North America Corporation in connection with its claims against Masimo for monopolization, attempted monopolization, tying, and patent misuse related to pulse oximetry products.
  • Gemalto, Inc. v. Merchant Customer Exchange. Commercial arbitration in which our client claimed improper termination of a service contract for the provision of a mobile payment platform. After a week-long arbitration before a three-judge panel, won $45.8 million (including attorney fees) for improper termination in a complete victory for our client.
  • Nirvana, Inc. v. Nestlé Waters North America Inc. F. Supp. 3d. 357 (N.D.N.Y. 2015). Represented Nestlé Waters North America in an action filed by a competing bottled water company alleging that Nestlé Waters discriminated in the prices that it offered to customers in the northeast United States and entered into improper exclusive dealing arrangements in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act, Clayton Act, and state competition laws. Motion to dismiss antitrust claims granted.
  • In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation. Represented Gerber in twelve-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection laws of multiple states with respect to the advertised health benefits of baby formula and cereal products. Case substantially narrowed through multiple successful motions to dismiss.
  • In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation. Represented First Data Corporation and Concord EFS in a series of class action lawsuits alleging that the setting of ATM interchange fees violates Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Summary judgment granted on Illinois Brick grounds. Ruling affirmed on appeal by Ninth Circuit.
  • Syngenta Seeds, Inc. v. Monsanto Company. Represented Monsanto against a Sherman Act Section 2 claim brought by competitor alleging that Monsanto had either monopolized or attempted to monopolize the alleged market for transgenic corn seed.
  • American Seed Co., et al. v. Monsanto Company. Represented Monsanto in twelve putative class actions alleging that Monsanto had either monopolized or attempted to monopolize the alleged market for transgenic corn seeds in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act. Defeated plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. Denial of class certification affirmed by Third Circuit.
  • Vident v. Dentsply. Represented Dentsply against allegations that it had monopolized the market for prefabricated artificial teeth through exclusive dealing in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
  • In re Cathrode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation. Represented Philips Electronics in defense of direct and indirect purchasers class actions alleging price fixing conspiracies in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and State Antitrust Laws.
  • Diaz, et al., v. Hott, et al., (E.D. Va) 2018). Co-lead counsel to a first-in-the-nation class of immigrants that were detained in Virginia, who requested a bond hearing while they pursued “withholding of removal”(or protection from deportation) to petitioner’s home country where persecution is likely. Obtained certification of the proposed class of immigrants and an order of summary judgment requiring a bond hearing for all class members, which permitted class member to be freed from detention while they pursued a withholding of removal order.
  • Lee v. State of Maryland. Represented criminal defendant in appellate proceedings before Maryland Court of Special Appeals.
  • In re Kavuo Matabishi. Successfully represented citizen of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in efforts to obtain asylum in the United States. Awarded asylum following merits hearing in immigration court.

Education

Cornell Law School, JD, Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, Editor

Duke University, BA

Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • New York