1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW\\Washington, DC 20004-2541\\United States
J. Clayton “Clay” Everett, Jr. counsels clients on a range of antitrust issues. These include civil and criminal antitrust litigation, as well as merger and nonmerger investigations by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the US Department of Justice (DOJ), and securing merger approvals. He has represented clients in more than 100 antitrust class actions in federal and state court. Clay also counsels clients and litigates issues at the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law.
Clay frequently represents clients in multijurisdictional cartel investigations and litigation. He has secured declinations or immunity/leniency for clients in multiple jurisdictions around the world. He also has served as global coordinating counsel for various clients in cartel investigations, developing and implementing a global strategy for addressing multiple related investigations and follow-on damages litigation.
He is actively involved in the American Bar Association’s Section of Antitrust Law. In 2003, Clay co-chaired the Holmes Group Task Force: Status Report on Developments Relating to the Jurisdiction of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He currently serves on the Editorial Board for the State Antitrust Practice and Statutes. Previously he was a member of the Editorial Board for the Antitrust Law Developments Annual Update publication. Additionally, Clay served both as the chair’s assistant and the chair-elect’s assistant for the Section of Antitrust Law.
Representative matters include
In re Vitamins Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1285 (D.D.C.)—represented a multinational chemical company defending more than 100 class action cases in federal and state courts alleging that prices were fixed for various vitamin products. Cases settled on favorable terms.
In re Methionine Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1311 (N.D. Cal.)—represented a multinational chemical company defending a series of class action cases in federal and state courts alleging a price-fixing conspiracy in relation to the chemical methionine. Defeated certification of a nationwide class of indirect purchasers. Remaining cases settled on favorable terms.
Sniado v. Bank Austria AG, et al., (S.D.N.Y.)—represented Austrian bank defending a class action case alleging that foreign exchange fees were fixed. Case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the dismissal was upheld in the Second Circuit and Supreme Court of the United States.
Empagran, SA. v. F. Hoffmann-La Roche, Ltd., (D.D.C.)—represented a multinational chemical company in defending claims brought by foreign purchasers of vitamins. Case was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and the dismissal was ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Supreme Court’s decision upholding the dismissal establishes the standard under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act for the exercise of jurisdiction over claims based on purchases outside the United States.
In re Children’s Ibuprofen Antitrust Litigation, (D.D.C.)—represented a pharmaceutical manufacturer defending class action alleging that a pre-suit patent settlement constituted a market allocation agreement. Cases settled while motions to dismiss were pending.
In re Methyl-Methacrylate Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1768 (E.D. Pa.)—represented a multinational chemical company in a series of class action cases alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of methyl-methacrylate and polymethyl-methacrylate. Indirect purchaser class action was dismissed with prejudice. Direct purchaser cases settled on favorable terms after initial complaints were dismissed without prejudice.
In re Pharmaceutical Industry Average Wholesale Price Litigation, MDL-1456 (D. Mass.) - represents a pharmaceutical manufacturer defending class action claims in federal and state courts and various actions brought by state attorneys’ general. Class claims settled on favorable terms after class certification decision significantly narrowed the scope of the litigated claims. State attorney general claims continue in litigation.
In re Air Cargo Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1715 (E.D.N.Y.)—represented an Asian airline in defending class action claims that air cargo rates were fixed. State law indirect purchaser claims and claims brought under foreign law were dismissed by the court.
In re Korean Air Lines Co., Ltd. Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1891 (C.D. Cal.)—represented an Asian airline defending class action claims that air passenger rates were fixed. State law claims and claims by foreign purchasers were dismissed.
In re Fasteners Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1912 (E.D. Pa.)—represents a Japanese manufacturer of zippers, snaps and buttons defending class action claims alleging that prices for fastener products were fixed.
In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1827 (N.D. Cal.)—represents a Japanese electronics company defending class action and opt out claims that prices for TFT-LCD products were fixed.
In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1917—represents a Japanese electronics manufacturer in defending class and opt out actions alleging that prices for cathode ray tubes were fixed.
Awards and Affiliations
Member, Practice Group of the Year, Competition, Law360 (2017, 2018)
Recognized, US News & World Report and Best Lawyers 2017 Practice Group of the Year for Antitrust Law
Recognized, Acritas Star Lawyer (2017)
Recommended, Antitrust: Cartel, The Legal 500 US (2015, 2016, 2018, 2019)
Recommended, Antitrust: Civil Litigation/Class Actions, The Legal 500 US (2015, 2016)
Recognized, Legal Media Group's Expert Guides for Competition and Antitrust (2015)
Recognized, Law360 "Rising Star" in Competition/Antitrust (2012)
Member, American Bar Association, Section of Antitrust Law