Skip to content
Adam L. Hudes
Adam L. Hudes
Partner — Antitrust
Partner — Antitrust

Adam L. Hudes

Adam L. Hudes
Washington, D.C.

2200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Suite 500 West
Washington, D.C. 20037

Adam L. Hudes

Experience Highlights

  • JSW Steel (USA) Inc. v. Nucor Corp., et al. (S.D. Tex.); representing United States Steel Corporation in litigation alleging that major domestic steel companies conspired to boycott sales of steel slab to a competitor

  • In re Delta Dental Antitrust Litig. (N.D. Ill); representing numerous Delta Dental entities in a nationwide multidistrict antitrust litigation alleging unlawful market division and price fixing

  • Nestlé USA, Inc., v. Ultra Distribuciones Mundiales S.A. (W.D. Tex); lead Counsel for Nestlé USA in Lanham Act case seeking to halt the unauthorized sale of millions of dollars annually of “gray market” Nestlé products to US consumers; obtained one of the most significant rulings in a gray market goods case rejecting defendants’ attempts to obtain dismissal of the litigation

  • 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

  • Advised Nestlé on its 2020 acquisition of divested drug business from Allergan, which was subject to intense FTC scrutiny

  • 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; represented 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

  • 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

  • Nespresso USA v. Williams Sonoma (S.D.N.Y); represented Nespresso USA in trade-dress infringement case concerning retailer’s competing espresso capsules, and in response to unfair competition counterclaims

  • 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


  • Cornell Law School, JD, 2004 (Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy, Editor)
  • Duke University, BA, 2001
  • District of Columbia
  • New York
  • “Antitrust and Competition Law in Global Supply Chains: Recent Developments and Best Practices,” CPI Antitrust Chronicle (co-author)
  • “TC Heartland Opens The Door To New Antitrust Claims In Del.,” Law360, June 2, 2017
  • “Auto Dealer Robinson-Patman Act Cases After Stevens Creek,” Law360, December 14, 2016