Associate
Complex Commercial Litigation
Alexander is an associate in the firm’s Washington office. His principal areas of practice are antitrust and government contracts, involving civil litigation, merger control, and transaction counseling. He has both plaintiff- and defense-side experience in complex multidistrict litigation. Alexander represents clients across a range of industries, including domestic and multinational companies in the healthcare, real estate, energy, and financial industries. He has subject matter experience in high-profile issues including algorithmic pricing, energy security, and ESG/sustainability.
Representing numerous large healthcare providers as plaintiffs in connection with claims that MultiPlan orchestrated a nationwide conspiracy among healthcare payors—including all of the largest payors in the country—to use algorithmic software to artificially suppress reimbursements paid to healthcare providers for out-of-network healthcare services
Representing one of the largest property management companies in the United States in connection with allegations that property management companies used the same pricing algorithm to increase rental prices
Representing State Street Corporation in lawsuit brought by 13 state attorneys general concerning alleged conspiracy to cut coal production
Represented midstream natural gas company in merger control investigation before the Canadian Competition Bureau
Representing financial services company in multiple state attorney investigations and Congressional investigation
Represented insurance company in antitrust action involving allegations of price-fixing with other issuers of surety bonds
Represented maritime shipping company in merger control investigation into the creation of a joint venture
Education
Admissions
Client Alerts
Q2 2026 Healthcare Antitrust and Competition Update
The pace of policy initiatives, legislation, enforcement actions, and private litigation related to antitrust and competition in the healthcare sector …
August 24, 2026
August 24, 2026 • 14-minute read
Articles
First Payment Under DOJ Antitrust Whistleblower Rewards Program Highlights New Reporting Incentives
On January 29, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Antitrust Division, in partnership with the U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”), …
February 19, 2026
February 19, 2026 • 4-minute read
Articles
On September 5, 2025, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) formally abandoned its efforts to enforce a Biden-era final rule (“Rule”) implementing a blanket ban on most employee non-compete agreements. Instead, the FTC signaled its intent to challenge non-compete agreements on a case-by-case basis. To that end, the FTC announced an enforcement action challenging one company’s non-compete agreements, published a request for information (“RFI”) seeking the public’s input on non-compete provisions, sent warning letters to several health care companies regarding their employment agreements, and announced a future workshop on this subject. Together, these actions could mark the beginning of a new, more targeted enforcement landscape and create new uncertainties for employers on the legality of non-compete agreements.
October 1, 2025
October 1, 2025 • 3-minute read
Client Alerts
Court Serves Up Early Victory to FTC in First Robinson-Patman Act Enforcement Action in Decades
On April 17, 2025, a federal district court denied a motion to dismiss the first government enforcement action brought in decades under the Robinson-Patman Act (“RPA”), a statute that prohibits price discrimination and other anticompetitive distribution practices.
April 30, 2025 • Published by Law360, June 5, 2025
April 30, 2025 • 5-minute read
Client Alerts
As Donald J. Trump prepares to begin his second presidential administration on January 20, 2025, many Department of Justice (“DOJ”) priorities and policies are likely to change.
January 10, 2025 • V&E Government Investigations & White Collar Update
January 10, 2025 • 6-minute read
Deals & Cases
Vinson & Elkins Advises Diameter Capital on Investment in Delfin Midstream
Vinson & Elkins served as counsel to Diameter Capital in its investment in Delfin Midstream Inc. (“Delfin”). Delfin is developing …
July 31, 2026
July 31, 2026 • 1-minute read
Deals & Cases
Vinson & Elkins advised Lotus Infrastructure Partners, LLC, and MB Energy Holding GmbH & Co. KG in their entry into …
July 2, 2026
July 2, 2026 • 1-minute read
Deals & Cases
Vinson & Elkins Advises Goldman Sachs Alternatives on Acquisition of QScale
Vinson & Elkins represented Goldman Sachs Alternatives in connection with its acquisition of QScale, a leading Canadian developer and operator …
May 14, 2026
May 14, 2026 • 1-minute read
Firm News
Vinson & Elkins Attorneys Recognized on 2025 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll
The District of Columbia Courts have recognized 12 Vinson & Elkins attorneys on the 2025 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll, …
May 4, 2026
May 4, 2026 • 1-minute read
Deals & Cases
Vinson & Elkins Advises Blackstone on Acquisition of Shermco from Gryphon Investors
Vinson & Elkins advised Blackstone Inc. in its entry into an agreement to acquire Shermco Intermediate, LLC, a leading independent provider of electrical system maintenance, engineering, testing, and repair services for various industries across the U.S. and Canada, from funds managed by Gryphon Investors.
August 22, 2025
August 22, 2025 • 1-minute read
our People
Please note that any communication with Vinson & Elkins via e-mail through this website does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship with V&E. Please do not send any confidential information. A conflicts-of-interest procedure must be completed by V&E prior to establishment of an attorney-client relationship. When you execute an engagement letter from V&E you will be our client, and you may then exchange information freely with a V&E attorney.
By clicking “Accept,” you agree that we may review any information you transmit to us. You recognize that our review of your information, even if it is highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could and will be used against you.
