Client Alerts
The EU’s Guidelines on Abusive Exclusionary Conduct
On 3 September 2026, the European Commission issued guidelines1 on how exclusionary conduct by dominant firms is assessed under EU …
October 6, 2026
October 6, 2026 • 10-minute read
Partner
Commercial & Business Litigation
“l want my clients to know I understand their business and where they’re coming from. I want to learn what they do, how they do it, and why they do it. I talk to everyone I can, from the general counsel to the front lines—because if I’m going to tell my client’s story, I need to be able to do it in their voice.”
Chambers USA, 2022–2026
Jason Powers, the co-head of the firm’s Antitrust practice group, is a trial lawyer handling complex business controversies, including competition law matters, consumer class action and multi-district litigation defense, and disputes over joint ventures and major investments.
Jason represents clients in a variety of industries, including energy, retail, health care, agriculture, transportation, and technology. His practice often involves collaborating with economists and other experts to develop sophisticated market analyses, assess damage models, and orient juries to unique or technical business environments. His work is recognized in numerous publications, including a jury trial verdict listed in Texas Lawyer’s Texas Verdict Hall of Fame.
Jason serves on the Board of Directors of the Houston Urban Debate League, a nonprofit organization that champions interscholastic debate programs in inner-city schools. He is a former Chair of the Houston Bar Association Antitrust & Trade Regulation Section and a former Editorial Board member of The Antitrust Practitioner, a committee publication of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law.
Pharmacy “U&C” Class Action: Defended a regional pharmacy in a putative class action alleging the pharmacy had deceptively overcharged patients under “usual and customary” pricing rules, allegedly affecting more than $1 billion in patient copayments; teamed with other V&E attorneys to defeat the claims on summary judgment and moot the plaintiff’s class certification effort
Wagyu monopolization: Successfully represented producer of Akaushi Beef against claims of conspiracy to restrain trade and monopolization in the market for premium beef in the United States; after a seven day trial, the jury found in favor of the client, awarding both actual and exemplary damages on the client’s counterclaim
RICO and fraud claims: Defended a public company against claims that its former officers used the company’s stock in a criminal scheme to entice investors to participate in the officers’ separate business enterprise; managed the defense of seven federal court lawsuits seeking more than $1.3 billion in damages in a multidistrict litigation proceeding; teamed with other V&E lawyers to obtain a highly favorable settlement
Algorithmic pricing antitrust litigation: Successfully defended a nationwide operator of student-focused apartment homes against claims that it used revenue management software to coordinate prices with competitors; worked with other defendants to obtain dismissal of the claims under Rule 12(b)(6)
Airline capacity litigation: Defended a major airline against claims that it conspired with other airlines to reduce capacity and increase fares; worked with other V&E lawyers to position the matter for a favorable settlement while other defendants faced years of litigation
Antitrust consumer class action: Defended a Fortune 500 auto retailer against consumer classes alleging price-fixing and deceptive trade practices; briefed and helped to obtain reversal of federal court class certification of antitrust claims; helped obtain approval for a favorable class settlement in state court; oversaw the class notice and administration process on behalf of the settling defendants
Retail monopolization: Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a bankrupted produce supplier’s Sherman Act Section 1 (distribution channel foreclosure), Sherman Act Section 2 (attempted monopolization), and Clayton Act Section 7 (merger-to-monopoly) claims against a large grocery chain; demonstrated that limitations barred supplier’s claims, notwithstanding its “continuing violation” theory, and that supplier lacked antitrust standing to pursue retail monopolization claims
Aquaculture monopolization: Successfully defended the world’s leading shrimp broodstock supplier against claims that it used restrictive covenants and non-compete agreements to monopolize and restrain trade in key lines of Pacific White shrimp
Pipeline distribution monopolization: Successfully defended a major midstream operator against claims that it used a leading position in crude oil distribution to monopolize related storage terminal businesses; positioned the matter for a nonmonetary settlement that preserved the operator’s control over its system
Economic credentialing: Successfully defended a general hospital against state court antitrust claims brought by a physician who became ineligible to practice at the hospital after he acquired a competing specialty hospital; preserved the general hospital’s conflict of interest policy, defeating a request for injunction sought under state antitrust law and state health codes
Bundling: Represented a global medical products manufacturer in federal court litigation alleging that the manufacturer’s product bundling and exclusive-distribution discounting violated antitrust law and excluded competing sellers; teamed with other V&E lawyers to obtain a highly favorable settlement
Hospital acquisition: Successfully defended a state court antitrust action to enjoin a hospital acquisition, allowing the merger to go forward without restrictions
Compliance: Designed and presented an antitrust compliance program for a large integrated chemicals concern, speaking on compliance issues to thousands of employees across the U.S
Sales channel contract dispute: Defended a national gasoline retailer against an ATM supplier seeking tens of millions of dollars in damages over a nationwide contract for a sales channel presence in the retailer’s stores; teamed up with other V&E lawyers to obtain a take-nothing award in a CPR arbitration over breach of contract, tort, and RICO claims
Freedom of Information Act: Represented an industry trade group in litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture to protect the confidentiality of sensitive retail sales data held by the federal government; obtained injunction to protect the data from public disclosure
National Advertising Division false-advertising claims: On behalf of a major grocer, pursued relief against competitors making false price superiority claims in national ad campaigns; obtained NAD directive to the competitors to modify their ads
Distributor Termination: Defended a major agricultural producer against contract claims by an international distributor in federal district court; defeated the distributor’s request for an injunction that would have forced the producer to continue supplying the distributor, then defeated most of the distributor’s damages claim on summary judgment, positioning the matter for a favorable settlement
M&A environmental indemnity dispute: Defended a chemicals distributor against claims that it was obligated to indemnify its former parent company for the parent’s environmental cleanup costs; defeated the plaintiff’s claim on summary judgment in Delaware Superior Court and then argued the appeal to the Delaware Supreme Court, obtaining complete affirmance
M&A asbestos indemnity dispute: Defended the buyer of an automotive and aeronautical parts manufacturer against claims that it owed indemnity obligations to the company’s seller; worked with other V&E lawyers to obtain a Texas Supreme Court ruling that our client was not subject to personal jurisdiction in Texas
Business disparagement and trademark interference: Defended a trademark owner against claims that it interfered with the development of an electronic marketplace service, resulting in the closure of the business; positioned the dispute for a favorable settlement securing the client’s trademark rights and resolving parallel proceedings in federal district court, federal bankruptcy court, and Patent & Trademark Office proceedings
HMO patient dumping: Represented a premier pediatric hospital pursuing state court claims against a health maintenance organization for millions of dollars in uncompensated emergency care provided to its members; worked with other V&E lawyers to recover for past services and establish a new going-forward business relationship between the hospital and the HMO
False Claims Act: Defended a government contractor against allegations of falsifying and manipulating records to overcharge the government; reached a settlement under which all qui tam claims were dismissed without any payment to the government
E&P spinoff dispute: Represented a publicly traded international gas producer in a dispute with its former parent company, defending the producer’s ownership of its key oil and gas assets and blocking the former parent’s attempt to re-assert control of the spun-off company; worked with a team of V&E lawyers to defend five separate lawsuits and arbitration proceedings in two states involving allegations of breach of contract, torts, mineral title disputes, and shareholder derivative claims; helped position the suits for a settlement to which the market responded with immediate and significant gains in the client’s share price
AMI litigation: Retained by an unconventional producer to step into a three-year-old dispute its new subsidiary faced over an alleged area of mutual interest (AMI) in the Fayetteville Shale. With trial approaching, worked with other V&E lawyers to negotiate a settlement that unwound the AMI, preserved the client’s key assets and its rights to continue its development program, and resulted in dismissal of parallel proceedings in two states
Asset sale price adjuster dispute: Represented a multinational energy company in federal court contract litigation in California over the sale of its oil producing assets; teamed with other V&E lawyers to defeat the opponent’s eight-figure damages claim based on a price adjuster clause in the sale agreement; then recovered an additional eight-figure settlement in our client’s favor on its counterclaims
Chemical products litigation: Represented a large refiner in seven lawsuits brought by end users over alleged defects in plastic resins, all of which were defeated on summary judgment or settled on highly favorable terms
Energy trading venture: In a $250 million ICDR arbitration, defended a Fortune 100 energy company against its partner’s allegations that it breached fiduciary duties in the management of one of the nation’s largest energy traders; helped obtain a favorable settlement to resolve the litigation and facilitate the wind down of the joint venture
Vanishing premium litigation: Represented a multinational life insurer in a putative consumer class action involving claims in contract, good faith and fair dealing, and unjust enrichment; obtained summary judgment in Texas state court, and then successfully argued to uphold the decision in the Austin Court of Appeals
ATM consumer fee class: Defended a large retail chain against allegations that it failed to comply with the Federal Reserve Board’s fee disclosure requirements for automatic teller machine operators; developed evidence that positioned the case for a favorable settlement
Financial derivatives dispute: Defended a major investment bank against claims that it failed to adequately advise the City of New Orleans with a respect to variable-rate municipal bonds and related interest rate swaps, allegedly causing more than $160 million in damages; tried the case in federal district court and obtained a highly favorable settlement while awaiting judgment
10b-5 claims: Represented a large software company in putative class securities fraud litigation, teaming up with other V&E lawyers to successfully obtain dismissal under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and cut off a potential eleven-figure damages claim
Wrongful buyout claims: Defended limited partners against a state court lawsuit alleging that they conspired to squeeze out a fellow partner prior to selling the partnership entity for a gain; drew on the partnership documents and plaintiff’s conduct to contest the plaintiff’s fraud and fiduciary duty theories, positioning the case for a favorable settlement
Internal investigation: Participated in an audit committee investigation of accounting irregularities at a safety products manufacturer, helping to turn up evidence and information needed to complete the manufacturer’s independent audit process, so that financial statements could be issued to investors and filed with the SEC
Education
Admissions
Client Alerts
The EU’s Guidelines on Abusive Exclusionary Conduct
On 3 September 2026, the European Commission issued guidelines1 on how exclusionary conduct by dominant firms is assessed under EU …
October 6, 2026
October 6, 2026 • 10-minute read
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
Client Alerts
FTC’s FY 2026-2030 Strategic Plan: Strong Enforcement Signals Despite Business-Friendly Tone
By Jason Powers, Adam Hudes, Nicole Castle, Reese Poncia, and Stephen Creighton* Overview The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) recently issued …
July 21, 2026
July 21, 2026 • 3-minute read
Client Alerts
Q1 2026 Healthcare Antitrust and Competition Update
The healthcare sector accounts for an increasingly significant component of the U.S. economy. Healthcare spending constitutes 18.0 percent of U.S. …
May 19, 2026
May 19, 2026 • 11-minute read
Event Recaps
This program provided in-house counsel with a practical, issue-spotting framework for identifying and managing the antitrust, consumer protection, and securities litigation risks that arise from corporate ESG and sustainability initiatives.
May 14, 2026
May 14, 2026 • 1-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Legal 500 US 2026 recommended Vinson & Elkins as a leading law firm in 47 practice categories. In total, …
June 10, 2026
June 10, 2026 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Vinson & Elkins announced today that it achieved 20 Band 1 rankings in Chambers USA 2026: Nationwide: Energy Transition; Energy: …
June 4, 2026
June 4, 2026 • 3-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Global Competition Review Recognizes Vinson & Elkins in 2026 Edition of GCR 100
Global Competition Review (GCR) has recognized Vinson & Elkins in the 26th edition of its annual GCR 100.
December 4, 2025
December 4, 2025 • 1-minute read
Awards & Rankings
Lawdragon Names 34 Vinson & Elkins Lawyers to Its 2026 500 Leading Litigators in America Guide
Lawdragon has recognized 34 Vinson & Elkins attorneys in its 2026 500 Leading Litigators in America guide.
September 12, 2025
September 12, 2025 • 1-minute read
Awards & Rankings
The Best Lawyers in America (BL Rankings, LLC) has named 125 Vinson & Elkins lawyers in its “Best Lawyers” category in the 2026 edition. Additionally, 76 Vinson & Elkins attorneys have been named in the “Ones to Watch” category, which recognizes lawyers with 5–10 years’ experience. Some individuals are listed in more than one practice area, giving the firm a total of 305 rankings.
August 21, 2025
August 21, 2025 • 3-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.