Photo of Christopher E. Ondeck

Christopher E. Ondeck

Chris Ondeck is head of the Washington, DC office and co-head of the Firm’s Antitrust Group. Chris is one of the most highly rated antitrust trial lawyers in the United States. Chris was named Antitrust Litigator of the Year in 2025 by Benchmark Litigation. Chris was also named a 2024 Law360 Competition MVP, and a finalist for the National Winning Litigator Award by The National Law Journal in 2024.

In 2023, Chris won the largest antitrust jury trial of the year, and one of the largest in history, by defending Sanderson Farms as the sole non-settling defendant where the direct purchaser plaintiffs alleged $7 billion in damages. The significance of the trial victory was widely reported by Reuters, Bloomberg Law, Law360 and other publications, calling it a “blockbuster case.” Law360 noted that Chris “blasted” the plaintiffs’ assertions at trial and called it one of the biggest trial decisions of the year. Chris and his team were named Litigators of the Week by the American Lawyer.

Chris is a go-to litigator for clients in high-profile antitrust matters, including litigations, government investigations, and merger reviews. He also has 30-years’ expertise with the Capper-Volstead Act’s application and interpretation for agricultural cooperatives and serves as outside counsel to a large number of industry groups, including trade associations and cooperatives.

Chris’ achievements have received recognition in many legal publications including Chambers, where clients described him as "our primary thought partner - he's very good at explaining the complex issues and making them easy to understand" and praising "his strong advocacy skills"; by The National Law Review as a “Go To Thought Leader”; by Acritas as a “Star” for multiple years; by Benchmark Litigation as a Litigation Star; and by The Legal 500 United States for Antitrust: Civil Litigation/Class Actions.

Contact:Read more about Christopher E. Ondeck

Full Defense Verdict in One of the Largest-Ever Agriculture Industry Antitrust Trials in the U.S.

NEW YORK, October 26, 2023 – Proskauer, a leading international law firm, announced today that it secured a landmark victory for Sanderson Farms in a blockbuster broiler chicken antitrust conspiracy case. Following a six-week trial, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois delivered a full defense verdict, rejecting the Plaintiffs’ claims that alleged that Sanderson Farms participated in a supply reduction conspiracy with other producers in the broiler industry between 2008 and 2012.

As this year’s roundtable of enforcers demonstrated, big business is probably antitrust enforcers’ greatest fear. Spring in Washington means Cherry blossoms and antitrust. And last week, 3,700 antitrust lawyers and government officials from around the globe descended on Washington to visit the Cherry blossoms and discuss how they need more government intervention to make the economy work for everybody and need to bring ever more “plausible” cases in order to nudge and push the courts along.

The good news though is that many of these same enforcers recognize that courts are not ready or willing to accept a more aggressive antitrust enforcement regime; that courts are largely standing in the way of any immediate and major changes to antitrust doctrine and law; and that courts and not enforcers have the final say.

On May 24, 2022, the FTC announced a widespread inquiry into the ongoing infant formula shortage. The agency had been tasked by the White House with investigating any price gouging or unfair market practices in the industry. The agency is seeking public comments on “various factors that may have contributed to the infant formula shortage…as well as its impact on families and retailers.”

In its press release, the agency identified issues of particular concern, including:

  • Fraud, deception, or scams consumers may have experienced when trying to buy infant formula,
  • Retailers’ experiences since the formula recall began in February,
  • How mergers and acquisitions, and FDA regulations, have affected the number of suppliers of infant formula, capital investment in the market, and the overall manufacturing capacity of suppliers, and
  • Whether regulatory barriers have blocked non-US companies from entrance to the market.

The FTC has announced penalties in two separate enforcement actions totaling almost $2 million for alleged violations of the HSR Act. The matters: U.S. v. Clarence L. Werner c/o Werner Enterprises, Inc.; and U.S. v. Biglari Holdings Inc. include claims of failures to file notification under the HSR Act and failures to observe the required…

As mentioned in our previous post, the legality of state Governors’ emergency powers have come under scrutiny during the pandemic. Michigan’s Supreme Court, for example, recently struck down Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s emergency powers. The Hawaii Circuit Court, however, recently dismissed a legal challenge to Hawaii Governor David Ige’s emergency powers. In response to the victory, Hawaii Attorney General Clare Connors stated “[t]his decision sends an important message at an important time—the Governor’s emergency proclamations are lawful. By continuing to follow these rules, all residents and visitors protect each other and promote public health during this pandemic crisis.”

As annual supply contracts come up for renewal, businesses may be wondering whether price increases for annual contracts are permitted under the panoply of price gouging laws currently in effect. Parties may want to negotiate contracts with “normal” price increases, operating under the assumption that, at some point during the contract year, price controls will expire. But if states of emergency remain in effect when the new contract prices become effective, parties can find themselves facing questions about how the agreement can be carried out.

With the federal government’s increasing focus on enforcing price gouging compliance, attention has turned to the Defense Production Act (the “DPA”). Passed in 1950 in response to the Korean War, the DPA is modelled on the War Powers Acts of 1941 and 1942 and gives the President, among other things, sweeping power to control the…

As state investigators across the country launch price gouging investigations, one thing is becoming clear – state price gouging investigations can look a lot like antitrust investigations. Price gouging enforcement is at an all-time high, and more and more it is being combined with antitrust and unfair trade practice investigations. This overlap can be bad news for companies facing potential price gouging claims, and it further highlights the need for compliance with both price gouging and antitrust statutes. This article explores the interaction between antitrust enforcement and price gouging enforcement, and sets forth key issue-spotting guidance for companies that are potentially impacted.

In the wake of the coronavirus pandemic’s ravage on industries, markets, and entire economies, businesses are seeking help from the government, whether in the form of a bailout or some regulatory accommodation. Industries from nearly every sector of the economy – from travel to communications, and from health insurance to fishing – are lobbying the government. They want relief in the form of, to name a few, changes to immigration laws, relief from credit card transaction fees, tax incentives, and inclusion in the federal stimulus package.

As businesses across the globe grapple with the changing realities presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, U.S. and international antitrust enforcers have warned that business should continue to mind the antitrust laws. Global enforcers are also focusing on the role competition laws play as industries – both essential and hard-hit – grapple with the new environment.