Elyse M. Greenwald

 
 

Elyse Greenwald defends corporate clients in complex civil antitrust litigation in state and federal court as part of Latham’s nationally recognized Antitrust & Competition Practice.

Ms. Greenwald helps clients navigate complex commercial and antitrust litigation matters including multi-district litigation, class actions, and strategic business-to-business litigation related to claims of:

  • Monopolization and attempted monopolization
  • Monopsonization
  • Price-fixing
  • Conspiracy
  • Refusal to deal
  • Predatory pricing
  • Fraud
  • Claims brought under state unfair competition laws

She draws on experience across a range of industries — including communications, healthcare, agricultural commodities, automotive, and technology — and has achieved significant victories for clients at all stages of litigation, including through dispositive motion practice, at trial, and through settlement.

Ms. Greenwald also maintains a robust pro bono practice. She has partnered with the Boston chapters of the ACLU, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, and NAACP LDF to challenge a Boston-area charter school’s discriminatory grooming policy. She also regularly represents clients in immigration proceedings.

Prior to joining the firm, Ms. Greenwald clerked for Judge Garland E. Burrell Jr. in the Eastern District of California and externed for Judge Joseph C. Spero, a Magistrate Judge in the Northern District of California.

Ms. Greenwald’s matters include representing:

  • Cox Media Group, in a complex multidistrict litigation alleging price fixing and information exchange violations arising out of a Department of Justice investigation into local television advertising sales practices
  • Ford Motor Company, in an antitrust consumer class action brought under California’s Cartwright Act in the complex litigation department of the San Francisco Superior Court
  • General Electric and GE Healthcare, in a putative antitrust class action in which the plaintiffs, a hospital and surgery center, alleged that GE monopolized the aftermarket for anesthesia services; the parties reached a confidential settlement after GE filed a successful motion to compel mediation shortly after the complaint was filed
  • Ocean Spray Cranberries, in defense of an antitrust class action brought by cranberry growers; the court dismissed 10 of the 13 counts against Ocean Spray, denied plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and granted Ocean Spray’s motion for summary judgment on plaintiffs’ monopolization claim
  • Olam Peanut Shelling Company, the US subsidiary of Olam International, against allegations of price-fixing brought in the Eastern District of Virginia; the matter settled favorably prior to trial
  • Oracle and NetSuite, in a week-long federal jury trial in the Northern District of California, defending against claims of fraud brought by a former NetSuite customer; after excluding plaintiff’s damages expert before trial, the jury returned a complete defense verdict for Oracle and NetSuite after deliberating for little more than an hour
  • Oracle, in a putative class action in the Northern District of California; the plaintiffs alleged that Oracle entered into agreements with other technology companies not to hire or solicit each other’s employees in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and California law; the court granted Oracle’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and entered judgment in Oracle’s favor
  • Surescripts, a pioneer of electronic prescribing, in lawsuits brought by the Federal Trade Commission and civil follow-on plaintiffs, alleging monopolization of e-prescription markets through allegedly exclusionary contracts
 
 
 
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.