Photo of Eli Nachmany

Eli Nachmany

Eli Nachmany is an associate in the firm’s Washington, DC, office. He advises clients on antitrust issues, administrative law, and complex civil litigation, with particular expertise in appellate matters. Eli works across industries, focusing primarily on sports and gaming.

Prior to joining the firm, Eli clerked for Judge Steven J. Menashi of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He was also an adjunct instructor at New York University, where he taught an undergraduate sports management course during the Spring 2023 semester about the NFL Draft. Eli’s writing on administrative law and executive power has appeared in the BYU Law Review, the George Mason Law Review, the Wake Forest Law Review, and the Yale Law Journal Forum.

Contact:Read more about Eli NachmanyEmail

The Northern District of Illinois recently denied certification to several proposed classes of purchasers of a seizure drug called Acthar in City of Rockford v. Mallinckrodt ARD, Inc., No. 3:17-cv-50107, 2024 WL 1363544 (Mar. 29, 2024).  Class plaintiffs had alleged that defendant Express Scripts, a drug distributor, conspired with Mallinckrodt, a drug manufacturer, to raise the price of Acthar through an exclusive distribution arrangement.  In denying certification to the damages classes, the court determined that plaintiffs had not met Rule 23(b)(3)’s predominance standard because they lacked a reliable economic model showing that damages were “capable of measurement on a classwide basis,” as required by Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27, 34 (2013).Continue Reading Court Denies Class Certification in Antitrust Case Based on Expert’s Reliance on Unsupported Assumptions in Damages Model

On December 28, the Western District of New York denied class certification in Miami Products & Chemical Co. v. Olin Corp, 1:19-cv-00385, an antitrust lawsuit alleging collusion over the price for caustic soda—a chemical used in various industries from pharmaceuticals to detergents.  The proposed class of caustic soda purchasers alleged that defendants, the largest soda manufacturers, colluded to increase prices through parallel public price announcements.  After closely scrutinizing the parties’ dueling economic expert reports, the court determined that plaintiffs had not satisfied the predominance standard of Rule 23(b)(3) as to questions of antitrust injury for two principal reasons.Continue Reading Rigorous Scrutiny of Expert Evidence Results in Denial of Caustic Soda Class Certification