Photo of Stephen R. Chuk

Stephen R. Chuk

Subscribe to Stephen R. Chuk's Posts

Stephen Chuk is a Partner in Proskauer’s Antitrust and Sports Groups, representing clients in their most high-stakes antitrust and competition matters. A trusted advisor to general counsel and senior executives, he regularly defends clients facing criminal and regulatory investigations by the U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, and state attorneys general.

Stephen has defended clients against allegations of price fixing, monopolization, group boycott and bid rigging, managing sophisticated antitrust disputes from inception through trial. In 2023, he was a lead member of the trial team that secured a landmark defense victory for Sanderson Farms, defeating $7 billion in damages claims after a six-week jury trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

His accomplishments have earned him recognition as one of the leading young antitrust litigators in the country. Most recently, Stephen was selected as a Rising Star by Law360, named to Benchmark Litigation’s “40 & Under List” and recognized in Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in America for 2026.

In addition to his antitrust work, Stephen counsels clients on consumer protection and marketing practices, including false advertising disputes. He has handled precedent-setting matters before the FTC and state attorneys general, giving him valuable insight into the intersection of competition and consumer protection enforcement and enabling him to equip clients with practical, business-focused strategies to manage overlapping risks.

Contact:Read more about Stephen R. Chuk

Anyone who watches Survivor or Game of Thrones knows that alliances are critical. And while they may be necessary to endure from one day to the next, alliances are inevitably broken.

Co-defendants in antitrust cases can draw lessons from these shows. Like alliances, joint defense agreements (“JDA” or “JDAs”) help facilitate defendants’ common interests. JDAs create efficiencies and cost savings by “present[ing] a pooling of resources, a healthy exchange of vital information, a united front against a common litigious foe, and the marshaling of legal talent and advice.” Lugosch v. Congel. Under the right circumstances, JDAs also serve the vital purpose of allowing defendants to realize those benefits without waiving privilege. Id.

Recent federal court opinions dismissing cases under Rule 12(b)(6) may provide an early off-ramp for antitrust defendants where a roadblock has often existed. Courts are increasingly dismissing cases at the 12(b)(6) stage for failure to properly plead market definition and therefore failing to meet the requirements of Twombly as to the market definition allegations of a Sherman Act claim. Antitrust plaintiffs are finding that it is progressively more difficult to proceed to discovery if the alleged product or geographic market is narrowly defined – a tactic that has frequently been used in support of allegations that an antitrust defendant has market power or to exclude potentially competing products that would decrease the alleged market share at issue. Three recent examples raise the question of whether this trend is here to stay.