John A. Francis
Of Counsel

Dale R. Harris
Senior Of Counsel
Kevin T. Teng
Of Counsel


Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP offers some of the most substantial antitrust expertise in the Rocky Mountain West.  We offer a full range of civil and criminal antitrust and trade regulation services, including complex  litigation, counseling, and representation before both federal and state enforcement agencies.

We handle major antitrust litigation of national significance, including class actions, civil and criminal trials, civil investigative demands, and grand jury investigations.  We also advise large and small companies on mergers and acquisitions, pricing, price discrimination, marketing and distribution practices, advertising, joint ventures, antitrust compliance, and internal audits.  In addition, we assist our clients in clearing transactions through the Hart-Scott-Rodino process and before the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice.

In recent years, we have successfully resolved a number of private antitrust lawsuits involving monopolization in the concert promotion, wine distribution, and health care industries as well as a monopolization claim against a municipality involving the casino industry.

November 2014

DGS Ranks Among Best Law Firms

Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP was named among the 2014-2015 “Best Law Firms” by publisher Woodward/White, Inc. in their fifth edition, which published today. U.S. News and Best Lawyers® have joined forces to position more than 11,000 firms in 87 practice areas based in 178 metropolitan areas and eight states. Firms were ranked across three tiers both locally and nationally based on quantitative and qualitative data gathered from peer and client feedback.

August 2010

Davis Graham & Stubbs Attorneys Top “Best Lawyers” List in Colorado

The newly announced, 2011 edition of the Best Lawyers in America ranks Davis Graham & Stubbs LLP first in Colorado-based law practices for corporate governance and compliance law, environmental law, mergers and acquisitions law, natural resources law, oil and gas law and securities law. This year Best Lawyers recognizes 36 DGS attorneys, including 13 who have been named to the list for at least 10 years. Nearly half (46 percent) of DGS partners are recognized in the definitive guide to legal excellence, in addition to several attorneys of counsel to the firm. Best Lawyers is a peer-review survey of more than 39,000 in-house counsels and private practice attorneys.


September 2006

Best Lawyers in America Recognizes 26 Davis Graham & Stubbs Attorneys

Twenty-six Davis Graham & Stubbs attorneys practicing in 28 fields will be recognized in the 2007 edition of The Best Lawyers in America. The number of DGS lawyers recognized in the definitive guide to legal excellence increased by five this year, and represents more than 40% of DGS partners overall. DGS ranks first in the number of Colorado-based attorneys listed by the 2007 edition of Best Lawyers in the Commercial Litigation, Natural Resources, Environmental Law, Securities Law and Corporate Governance and Compliance Law practice areas.


January 2001

2000 Amendments to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act

The recent amendments to the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act of 1976 (the "HSR Act"), which will take effect on February 1, 2001, promise to have a significant impact on the business and legal community by raising the threshold for the value of transactions that must be reported from $15 million to $50 million and requiring companies involved in larger deals to pay higher filing fees.


March 1992

Cost Containment, Alternative Delivery, and the Antitrust Laws - A Basic Guide for Antitrust Compliance

41 Group Practice Journal 1, 53 (1992)

Co-authors: John A. Francis and Howard Adler, Jr.

Soaring medical costs and the mounting pressure for cost containment have inspired departures from traditional methods of delivering health care services. Typically, these new methods entail cooperation among competing providers and the setting of preagreed actual or maximum charges for health care services. While efforts to lower health care costs are in the public interest, they enjoy no antitrust immunity; and the enforcement agencies and courts have delivered some mixed signals.


March 1991

Proximate Cause: A Growing Limitation on Civil RICO Actions

13 RICO Law Reporter 1,443 (1991)

Co-authors: John A. Francis and Howard Adler, Jr.

Few statutes have been more roundly criticized than RICO. Its application to broad areas of business conduct has transformed many common law fraud and breach of contract suits into federal cases for treble damages. However, since 1985 when the Supreme Court decided Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985), a trend has begun in the federal courts that promises to impose some limitation on the expansive reach of civil RICO. Sedima established a proximate cause requirement that has led many federal courts to require civil RICO plaintiffs to prove a direct casual connection between the alleged predicate acts and the plaintiff's injury in order to survive a pre-trial motion for dismissal.