Contact Us Immediately

Criminal Antitrust Attorneys
205-502-2000

Navigation

Skip to content
  • Antitrust Law
  • Antitrust Statutes
    • Sherman Act
      • Section 1 – Trusts, restraint of trade
      • Section 2 – Monopolization
      • Forfeiture
      • Wilson-Tariff Act
      • Trade with Foreign Nations
    • Clayton Act
      • Directors and Officers
      • Mergers and Acquisitions
      • Exclusive Dealing
      • Price Discrimination
  • Antitrust Common Schemes
    • Bid Rigging
      • Bid Rotation
      • Bid Suppression
      • Complementary Bidding
      • Subcontracting
    • Cartels
    • Conscious Parallelism
    • In the news
      • EA Sports
      • Google
      • Visa, MasterCard
    • Market Allocation Schemes
    • Monopolies and Oligopolies
    • Price Fixing
    • Refusal to Deal
  • Antitrust Investigations
    • Agencies
    • Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Blog
  • Antitrust Defenses
    • Absence of Agreement
      • Common Indicators of Collusion
      • Example – License Agreement
      • Innocent Monopoly
    • Foreign Compulsion
    • Double Jeopardy
    • Cost Justification
    • Selective Prosecution
    • Other Defenses
  • Antitrust Sentencing
    • Statutory Provisions
    • Sentencing Guidelines
    • Variance
  • Related Offenses
  • State Charges
    • California
    • Illinois
    • Texas
    • New York
    • Florida
    • Georgia
    • Alabama
  • White Collar Crime

Site Map

  • Antitrust Common Schemes
    • Bid Rigging
      • Bid Rotation
      • Bid Suppression
      • Complementary Bidding
      • Subcontracting
    • Cartels
    • Conscious Parallelism
    • In the news
      • EA Sports
      • Google
      • Visa, MasterCard
    • Market Allocation Schemes
    • Monopolies and Oligopolies
    • Price Fixing
    • Refusal to Deal
  • Antitrust Defenses
    • Absence of Agreement
      • Common Indicators of Collusion
      • Example – License Agreement
      • Innocent Monopoly
    • Cost Justification
    • Double Jeopardy
    • Foreign Compulsion
    • Other Defenses
    • Selective Prosecution
  • Antitrust Investigations
    • Agencies
    • Policy
  • Antitrust Sentencing
    • Sentencing Guidelines
    • Statutory Provisions
    • Variance
  • Antitrust Statutes
    • Clayton Act
      • Directors and Officers
      • Exclusive Dealing
      • Mergers and Acquisitions
      • Price Discrimination
    • Sherman Act
      • Forfeiture
      • Section 1 – Trusts, restraint of trade
      • Section 2 – Monopolization
      • Trade with Foreign Nations
      • Wilson-Tariff Act
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
  • Disclaimer
  • Related Offenses
  • State Charges
    • Alabama
    • California
    • Florida
    • Georgia
    • Illinois
    • New York
    • Texas
  • Thank You
  • Antitrust Law
  • Firm Overview
  • DO YOU HAVE A CASE?










  • FIRM HEADQUARTERS

    Jim Parkman
    Parkman White, LLP
    1929 3rd Ave. North, Suite 700
    Birmingham AL 35203
    P: 205-502-2000
    F: 800-737-1640

    E-Mail Us | Birmingham Law Office
  • © 2015 by Parkman White, LLP. All rights reserved. Disclaimer | Site Map

    The criminal defense team of Parkman White, LLP defends clients nationwide on state and federal charges, and in federal criminal appeals. We have represented the accused in Birmingham, Dothan, Mobile, Montgomery, Miami, Memphis, Tampa, Pensacola, Orlando, Jacksonville, Tallahassee, Jackson, Mobile, Huntsville, Tuscaloosa, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Tucson, Detroit, New York, Cleveland, Baton Rouge, Charlotte, throughout Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Florida, and Tennessee, and across the United States.

    These recoveries and testimonials are not an indication of future results. Every case is different, and regardless of what friends, family, or other individuals may say about what a case is worth, each case must be evaluated on its own facts and circumstances as they apply to the law. The valuation of a case depends on the facts, the injuries, the jurisdiction, the venue, the witnesses, the parties, and the testimony, among other factors. Furthermore, no representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.