David C. Eddy

Attorney in Columbia, SC
Highly Effective Counsel for Highly Complex Matters

For more than thirty years, David Eddy has been representing clients in complex antitrust and other major commercial litigation in federal and state courts throughout the United States, including plaintiff antitrust litigation, nationwide and regional antitrust class actions (including price-fixing, tie-in, and exclusive dealing claims), nationwide product liability class actions, large corporate antitrust litigation (including trademark, tort, and contract claims), and Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice investigations. David has represented clients in antitrust matters in a diverse array of industries, including ocean shipping, textiles, herbicides, chemicals, railroad freight, commercial airline manufacture, boats, timber, petroleum, fire arms, food products, trucking, electronic products, and polyurethane foam.

Working for Victims of Antitrust Law Violations

In 2000, David made a significant change in the focus of his practice when he moved to South Carolina to join Nexsen Pruet as Co-Chair of its Antitrust Practice Group. David leads a team of antitrust attorneys who develop comprehensive legal solutions for clients facing a wide range of issues related to federal and state antitrust laws. The primary focus of David's practice is on representing, as plaintiffs, companies which seek to recover damages because they were significant purchasers of products or services impacted by price-fixing, bid-rigging, customer allocation, and/or other violations of federal and state antitrust laws.

David has been the lead lawyer in many of the firm's biggest matters. David's clients range from major Fortune 50 companies to small privately-held businesses. David's clients have come to know David for his fierce commitment to delivering results in a responsive, timely, and efficient manner.

David also regularly advises clients on pricing policies, distribution policies, licensing agreements, competitor collaboration, and joint ventures and has prepared antitrust compliance guidelines and provided antitrust compliance training seminars for numerous clients.

Prior to joining Nexsen Pruet in 2000, David was a partner in the law firm of Howrey, LLP in Washington, D.C.

Born in Wisconsin, David graduated from Wesleyan University,cum laude, and the George Washington University National Law Center, with honors. He moved to South Carolina in 2000.

NotableSuccessful prosecution and settlement of claims for more than $80 million in MDL 1516.In re Polyester Staple Fiber Antitrust Litigation on behalf of more than twenty textile, non-woven, and carpet companies located in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina for price-fixing and customer allocation.
•Representation of fifteen major customers (including Fortune 500 consumer products, food and retail companies, and diverse non-vessel operating common carriers) in their lawsuit seeking to recover damages caused by a six-year conspiracy to fix rates and surcharges on ocean shipping between the U.S. and Puerto Rico.
•Representation of direct action plaintiff affected by a conspiracy to fix prices of urethane chemicals in MDL 1616 -In re Urethane Chemicals Antitrust Litigation.
•Representation of bedding company plaintiffs which were impacted by an alleged ten-year conspiracy to fix the prices of polyurethane foam in connection with MDL 2196 -In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litigation.
•Representing and advising companies which were injured by an alleged conspiracy of the four major class 1 railroads in the U.S. to raise rail freight rates through the adoption of stand-alone revenue-based fuel surcharges in connection with MDL 1869 -In re Rail Freight Surcharge Antitrust Litigation.
•Approved as class counsel for a certified class of timber owners in four states in the Southeast U.S. in a case alleging price suppression of pulpwood timber purchased by the world's largest paper and wood products company. After a litigation class was certified, the Court approved a class settlement of $12.4 million.
•Successful defense of two lawsuits filed by a major multi-national chemical company seeking in excess of a billion dollars in damages for alleged anticompetitive practices against our client, a major producer of herbicides and herbicide-resistant seeds.

Outside Nexsen Pruet

David enjoys spending time with family, his dogs, sailing, reading, and enjoying life.

Speaking & Writing


Member of Panel at the 16th Annual ABA National Institute on Class Actions, Sifting Through All the Big Shoulders. Litigating Class Actions Alongside Opt-Outs - Free-Riding or Riding Shotgun

Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Class Actions
  • Antitrust Litigation
  • Antitrust Counseling and Government Investigations
  • Litigation
  • Antitrust & Unfair Competition
  • Products Liability
  • Business Disputes
  • Mergers & Acquisitions


Peer Rating


Overall Peer Rating

5.0 out of 5.0
  • Meets very high criteria of general ethical standards
No feedback is available.
The individuals that have reviewed this lawyer have not provided any additional feedback.

Experience & Credentials



Admission Details

Admitted in South Carolina
District of Columbia
United States Court of Appeals
Fourth Circuit
District of Columbia
United States Supreme Court

Law School Attended

George Washington University
Class of 1978
with honors

University Attended

Wesleyan University
Class of 1975
cum laude

Associations & Memberships

Civic & Professional MembershipsSouth Carolina Bar Association
•District of Columbia Bar Association
•American Bar Association - Antitrust Section
R... More

Contact Information






Send email to David C. Eddy

Office Information
David C. Eddy
 1230 Main Street, Suite 700,
Columbia, SC 29201


Nexsen Pruet, LLC (Columbia, South Carolina)

About Client Rating
About Peer Rating

Welcome to Martindale-Hubbell® Client Review, a new ratings service that allows you to view and provide feedback on a lawyer or law firm on service and relationship qualities such as Communication Ability, Responsiveness, Quality of Service, and Value for Money.

Determining a Rating

The Client Review Rating is determined through aggregation of validated responses. This compilation of Client Reviews translates to a numerical rating and associate descriptive term on a scale of 1 -5. 1 being lowest as "Rated" and 5 being highest as "Preeminent".

  • 4.5-5.0 Preeminent
  • 3.0-4.4 Distinguished
  • 1-2.9 Rated

Martindale-Hubbell uses a third-party resource to validate that the respondent is a living person, but cannot confirm the lawyer/client relationship, which in many cases is confidential. Clients must affirm that they are a client of the lawyer or firm identified for review at the time of the completed Client Review.

The Reviewers

Those who complete Client Reviews are clients of law firms who hired a lawyer within the last year, whose matter is not pending, and want to share their experience of that lawyer or law firm with other potential clients. Reviewers can be of any type from in-house counsel, corporate executives, small business owners to private individuals, and even sometimes another lawyer in a different jurisdiction.


Client Reviews are anonymous and reviewers' identities are not published; however a summary of basic demographics will be part of the display of responses.

Why do we collect demographics as part of the review?

Those who are researching a lawyer or law firm like to see that there are other clients who might be "like them". This is valuable information contributing to the decision-making process of hiring a lawyer.

Martindale-Hubbell's role

Martindale-Hubbell facilitates the process of Client Review by gathering responses, validating them and aggregating results for display online. The content of the responses are entirely from reviewers, the clients of the firm or lawyer.

It is important to note that Martindale-Hubbell does not undertake to develop Client Reviews for all firms and lawyers. Therefore, the fact that a firm or lawyer has not been reviewed should not be construed unfavorably. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome and Martindale-Hubbell accepts no responsibility for the content or accuracy of any review over which Martindale-Hubbell exercises no editorial review or control.