David C. Eddy

Attorney in Columbia, SC

David C. Eddy has been handling complex antitrust and other commercial litigation for clients for more than thirty years.

Mr. Eddy has extensive experience in litigation and counseling in matters of significant importance to clients in 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 antitrust, trademark, tort, and contract claims), governmental review of mergers and acquisitions (in diverse industries ranging from commercial aviation to petroleum refining and marketing), and Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice investigations.

Mr. Eddy focuses his practice on representing companies which have been victimized by illegal price-fixing, customer allocation, and other violations of the federal antitrust laws to obtain a fair recovery for their damages. Mr. Eddy has represented clients in antitrust matters in a diverse array of businesses, including ocean shipping, textiles, herbicides, chemicals, commercial airline manufacture, boats, timber, petroleum, fire arms, food products, trucking, electronic products, and polyurethane foam.

Mr. Eddy routinely provides antitrust transaction advice to clients on a range of issues, including pricing policies, distribution policies, licensing agreements, competitor collaboration, and joint ventures. Mr. Eddy has prepared antitrust compliance guidelines and provided antitrust compliance training seminars for numerous clients.

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

Career Highlights

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

Representative Matters

· Successful defense of two lawsuits filed by a major multi-national chemical company against our client, a major producer of herbicides and herbicide-resistant seeds, seeking in excess of a billion dollars in damages for alleged anticompetitive practices.

· Successful 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 purchaser of urethane chemicals in MDL 1616 - In re Urethane Chemicals Antitrust Litigation.

· Representing and advising companies 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.

· 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.


"Former Nexsen Pruet employee chases gold at the Olympics"
Former project assistant Jason Richardson wins a Silver Medal at the 2012 London Olympics.

Nexsen Pruet Earns Designation as 'Midlands Green Business'
Nexsen Pruet has earned designation as a Midlands Green Business, joining other Columbia-area organizations that are committed to environmentally responsible practices in the workplace.

"Price-fixing conspiracy case ended in top settlement"
The Article of the Week in the January 26th edition of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly about a Nexsen Pruet case. The article was entitled "Price-fixing conspiracy case ended in top settlement."


Mount Vernon Mills et al. v. Hoechst Celanese, et al.
Nexsen Pruet obtains significant discovery sanctions against defendants in polyester staple fiber antitrust litigation.

Mount Vernon Mills et al. v. Hoechst Celanese, et al.
Nexsen Pruet defeats motion to dismiss filed by German companies alleging lack of jurisdiction in polyester staple fiber antitrust case.

Mount Vernon Mills et al. v. Hoechst Celanese, et al.
Nexsen Pruet wins huge settlement for its textile company clients in polyester staple fiber antitrust litigation against Hoechst Celanese and related companies.

Marion Crane, Benjamin Porter, and Robert Taylor, Plaintiffs, v. International Paper Company and CWC of North Carolina, Inc., Defendants

Civic & Professional Memberships

· South Carolina Bar Association

· District of Columbia Bar Association

· American Bar Association - Antitrust Section

· Richland County Bar Association

Client Rating N/A help_info
Submit a client review

Peer Rating 5.0 of 5

Areas of Law

  • Antitrust and Unfair Competition
  • Business Disputes
  • Products Liability
  • Litigation
  • Mergers and 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


Special Counsel

Admission Details

Admitted in 1978, District of Columbia
2003, South Carolina
United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
United States Supreme Court

Law School Attended

George Washington University
Class of 1978
with honors

University Attended

Wesleyan University
Class of 1975
cum laude

Contact Information






Send email to David C. Eddy

Office Information
David C. Eddy
Special Counsel
 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.