Leaders to Watch: Lorenzo Vasselli
Senior Associate Lorenzo Vasselli is an economist specializing in antitrust issues. He advises clients on complex questions involving mergers, cartels, abuse of dominance, competition litigation, and international arbitration.
In this Q&A, Lorenzo reflects on the analytical challenges of isolating competitive effects, shares insights from his work on the landmark McLaren v. MOL case before the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal, and examines the evolving role of economic evidence in competition proceedings.
What types of complex questions or problems do clients most often bring to you, and why are they particularly challenging?
As an antitrust economist, clients typically seek my expertise to assess the competitive impact of mergers, anticompetitive agreements, and abuse of dominance.
In recent years, I have worked extensively on class actions and broader competition litigation, focusing on quantifying the economic harm suffered by consumers or firms as a result of alleged anticompetitive conduct. These matters are particularly complex, requiring robust economic analysis to isolate the true effects of the conduct from unrelated demand and supply factors. I have also been involved in several international arbitration cases, where I assessed whether non-compete clauses had been breached in the context of post-M&A and commercial disputes.
Can you share an example of a recent project that illustrates how you help clients navigate antitrust challenges?
A recent example is my work on McLaren v. MOL et al., the first follow-on cartel collective action to reach trial before the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). I supported one of the defendants in a claim brought by the class representative on behalf of UK consumers and businesses alleging they had overpaid for vehicles due to a cartel in the vehicle shipping market.
This engagement involved in-depth economic analysis, including assessing overcharges and pass-on, as well as preparing multiple expert reports and a joint expert statement. The case proceeded through a nine-week trial, during which the economic evidence was subject to cross-examination and expert hot-tubbing, and ultimately settled following the trial.
What excites you about expected developments in your practice area(s) in the coming years?
As more cases reach trial, it will be particularly interesting to see how the CAT assesses economic evidence and its impact on case outcomes. To date, there have been relatively few judgments, especially in collective actions, so further case law will provide valuable guidance and help clarify how economic analysis is assessed in practice.
What advice would you give to younger consultants who want to succeed in this industry?
Being passionate and curious about what you do is crucial, as these qualities help you to stay engaged, sharpen your thinking, and find your own path. It is also essential to surround yourself with people you trust and can learn from, since strong mentors and supportive colleagues play a key role in your development.
What’s a professional lesson that has shaped how you lead today?
A key lesson that has shaped how I lead is not to lose sight of the bigger picture. While refining the details is important, what ultimately makes the difference is delivering clear, coherent, and evidence-based economic arguments.
