Antitrust & Trade Regulation
The lawyers at Van Kampen & Crowe have regularly advised clients on antitrust and trade regulation issues that arise in the rapidly changing competitive business and regulatory environment, and handled many antitrust cases in federal and state courts. We have advised on mergers and joint ventures, represented clients who were witnesses or subjects before grand juries, and prosecuted and defended civil antitrust cases. Our lawyers also have defended clients subject to investigations by the Federal Trade Commission and state government antitrust and consumer protection agencies. In addition, we often advise clients and litigate franchise, non-competition contracts and restrictive covenant matters.
We are very experienced in counseling clients on relations with customers and competitors, on distribution arrangements, on proposed joint ventures, on the antitrust issues that arise in the health care field and in connection with the intellectual property laws, on Robinson-Patman Act price discrimination issues, and on issues arising from deregulation of various industries.
Our lawyers regularly are asked to assist clients in drafting, enforcing, defending or circumventing restrictive covenant, non-disclosure and non-competition provisions. We have filed and defended motions for temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions on these issues, litigated tortious interference claims involving these issues, and handled all varieties of such disputes in many different industries and professions.
Van Kampen & Crowe's lawyers have handled consumer protection investigations by the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general, and advised clients on advertising, unfair and deceptive trade practices, and other issues in the consumer protection area. Our lawyers also have created antitrust compliance programs for clients covering all of the antitrust issues, including those under the Robinson-Patman Act's price discrimination provisions.
Some of the significant antitrust and trade regulation cases in which our lawyers have been involved include:
Hollander Glass v. Spectrum Glass
Lead counsel defending specialty glass manufacturer on antitrust claims brought in Texas. Convinced court to dismiss all claims on pretrial motion before any discovery.
Goodyear Tire & Rubber v. Whiteman Tire, 86 Wn. App. 732, 935 P.2d 628 (1997)
Lead counsel representing the plaintiff and defended against dealer termination antitrust and tortious interference counterclaims of $10 million. Judgment entered on plaintiff's claims; summary judgment entered dismissing counterclaims; and court of appeals affirmed.
Hairston v. Pacific-10 Conference, 101 F.3d 1315 (1996)
Co-counsel defending athletic conference in highly-publicized multimillion dollar damages and injunctive claims in antitrust suit. Suit dismissed by summary judgment.
Alaska Cargo Transport v. Crowley Maritime
Co-counsel defending barge transportation company against antitrust claims of $74 million. All plaintiffs' claims dismissed on motion to dismiss before extensive discovery.
King v. Swedish Hospital
Co-counsel defending hospital against antitrust and other claims for $3 million resulting from suspension of physician's staff privileges. Court dismissed antitrust claims by summary judgment.
Beacon Med-Care v. St. Peter Hospital
Co-counsel defending hospital against antitrust claims. Case settled with plaintiff receiving no monetary payment.
Wiggs Enterprises v. Seattle Bike Supply
Defended class action RICO and consumer fraud claims. Successful in convincing the court to dismiss early in proceedings.
Morrow v. Seattle Bike Supply
Defended class action consumer fraud suit in Illinois. Case dismissed on early motion.
Triangle Pacific v. Pankratz Forest Industries
Defended distributor termination suit. Suit dismissed on summary judgment after minimal discovery.
Bjorklund Volkswagen v. Riviera Motors
Co-counsel defending distributor in trial of antitrust and other claims by automobile dealer. Court dismissed case on summary judgment and Court of Appeals affirmed.
There are no guaranteed outcomes in the law. Every case is different, and the results obtained will depend upon the specific facts and circumstances of a client's situation.