KateWallace

Partner

Boston + 1.617.449.6893

Contact

Partager

Recently named a "Winning Litigator" by The National Law Journal, Kate Wallace is a trial lawyer with experience in a broad range of complex commercial matters, with an emphasis on antitrust and unfair competition litigation. She represents companies in class actions and in complex civil litigation through trial, in both state and federal courts. Kate is the administrative partner for the Boston Office.

In 2019, Kate successfully defended R.J. Reynolds in two Massachusetts wrongful death lawsuits. In 2018, she successfully represented the Boston Red Sox in a two-week jury trial in the first-ever "foul ball" trial in Massachusetts. In 2016, Kate was named a "competition rising star" by Law360, one of only seven antitrust lawyers named in the United States. In 2012, she was part of the trial team that obtained a defense jury verdict on an antitrust claim filed against Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital. She also helped obtain a defense jury verdict on class action antitrust claims filed against Macy's, a verdict that was ranked as one of the "Top Ten Defense Verdicts" of 2007 by the Daily Journal.

Kate maintains an active pro bono practice and serves on the board of Greater Boston Legal Services and also Prosperity Catalyst, an organization that launches and incubates women-led businesses in distressed regions.

Kate has been an active member of the ABA Antitrust Section's leadership for the past decade and currently is the chair of the Civil Practice and Procedure Committee. She has published numerous articles on emerging antitrust issues.

Expérience

  • R.J. Reynolds wins complete defense verdict in Kinnally wrongful death lawsuitFollowing three and a half weeks of trial, a jury in state court in Boston, Massachusetts returned a complete defense verdict in favor of Jones Day client, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, in a wrongful death case.
  • University defends against antitrust conspiracy claimsJones Day is defending a university in a putative nationwide class action alleging that it and over a dozen other universities entered into a conspiracy in violation of federal antitrust laws to fix the amount of financial aid available to students.
  • R.J. Reynolds wins complete defense verdict in Massachusetts consumer fraud lawsuitOn March 17, 2022, a judge in Barnstable, Massachusetts issued a ruling that resulted in a complete defense victory for Jones Day client R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in a smoking-and-health case.
  • Presbyterian wins Tenth Circuit affirmation of favorable summary judgment in antitrust lawsuitJones Day successfully defended Presbyterian Healthcare Services in antitrust litigation based on allegations that Presbyterian had violated federal and state antitrust laws by monopolizing the private health insurance market and by attempting to monopolize the comprehensive oncology services market.
  • Multistakeholder non-profit public benefit corporation prevails in contract dispute arbitrationJones Day represented a California not-for-profit public benefit corporation in bringing an arbitration before the International Chamber of Commerce, seeking a determination that the client's contractual counterparty had breached its payment obligations under the contract and was in fundamental and material breach of other contractual obligations.
  • R.J. Reynolds wins second complete defense verdict in Massachusetts wrongful death lawsuitOn December 20, 2019, following three weeks of trial, a jury in state court in Boston, Massachusetts returned a complete defense verdict in favor of Jones Day client, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, in a wrongful death case.
  • R.J. Reynolds wins complete defense verdict in Massachusetts wrongful death lawsuitOn March 27, 2019, following nearly four weeks of trial, a jury in state court in Dedham, Massachusetts returned a defense verdict in favor of Jones Day client, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, in a wrongful death case.
  • Red Sox prevail in first-ever foul ball trialJones Day prevailed on behalf of the Boston Red Sox in a two-week jury trial brought by a fan who was hit by a foul ball in an upper-level premium seating area of Fenway Park.
  • ICANN advised in connection with governance reform and transition of IANA functionsJones Day advised Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) in connection with the successful completion of the transition of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) functions from the U.S. National Telecommunications and Information Administration to ICANN.
  • Goodyear prevails in long-running dealer termination disputeJones Day obtained the dismissal of a long-running lawsuit filed by a California distributor challenging The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company's termination of its dealer contracts as breaches of contracts, tortious interference, and violations of California unfair competition and federal antitrust law.
  • ICANN prevails in Ninth Circuit appeal of landmark ruling dismissing TLD monopolization claimOn July 31, 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the landmark decision by a federal district court in the Central District of California to dismiss with prejudice name.space's monopolization claim against Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), a long-time Jones Day client.
  • DIRECTV merger with AT&T receives antitrust clearanceJones Day represented California based satellite TV provider DIRECTV on the antitrust aspects of its $67 billion acquisition by AT&T, a deal that combines AT&T's terrestrial internet and video business with DIRECTV's satellite video business.
  • Reynolds American acquires Lorillard for $27.4 billionJones Day advised Reynolds American Inc. (NYSE: RAI) in its acquisition of Lorillard, Inc. for $27.4 billion and in the related $7.1 billion divestiture to an affiliate of Imperial Tobacco Group and $4.7 billion investment by British American Tobacco, RAI's largest shareholder.
  • Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital jury verdict in antitrust case affirmed on appealIn April 2012, after nearly seven weeks of testimony and just over a day of deliberations, a jury in Santa Barbara, California, returned a complete defense verdict in favor of Jones Day client Cottage Health System, Santa Barbara Cottage Hospital, and four local neurosurgeons.
  • Working with the Los Angeles Community Action Network, Jones Day wins trial for pro bono clientOn December 17, new associate Doug Lawson made his first court appearance alongside Dan Lynch on behalf of a homeless man who had been cited several times for jaywalking.
  • Dollar Thrifty Automotive defends antitrust litigation related to California rental car pricingJones Day represented Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group in antitrust litigation alleging a conspiracy among car rental companies relating to the pass-on of a surcharge authorized by the California Travel and Tourism Commission.
  • Working with Los Angeles Community Action Network, Jones Day wins appeal for pro bono clientDan Lynch appeared in the Appellate Division of the Los Angeles Superior Court for oral argument on an appeal from a traffic citation issued to a client in connection with Jones Day's support of and work for the Los Angeles Community Action network ("LA CAN").
  • Arctic Glacier resolves federal antitrust class action litigation involving packaged ice industryJones Day defended Arctic Glacier, Inc. against federal antitrust class actions by direct purchasers against several U.S. packaged ice companies, alleging conspiracy to fix prices for packaged ice.
  • Albertson's successfully defends California AG antitrust litigation related to labor union negotiationsJones Day defended supermarket chain Albertson's, Inc. against antitrust claims asserted by the California Attorney General in connection with a "mutual strike assistance agreement" that Albertson's entered into with Vons and Ralphs, two other grocery store companies.
  • Client represented in suit against her former neighbor, real estate agent, and real estate brokerFor over twenty years, Jones Day has participated in a summer Intake Session at Public Counsel, the largest public interest law firm in the country, and in 2006 we undertook to represent Ms. Yolanda Isaac, who had been a victim of a real estate transaction gone awry; she had lost thousands of dollars and was ultimately evicted from her family home, leaving her and her mentally disabled brother homeless.
    •

    June 2019 White Paper

    Insights from the Supreme Court's Apple v. Pepper Decision ("Best Antitrust Business Article, Private Enforcement Category," Antitrust Writing Awards)

    October 2018 Jones Day Publications

    Massachusetts Noncompete and Trade Secret Reform Will Have Far-Reaching Impact

    August 2018 Alert

    Massachusetts Act Dramatically Changes the Business Landscape

    November 2013 Alert

    Antitrust Alert: FTC Closes Investigation of Merger of Office Depot and OfficeMax Office Supply Superstores

    November 2013 Alert

    Antitrust Alert: FTC Expands Premerger Notification Requirements to Cover Certain Pharmaceutical Patent Licenses

    June 2012 External Publications

    The Wonderful World of Tying, The 101 Practice Series: Breaking Down the Basics, The American Bar Association Young Lawyers Division

    May 2010 External Publications

    To Cooperate Or Not: Obtaining Amnesty Under The DOJ’s Corporate Leniency Policy

    March 5, 2010 External Publications

    U.S. Discovery for Canadian Class Actions, Law 360

    Winter 2010 External Publications

    Africa, Asia & Australia Enforcement Update, ABA's Unilateral Conduct Committee Winter 2010 Newsletter, Vol. 8, No. 1

    Interventions

    • March 24, 2021
      App Stores: An Abuse of Monopoly Power? ABA Antitrust Section, Spring Meeting 2021
    • January 9, 2019
      2019 Town Hall, ABA Antitrust Section, Civil Practice and Procedure Committee
    • November 6, 2018
      Sufficiently Conspicuous? Enforcing Online Arbitration Agreements
    • May 14, 2018
      Procedural Steps and Pitfalls in Antitrust Class Actions, ABA Antitrust Section, Civil Practice and Procedure Committee
    • December 6, 2017
      Class Action Killer or Business as Usual? Rule 23(b)(3) and the Predominance Requirement, ABA Antitrust Section, Civil Practice and Procedure Committee
    • November 14, 2016
      You've Been Sued: Now What? Initiation of Antitrust Litigation from the Plaintiff, Defense, and In-House Perspective
    • July 29, 2015
      Divestiture Remedies After FTC v. Sysco and Applied Materials/Tokyo Electron: Some Thoughts and Takeaways, ABA Antitrust Section, Federal Civil Enforcement Committee
    • January 28, 2015
      Start the New Year with the Section of Antitrust Law!, ABA Section of Antitrust Law Membership and Diversity Committee.
    • May 16, 2014
      Mock Hearing: Tightening Trends in Class Certification or Business as Usual?, program chair, ABA YLD Spring Conference
    • July 23, 2013
      Collective Redress in the European Union, MCLE Presentation
    • January 16, 2013
      Nuts and Bolts of a Monopoly Case, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Unilateral Conduct Committee
    • February 14, 2012
      The Doctrinal and Practical Aspects of Rule of Reason, Quick Look, and Truncated Rule of Reason Analysis in Section 1 Cases, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Joint Conduct Committee
    • January 18, 2012
      East & West: Monopolization Updates from Canada and China, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Unilateral Conduct Committee
    • December 6, 2010
      Hart-Scott-Rodino Premerger Notification Program Basics, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Young Lawyers Division Antitrust Committee
    • June 30, 2010
      False Advertising Law 101: Substantive Issues, ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Young Lawyers Division Antitrust Committee

    Avant d’envoyer cet e-mail, veuillez prendre note de ce qui suit :

    Les informations contenues sur le site www.jonesday.com sont destinées à un usage général et ne constituent pas des conseils juridiques. L’envoi et la réception de cet e-mail n’ont pas pour effet de créer une relation avocat-client. Aucun envoi de votre part à un membre du Cabinet ne sera traité comme confidentiel ou protégé à moins que nous n’ayons donné notre accord pour vous représenter. En envoyant cet e-mail, vous confirmez avoir lu et compris la présente notification.