Katherine Whitehead Miller

Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld (Dallas)
Associate

Kate Whitehead Miller is an associate in the Investment Funds practice of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. She received her B.A. summa cum laude from The University of Tennessee in 2011 and her J.D. with honors from George Washington University Law School in 2014. While in law school, she served as a legal intern with the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, Enforcement Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission, Office of Commissioner Maureen Ohlhausen of the Federal Trade Commission and the Criminal Section of the Office of the Attorney General. Ms. Miller also served as a judicial extern for the Honorable Peter J. Messitte of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.

Articles

1092 Bulletin

Whitehead The US DoJ conditions merger approval upon divestiture of supply contracts in 8 local school districts affecting the market for school bus transportation services (National Express / Petermann)

32

On April 30, 2012, the Department of Justice announced a conditional approval of the merger between National Express Corporation and Petermann Partners Inc., hinging upon the divestiture of the merging firms’ service contracts in 8 local markets. National Express and Petermann serve as (...)

Whitehead The US DoJ requires rescission of a merger-to-monopoly and puts conduct remedies in place to ensure competition in the market for local newspapers in a city in West Virginia (Daily Gazette / MediaNews)

108

The DOJ entered into a consent decree with two local West Virginia newspaper owners, requiring them to rescind a merger three years after its consummation. The Daily Gazette Company and MediaNews Group, Inc. had entered into a two-to-one merger, creating a monopoly from the only two local (...)

Whitehead The US FTC imposes the divestiture of a distribution agreement and the installation of a firewall to protect competition in the markets of five distilled spirits against the anticompetitive effects of a merger (Pernod Ricard / V&S Vin & Sprit)

47

On October 17, 2008, the FTC announced that it had finalized the consent decree entered into with Pernod Ricard and V&S Vin & Sprit to approve the merger of these two companies. Through an acquisition agreement signed on March 30, 2008, Pernod purchased V&S from the Swedish (...)

Whitehead The US DoJ requires divestiture of operations in 4 cities prior to clearing a private-equity investor’s acquisition of a media company, thereby preventing anticompetitive effects in the market for radio stations (Bain Capital / Clear Channel)

65

Bain Capital LLC (“Bain”), Thomas H. Lee Partners, L.P. (“THL”), and Clear Channel Communications Inc. (“Clear Channel”) entered into a consent decree with the DOJ on February 13, 2008 to close the DOJ’s investigation into Bain and THL’s acquisition of a 70% interest in Clear Channel. The consent (...)

Whitehead The US DoJ imposes the divestiture of US operations, including the manufacturing plant and related assets, prior to approving a merger in the market for carbon bonded ceramics products (Cookson / Foseco)

40

The DOJ challenged the proposed merger of Cookson Group PLC and Foseco PLC, ultimately reaching a consent decree with the merging parties on March 4, 2008. The terms of the consent decree mandated that Foseco divest its U.S. operations for producing carbon bonded ceramics (“CBC") before (...)

Whitehead The US DoJ conditions approval of a merger upon the divestiture of a Canadian subsidiary in order to preserve competition for ’tin mill’ products in the eastern United States (Mittal / Arcelor)

57

On August 1, 2006, the DOJ announced that it had entered into a consent decree with Mittal Steel Company N.V. and Arcelor S.A., ending its investigation into their transaction. The consent decree required divestiture of Arcelor’s subsidiary Dofasco Inc., operating out of eastern Canada, as a (...)

Whitehead The US FTC seeks divestiture of rights and assets to five different medications before approving a merger, which would affect the markets for generic injectable pharmaceuticals (Hospira / Mayne)

104

The FTC entered into a consent decree with Hospira Inc. and Mayne Pharma Ltd. on May 21, 2007 imposing divestitures on the firms prior to clearing their merger. The consent decree required Mayne to divest its current business in one type of generic pharmaceuticals, as well as the assets (...)

Whitehead The US FTC seeks divestiture of an exact copy of software, thereby resolving anticompetitive effects from a completed merger in the engineering software industry (MSC / UAI / CSAR)

90

On August 14, 2002, the FTC announced that MSC Software Corporation had agreed to enter into a consent settlement, resolving concerns that arose after MSC acquired Universal Analytics, Inc. (“UAI”) and Computerized Structural Analysis & Research Corp. (“CSAR”) in 1999. The FTC determined that (...)

Whitehead The US FTC imposes divestiture of assets for one product and licensing of patents for two other products prior to approving a merger in the pharmaceuticals industry (Amgen / Immunex)

65

Amgen Inc. and Immunex Corporation entered into a consent decree with the FTC on September 3, 2002 in order to proceed with the merger of the two pharmaceutical giants. To obtain clearance from the FTC, Amgen and Immunex agreed to divest Immunex’s business concerning the production of one (...)

Whitehead The US FTC imposes the largest retail divestiture of its history, affecting multiple levels of the production chain, before clearing one of the largest mergers in the gasoline industry (Exxon / Mobil)

89

On November 30, 1999 after an extensive and in-depth investigation, the FTC announced that Exxon Corporation and Mobil Corporation agreed to enter into a consent decree, in which the FTC mandated significant structural changes to the corporations prior to approving their merger. The consent (...)

Whitehead The U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals applies a “quick look” rule of reason analysis and ultimately rejects an association-wide salary cap imposed on a position within each member organization in the college basketball industry (Law/NCAA)

19

The U.S. Tenth Circuit struck down an NCAA-wide salary cap imposed on the earnings of “restricted-earnings” coaches as an unreasonable restraint of trade. Instead of applying per se illegality to a price-fixing agreement, the Court determined that a “quick look” rule of reason was more appropriate (...)

Whitehead The U.S. Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division reverses a trial court’s dismissal of antitrust claims after finding causes of action under theories of monopoly leveraging or the essential facilities doctrine in the market for professional hockey in Chicago (Weinberg/Chicago Blackhawk Hockey Team)

38

The U.S. Appellate Court of Illinois reversed and remanded the lower court’s dismissal of antitrust claims brought by Mark Weinberg and Blue Line Publishing Inc. (“Blue Line”) because the Blackhawks excluded Blue Line staff from their hockey games to impair Blue Line’s ability to provide a (...)

Whitehead The US Supreme Court prohibits an association from imposing conditions on its members’ televised events, finding that such conditions violate antitrust laws in the market for college football (NCAA/Bd. of Regents of the Univ. of Okla.)

63

The U.S. Supreme Court declared that the National Collegiate Athletic Association’s (“NCAA”) restrictions on televised college football games should be assessed under a rule of reason analysis, but still ultimately found that the limitations violate the Sherman Act. The Court refused to apply a (...)

Whitehead The US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirms a jury’s determination that an agreement requiring association members to gain approval by vote from their fellow members before moving locations constitutes an unreasonable restraint of trade in the market for professional football teams and their home stadiums (LA Mem’l Coliseum Comm’n/NFL)

43

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, applying a rule of reason analysis, affirmed a jury verdict that an agreement between NFL teams requiring a 2/3 vote before allowing one team to move within the home territory of another team violated the Sherman Act, Section 1. Rejecting the NFL’s arguments, (...)

Whitehead The US District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals remands a case due to the lower court’s provision of several incorrect jury instructions and failure to instruct on the “essential facilities” doctrine in a case affecting the market for major-league professional football (Hecht/Pro Football)

39

The U.S. District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals remanded a jury verdict in a case between a potential franchisor and the operator of the Washington Redskins football team because the lower court improperly instructed the jury on a number of issues. This Court determined that the lower (...)

Send a message