Kathryn Mims is an antitrust partner in White & Case’s Global Competition and Antitrust practice group. She is an award-winning practice that has been named Competition Group of the Year for the past six years by Law360. Kathryn’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation and counseling clients in antitrust matters. Kathryn’s work often includes defending international corporations in large-scale, high-risk litigations, including class actions, opt out actions, and merger enforcement actions. Kathryn represents clients in antitrust disputes before state and federal courts across the country. She has extensive experience in every stage of litigation, from action inception, through dispositive motions, multi-jurisdictional discovery, settlement negotiations, and trial. Kathryn also has significant experience representing corporate and individual clients in commercial disputes. Kathryn has defended nationwide class actions involving allegations of fraud, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO") and violations of state consumer protection acts, handling these matters through the Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL") process and achieving a favorable global settlement. She has represented individual clients in substantial banking fraud allegations, and she advises financial institution clients on a variety of banking and bank regulatory disputes. Kathryn has also been supportive of the Firm’s commitment to pro bono service; she has helped criminally convicted clients appeal unfair sentences and recently defended an indigent client in a white collar trial for campaign finance violations. She also represented the faculty of Sweet Briar College in a lawsuit against the school’s board of directors when the school threatened to permanently close, and achieved a settlement requiring the school to remain in operation. Ms. Mims began her White & Case career in the Firm’s New York office. Prior to joining the Firm, Ms. Mims was a Fellow with the Office of the Federal Public Defender in the Eastern District of Virginia, where she defended indigent clients in criminal matters ranging from drug offenses to international terrorism, piracy and campaign finance violations. During law school, Ms. Mims served on the Virginia Law and Business Review and was a Presiding Justice of the Moot Court Board.
71
Employee non-compete agreements, by eponymous definition, are covenants that restrict trade. These common terms in employment agreements limit or restrict an employee’s ability to work for a competitor once the employee leaves the company. Employers rely on non-competes for a variety of (...)
103
The UK antitrust authority, the CMA, has recently published a guide for employers on how to avoid breaching UK antitrust law in labour markets. This publication signals the UK’s intent to ratchet up antitrust scrutiny of labour markets – a trend that is gathering momentum across the world, in (...)
51
Prior to the State Antitrust Enforcement Venue Act—which was signed into US law on December 29, 2022 as part of the omnibus spending bill—the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) had the power to transfer and consolidate all antitrust cases—including suits brought by State (...)
322
In February 2022, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California held that California Assembly Bill 824—which established a first-of-its kind presumption that certain pharmaceutical patent settlements are anticompetitive and which the California Attorney General had previously (...)
408
No-poach agreements on the European Commission dawn raid radar* In a speech on 22 October 2021, EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager revealed that the European Commission was planning a series of dawn raids for the months to come. She highlighted that the European Commission is not (...)
248
The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division has taken a first step in changing its view of IP rights, particularly where Standard Essential Patents ("SEPs") are at issue. Under the Trump Administration, the Division’s policy swung in favor of SEP innovators over standard-setting (...)
735
Citing concerns about growing consolidation, reduced competition, and increasing prices, President Biden issued on July 9, 2021 a sweeping Executive Order containing 72 initiatives to address competition concerns in a number of industries, including pharmaceuticals, biotech, and healthcare. (...)
591
A new Executive Order signed by President Biden includes 72 initiatives instructing more than a dozen federal agencies, including the US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, to, according to the White House’s Fact Sheet, "promptly tackle some of the most pressing competition (...)
237
On Friday, July 9, 2021, President Biden signed Executive Order 14036, Promoting Competition in the American Economy, which includes—among 72 initiatives aimed at enhancing competition in the US—a directive encouraging the Federal Trade Commission to ban or limit employee non-compete (...)
356
While Congress has been the epicenter of an ongoing antitrust debate—with US legislators on both sides of the aisle urging vast reforms—the New York State legislature is pursuing a state bill that would arguably ensnare more conduct and transactions in antitrust law’s web than anything (...)
311
On April 4, 2020, the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice issued its first Business Review Letter under the DOJ-FTC joint expedited COVID-19 competitor collaboration review procedures, blessing several medical supply companies to work together to produce and distribute personal (...)
204
Price gouging enforcement has largely been left to the States with their patchwork of varying laws—laws that have been invoked sporadically in crises. While the COVID-19 crisis has reportedly led to increased state enforcement, the federal government has taken a larger role, including Justice (...)
86
The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security ("CARES") Act provides no modifications to, or relief from, the US antitrust laws (specifically, the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1-38; Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. § 12-27; and Robinson-Patman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 13). But some major businesses are (...)
