55 West Monroe Street
Chicago, Illinois 60603
© 2013 - 2015 Funkhouser Vegosen Liebman & Dunn LTD. All rights reserved. Terms and Conditions.
Not loads of lawyers, just really great ones.
Roy B. Taylor Sales, Inc. v. Hollymatic Corp., 28 F.3d 1379 (5th Cir. 1994).Hollymatic manufactures food processing equipment and related products, including machines for making hamburger patties and paper for handling hamburger patties. A company that sells and services food handling equipment and supplies claimed that Hollymatic violated the antitrust laws by requiring it to buy patty paper as a condition to buying patty machines. We did not represent Hollymatic at trial, and a jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $900,000. Hollymatic then retained the Firm for its appeal. On appeal, the jury verdict was overturned in the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which held that, even assuming there was a tying arrangement, it was not illegal.
Flynn v. Phillip Morris, et al. 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2438 (January 19, 2006)FVLD obtained the dismissal with prejudice of a multimillion dollar anti trust complaint against our clients Hub Group and Hub Group Distribution Systems (HGDS) in federal district court. The thirteen page memorandum opinion dismissed boycott and restraint of trade claims under the Sherman Act and Florida anti-trust laws and state law claims against HGDS for contractual indemnification, promissory estoppel and conspiracy as well as claims for intentional interference against HGDS’s co-defendants. Prior to this judgment, HGDS had filed a successful motion to transfer the case from the federal district court in Florida to Illinois, enforcing a mandatory venue clause in the master contract that FVLD had previously drafted for HGDS to use on a nationwide basis.