- Criminal DefenseSLK partners were tapped to assist two Independent Counsel investigations. Former Independent Counsel Donald C. Smaltz has recently become of counsel to the firm, adding a wealth of experience in white-collar criminal defense to SLK's lineup.
- RobberyA plaintiff may thus not "plead around" an "absolute bar to relief" simply "by recasting the cause of action as one for unfair competition." ( Manufacturers Life Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1995) 10 Cal.4th 257, 283.) The rule does not, however, prohibit an action under the unfair competition law merely because some other statute on the subject does not, itself, provide for the action or prohibit the challenged conduct. To forestall an action under the unfair competition law, another provision must actually "bar" the action or clearly permit the conduct. There is a difference between (1) not making an activity unlawful, and (2) making that activity lawful. For example, Penal Code section 211, which defines robbery, does not make murder unlawful. Most assuredly, however, that section does not also make murder lawful. Acts that the Legislature has determined to be lawful may not form the basis for an action under the unfair competition law, but acts may, if otherwise unfair, be challenged under the unfair competition law even if the Legislature failed to proscribe them in some other provision.
- White Collar CrimesExtensive experience and demonstrated skill are essential to the defense when the Government uses its considerable resources to investigate or prosecute an alleged white-collar crime. Donald C. Smaltz, who recently has become of counsel to the firm, is widely recognized as one of the nation's leading white-collar defense attorneys. A former federal prosecutor at the highest levels - he served both as an Assistant United States Attorney and as an Independent Counsel - Mr. Smaltz is available to lead a Spiegel Liao & Kagay defense team in a vigorous and focused defense effort.
- MisdemeanorsThe purpose of the Unfair Practices Act is "to safeguard the public against the creation or perpetuation of monopolies and to foster and encourage competition, by prohibiting unfair, dishonest, deceptive, destructive, fraudulent and discriminatory practices by which fair and honest competition is destroyed or prevented." (§ 17001.) It prohibits specific "practices which the legislature has determined constitute unfair trade practices." ( Wholesale T. Dealers v. National etc. Co., supra, 11 Cal.2d at p. 643.) The prohibitions against purposeful below-cost sales and loss leaders (§§ 17043, 17044) are two examples. The consequences of violating the Unfair Practices Act can be quite severe. A prevailing plaintiff may receive treble damages and attorney fees. (§ 17082.) The act even provides criminal sanctions. Any person who violates the act is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and six months’ imprisonment. (§ 17100.) This severity might explain why the Legislature applied these sanctions to below-cost sales and loss leaders only when done with the purpose of injuring competitors or destroying competition.
- Assault
- Murder
- Unfair CompetitionDefendant Los Angeles Cellular Telephone Company (L.A. Cellular) sells cellular telephones and services. Cellular telephones are sold on the open market. As to wholesale sales of cellular services, however, L.A. Cellular has a government-protected "duopoly" status with one other company. In an effort to gain new subscribers for its services and increase overall profits, L.A. Cellular sold telephones below cost. It lost money on telephone sales but made up for those losses with its increased sales of services. Plaintiffs are companies that sell cellular telephones but may not sell services. These companies claim that, because they are not allowed to sell services, they cannot fairly compete with L.A. Cellular’s strategy of selling telephones below cost and recouping the losses with profits on the sales of services. The action requires us to interpret California’s Unfair Practices Act (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 17000 et seq.) and unfair competition law (§ 17200 et seq.).
- AntitrustSpiegel Liao & Kagay is probably best known for its work on the Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation (MDL-150), one of the most ambitious and significant antitrust actions of the last two decades. In MDL-150, a small group of states sued all of the major oil companies for a variety of offenses that affected the retail price of gasoline from the 1950s through the 1970s. SLK attorneys, first as Deputy Attorneys General for the State of California and later as private practitioners, served as lead counsel for the states from start to finish. When the court dismissed the cases in their entirety in 1986, SLK pursued the successful appeal that resulted in the landmark 9th Circuit decision In re Coordinated Pretrial Proceedings in Petroleum Products Antitrust Litigation, 906 F.2d 432 (9th Cir. 1990). Following reversal of the dismissal, SLK continued to lead the cases for the plaintiff states through class certification and ultimately to major settlements. In the course of the proceedings, a head of the Antitrust Division for the plaintiff State of Arizona during the litigation summarized Spiegel Liao & Kagay's contribution as follows...
- Wrongful TerminationWe believe these definitions are too amorphous and provide too little guidance to courts and businesses. Vague references to "public policy," for example, provide little real guidance. " ‘[P]ublic policy’ as a concept is notoriously resistant to precise definition, and... courts should venture into this area, if at all, with great care and due deference to the judgment of the legislative branch, ‘lest they mistake their own predilections for public policy which deserves recognition at law.’ " ( Gantt v. Sentry Insurance (1992) 1 Cal.4th 1083, 1095.) These concerns led us to hold that to establish the tort of wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, the public policy triggering the violation must be tethered to a constitutional or statutory provision ( ibid. ) or a regulation carrying out statutory policy ( Green v. Ralee Engineering Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 66, 90).