The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Ropes & Gray LLP

800 BOYLSTON STREET, BOSTON, MA 02199, USA
Tel:
Work +1 617 951 7000
Web:
www.ropesgray.com
Boston, Central Hong Kong, Chicago, East Palo Alto, London EC4A, London EC4M and 6 more

Jane Willis

Ropes & Gray LLP

Position

Jane is co-head of Ropes & Gray’s business and securities litigation practice group. As a seasoned trial lawyer, she focuses her practice on complex business and class action litigation, including antitrust and healthcare matters. She is experienced in health care law, antitrust law, and merger and acquisition disputes. As lead counsel, Jane represents a wide range of clients including publicly-traded companies, real estate investment trusts, healthcare systems, and private equity funds. Her healthcare client list includes non-profit and for–profit hospitals, hospital and healthcare systems, academic medical centers, senior living providers, managed care companies, and other healthcare industry participants. In addition to healthcare, Jane has experience in a range of industries including consumer electronics, consumer products, sports, transportation, and real estate. https://www.ropesgray.com/biographies/w/jane-e-willis.aspx?AK=willis#sthash.0SWJFg5x.dpuf


United States: Antitrust

Civil litigation/class actions

Within: Civil litigation/class actions

Ropes & Gray LLP acts for plaintiffs and defendants in litigation covering the full spectrum of anticompetitive practices, such as tying, price-fixing, monopolization and group boycotts, among others. Washington DC-based practice head Mark Popofsky and Boston’s Jane Willis are defending Hitachi-LG Data Services in various class actions brought by direct and indirect purchasers concerning an optical disk drive price-fixing scheme. The firm has particular strength in healthcare-related antitrust work; notable highlights included acting for Questcor Pharmaceuticals (now part of Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals) in Retrophin’s challenge of the client’s acquisition of the rights to Novartis’ Synacthen drug. Chong Park, a notable individual in the Washington DC office, has previous experience serving as a senior attorney at the anti-competitive practices division of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition.

[back to top]


Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • New requirement for all issuers operating on the Luxembourg Stock Exchange

    On 10 August 2017 the Luxembourg Stock Exchange announced that all domestic and foreign issuers operating on the regulated market (Bourse de Luxembourg) or on the multilateral trading facility (Euro MTF) of the Luxembourg Stock Exchange must provide their legal entity identifier (“LEI ”) codes to the Luxembourg Stock Exchange before 15 September 2017.
  • Luxembourg law on the exploration and use of space resources entered into force

    The Luxembourg law on the exploration and use of space resources of 20 July 2017 entered into force on 2 August 2017 and placed Luxembourg among the most innovative space-oriented nations in the world.
  • VAT in the GCC – Q&A updates from the UAE Ministry of Finance

    On 9 July the United Arab Emirates (UAE) Ministry of Finance (MOF) published an update of the Value Added Tax (VAT) FAQ section of its website.
  • PRIIPs KID: The final pieces of the puzzle

    The pieces of the puzzle are finally falling into place. The long-awaited level 3 and 4 measures have been published earlier this week, half a year before the PRIIPs KID becomes compulsory.
  • MiFID II: Further guidance on product governance requirements

    Amongst the numerous topics covered by the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive II (MiFID II), the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA) has decided to provide further guidance on the requirements regarding product governance through its guidelines dated 2 June 2017 which focus on the target market assessment by manufacturers and distributors of financial products.     
  • Arendt & Medernach is again the “Luxembourg Tax Firm of the Year”

    The partners of Arendt & Medernach are pleased to announce that their firm has been awarded once again the prestigious “Luxembourg Tax Firm of the Year” title during the International Tax Review’s European Tax Awards ceremony held at the Savoy Hotel in London on 18 May.
  • Signature of the Multilateral instrument – reservations made by Luxembourg

    On 7 June 2017, the official ceremony for the signing of the multilateral instrument (“MLI”) took place bringing to a close a process initiated last year when a consensus was reached on the wording of the MLI on 24 November 2016 (see also our newsflash dated 2 December 2016, available on our website www.arendt.com section Publications/Newsflash).
  • Arendt & Medernach: Luxembourg Law Firm of the Year

    Luxembourg, May 2017 – Arendt & Medernach is proud to have been named “Luxembourg Law firm of the year” both by Chambers & Partners and IFLR (International Financial Law Review). The prestigious trophies were both received in April in London at the respective ceremonies of the Chambers Europe Awards 2017 and the IFLR European Awards 2017.
  • First VAT EU case law on the cost-sharing VAT exemption

    The question of the scope of the cost-sharing VAT exemption, also referred to in the Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 as amended ("EU VAT Directive") as “Independent Groups of Persons” or “IGPs”, is currently being debated at the Court of Justice of the EU (“CJEU”) in several cases. Last Thursday marked the first milestone regarding this specific VAT exemption since the CJEU released its judgment in the case Commission v Luxembourg (C-274/15).
  • An Introduction to Corporate Guarantee

    In the UAE, the risk management activities inherent in running a corporate or investment banking business remain of crucial importance, not least because of the strong local characteristic of “name lending”, by which is meant lending or providing other banking facilities to family or other private businesses, primarily on the strength of the “name” or “names” of the proprietors standing behind the business, rather than on the strength of the asset quality and underlying credit of the particular business. Of course, in practice, there is commercial overlap between the proprietors and the companies which they own, but the credit analyses can break down where poor banking practices and procedures result in poorly constructed legal documentation and gaps in guarantee and security support documents.