White & Case
Jaime M. Crowe
Washington, DC

T: + 1 202 626 3640
F: + 1 202 639 9355
Practice Experience
Jaime M. Crowe joined White & Case in 1997. Based in Washington, DC, he is a member of the Firm's Litigation and International Arbitration Groups. Mr. Crowe has broad litigation experience, with particular emphasis in antitrust. His international arbitration experience primarily has focused on disputes before the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). Mr. Crowe's work over the years has included:

  • Representation of the Warner Chilcott (now Actavis) group of pharmaceutical companies as defendants in multiparty litigation involving allegations under a novel "product hopping" liability theory that Warner Chilcott violated the Sherman Act and other statutes by marketing new products in lieu of older products. Mr. Crowe has been involved in all aspects of the case, including dispositive motions, fact and expert depositions and Daubert motions, among other things;
  • Counsel for Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc., a US pharmaceutical company accused of antitrust violations in In the Matter of Schering-Plough, et al. (FTC Docket No. 9297). Mr. Crowe played a leading role at every stage of the litigation and at the trial that culminated in a successful ruling from the administrative law judge appointed by the Federal Trade Commission. Mr. Crowe also helped defend the FTC judge's dismissal of the action before the full Federal Trade Commission, and before the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. The Eleventh Circuit ruled in favor of Upsher-Smith and upheld dismissal. See Schering-Plough Corp. v. Fed. Trade Comm'n, 402 F.3d 1056 (11th Cir. 2005). Subsequently, Mr. Crowe helped to successfully oppose the FTC's petition for writ of certiorari filed with the Supreme Court of the United States;
  • Counsel coordinating Upsher-Smith's defense of more than 40 private antitrust actions (class, opt-out and attorney general actions) in multidistrict litigation in federal court in New Jersey. These actions were filed following the FTC's administrative complaint against Upsher-Smith;
  • Representation of parcel tanker company Stolt-Nielsen S.A. in a landmark criminal case brought by the Antitrust Division of the US Department of Justice. After a three-week evidentiary hearing, a federal district judge in Philadelphia dismissed the indictment against Stolt-Nielsen, holding that, contrary to the Antitrust Division's claims, the company had honored its obligations under an amnesty agreement with the Antitrust Division. The court's findings and opinion in United States v. Stolt-Nielsen S.A. can be found at 524 F. Supp.2d 586 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (findings of fact and conclusions of law) and 524 F. Supp. 2d 609 (E.D. Pa. 2007) (memorandum and order);
  • Representation of several Southeast Asian companies accused of price-fixing in violation of US antitrust laws in Dee-K Enterprises, Inc. v. Heveafil Sdn. Bhd. In this matter, Mr. Crowe successfully opposed class certification, helped obtain a jury verdict in favor of the clients in US federal court and successfully defended the companies against plaintiffs' appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and plaintiffs' subsequent petition for certiorari review filed with US Supreme Court. The Fourth Circuit's affirmance of the jury verdict can be found at 299 F.3d 281 (4th Cir. 2002);

International Arbitration:
  • Representation of US investor asserting claims against the Republic of Guatemala before ICSID in TECO Guatemala Holdings LLC v. Republic of Guatemala (ICSID ARB/10/17). Mr. Crowe was involved in representing TECO from the notice of arbitration, through fact finding efforts, the preparation of written submissions and the oral hearing. During the hearing, Mr. Crowe conducted the examination of witnesses in Spanish. On December 19, 2013, the tribunal dispatched an award in TECO's favor;
  • Counsel for the Republic of the Philippines before ICSID in Fraport AG Frankfurt Airport Services Worldwide v. Republic of the Philippines (ICSID ARB/03/25). This ICSID proceeding arose from the nullification by the Supreme Court of the Philippines of a Build, Operate and Transfer (BOT) contract relating to Terminal 3 of Manila's Ninoy Aquino International Airport. After a full evidentiary hearing on jurisdiction and the merits, the tribunal held that ICSID lacked jurisdiction to consider the matter;
  • Counsel for the Republic of Costa Rica before ICSID in Compañía del Desarrollo de Santa Elena, S.A. v. Republic of Costa Rica (ICSID ARB/96/1). Among other things, Mr. Crowe helped a preeminent Costa Rican environmental law expert prepare three extensive opinions of Costa Rican environmental law, conducted the direct examination of the same expert at the evidentiary hearing, prepared other fact and expert witnesses to testify at the hearing, and presented argument to the Tribunal regarding the applicability of Costa Rica's environmental laws and regulations to expropriated property. The Tribunal's award in this case can be found at 15 ICSID Review — Foreign Investment Law Journal 169 (2000);
  • In Eudoro A. Olguín v. Republic of Paraguay (ICSID ARB/98/5), represented a Bolivian investor during the jurisdictional phase of the ICSID arbitration, which resulted in the Tribunal ruling in the client's favor, finding that jurisdiction was proper. That award can be found at 6 ICSID Reports 164 (26 July 2001);
  • Representation of the Republic of Chile before ICSID in MTD v. Republic of Chile (ICSID ARB/01/07). Mr. Crowe was involved in all aspects of the case, including fact finding efforts and drafting written submissions;
  • In Victor Pey Casado and Presidente Allende Foundation v. Republic of Chile (ICSID ARB/98/02), counseled the Republic of Chile in formulating its strategy and preparing its submissions objecting to jurisdiction;
  • Representation of Canadian investor in Gold Reserve Inc. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (ICSID ARB(AF)/09/1. At the hearing, Mr. Crowe conducted the cross-examination of one of Venezuela’s witness in Spanish.

Securities Litigation:
  • Representation of Stolt-Nielsen S.A. in defense of securities class action brought in federal court in Connecticut. Mr. Crowe successfully moved to dismiss plaintiffs' consolidated amended class action complaint, (see Menkes v. Stolt-Nielsen S.A., 2005 WL 3050970 (D. Conn. Nov. 10, 2005)), and obtained dismissal with prejudice of plaintiff's scheme liability claims. The case was subsequently settled;

  • Lead counsel representing telecommunications company Vertex Telecom, Inc. in a breach of contract and declaratory judgment action brought against XO Communications, Inc. in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. Mr. Crowe successfully obtained a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction that prohibited XO from terminating services to approximately two million customers of Vertex, pending litigation. In addition, Mr. Crowe defeated XO's motion to dismiss (see Vertex Telecom, Inc. v. XO Communications, Inc., 2006 WL 3746142 (E.D. Va. 2006)), and obtained dismissal with prejudice of certain XO counterclaims against Vertex;

  • Lead counsel defending Chinese glass manufacturer Xinyi Group Glass Co., Ltd. in third-party action before the US District Court for the Southern District of Illinois arising from multimillion dollar nationwide class action. Mr. Crowe successfully argued that the federal court lacked personal jurisdiction over Xinyi and secured dismissal of the third-party complaint. See Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et al. v. Xinyi Group Glass Co., Ltd., Civil No. 05-520-GPM, 2008 WL 3992687 (S.D. Ill. Aug. 22, 2008);
  • Lead counsel representing Canadian lumber companies Northern Sawmills, Inc. and Buchanan Lumber Sales, Inc. in products liability action before Illinois state court. Mr. Crowe successfully obtained ruling from the Appellate Court of Illinois holding that Illinois lacked personal jurisdiction over the Canadian defendants. See Curley v. Gateway Concrete Forming Systems, Inc., et al., Appellate No. 1-09-2386, 2010 WL 4608754 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. Nov. 5, 2010);

Patent Litigation:
  • Representation of complainant Panasonic Corporation before the International Trade Commission in Certain Large Scale Integrated Circuit and Semiconductor Chips and Products Containing Same (Inv. No. 337-TA-716), a dispute regarding patents covering semiconductor chips. Mr. Crowe played a leading role at every stage of the litigation.

Bars and Courts
District of Columbia Bar, 1995
Virginia State Bar, 1994
US Supreme Court
US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
US District Court for the Western District of Virginia
US District Court for the District of Columbia
US District Court for the District of Maryland
US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

JD, George Washington University Law School, 1994
BA, George Mason University, magna cum laude, 1991

Professional Associations and Memberships
American Bar Association
American Society of International Law


United States