Served as primary outside counsel to leading provider of telecommunications services, advising on all manner of issues, including commercial disputes, contract negotiation, employment, and regulatory matters. In close collaboration with senior business leaders and in-house counsel, developed and executed a winning strategy in TCPA litigations attacking the value of one of the client’s most successful … Read more
Obtained complete victory for a premiere beauty and fragrance company through a consent judgment agreed during trial in trademark and unfair competition action arising from the sale of counterfeit and defaced goods. Other side gave in after failing to undermine the devastating testimony of our lead witness.
Represented Fortune Global 500 electronics manufacturing and services firm in bench trial of breach of contract claims against airplane dealer. Court awarded our client all damages, finding two defense witnesses not credible based on our cross examination.
Won dismissal in the SDNY and affirmance by the Second Circuit of a securities class action alleging that trading prices of a Brazilian mining company’s bonds were inflated due to misrepresentations of environmental risks. Argued motion to dismiss and appeal—co-defendants were represented by AmLaw 25 firms.
Defended manufacturer of popular snack foods in four consumer class actions pending in four separate jurisdictions, including defeating, after an evidentiary hearing and post-hearing briefing, plaintiffs’ motion to enforce a purported settlement negotiated with prior counsel.
Won summary judgment for an investment management company in a suit alleging securities and professional malpractice claims arising from investment in an estate enhancement product funded by split-dollar variable life insurance. Statute of limitations defense prevailed in federal court where a different firm had lost summary judgment in a similar state court case.
Resolved SEC district court litigation on extremely favorable terms: minimal fine and SOX 304 reimbursement and a 1-year 102(e)(3) bar. Court granted joint motion for approval of settlement, which explicitly stated that resolution was based on negligence claims only and was a no admit/no deny settlement.