{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":null,"value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"1","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"S","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":442426,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":171,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eReggie Smith's practice focus is international arbitration and cross-border litigation, with a particular specialty in handling commercial disputes in the energy sector as well as representing investors in disputes with sovereigns that have taken actions to either destroy or impair investments through conduct ranging from outright expropriations to the revocation or modification of investment incentive programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRelying on years of experience in representing companies and individuals in significant business litigation disputes in U.S. courts, Reggie brings advocacy skills to his international arbitration and cross-border litigation practice that have yielded some of the largest investment arbitration awards and court judgments on record. For example, Reggie served as co-lead counsel in a suit against Argentina in federal court in New York that resulted in the largest judgment ever rendered against a sovereign by a U.S. court. As lead counsel in an arbitration for a European oil and gas company against the Government of Kazakhstan, Reggie secured the largest award on record at the time under the Energy Charter Treaty. Reggie similarly took the lead in representing an investor against the Government of Egypt relating to the expropriation of a real estate project that resulted in the largest award on record for an individual claimant. Reggie also served as lead counsel in obtaining the largest moral damages award on record for an investor in an investment dispute against Vietnam. Reggie has prosecuted over 40 cases for investors against sovereigns under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing experience developed as a seasoned oil and gas litigator in the U.S. courts, Reggie also has deep expertise in representing energy companies in international and domestic commercial arbitration disputes. Whether the disputes involve the oil and gas sector or renewable energy projects, Reggie has taken the lead in representing some of the world's largest energy companies in high-stakes arbitrations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile clients routinely entrust Reggie to serve as their advocate in high stakes arbitrations and litigations, they also look to him as a trusted strategic advisor in helping them manage their disputes to reach a commercial solution that serves their long-term best interests. Reggie well understands that clients are not in the business of litigating their disputes, and litigation is simply a tool to be used in reaching a commercial resolution that furthers the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"reginald-smith","email":"rsmith@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Commercial Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etwo steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDubai-based iron ore mining companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Investment Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor\u0026rsquo;s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a number of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean renewable energy company investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Kuwaiti investor group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish and Irish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government\u0026rsquo;s role in facilitating an illegal \u0026ldquo;tunneling\u0026rdquo; of the investors\u0026rsquo; investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eItalian\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003einvestors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea group of\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government\u0026rsquo;s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors\u0026rsquo; commercial real estate holdings in Baku.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Swedish investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Italian investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor\u0026rsquo;s resort development property.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation Relating to International Arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Canadian mining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European resort developer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean infrastructure construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethree of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest manufacturing companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSpanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ein litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest retailers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":229}]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Smith","nick_name":"Reggie","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Reginald","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"AmLaw"},{"title":"Energy MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation ","detail":"Legal 500, repeated listings"},{"title":"Litigation Star ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eReggie Smith's practice focus is international arbitration and cross-border litigation, with a particular specialty in handling commercial disputes in the energy sector as well as representing investors in disputes with sovereigns that have taken actions to either destroy or impair investments through conduct ranging from outright expropriations to the revocation or modification of investment incentive programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRelying on years of experience in representing companies and individuals in significant business litigation disputes in U.S. courts, Reggie brings advocacy skills to his international arbitration and cross-border litigation practice that have yielded some of the largest investment arbitration awards and court judgments on record. For example, Reggie served as co-lead counsel in a suit against Argentina in federal court in New York that resulted in the largest judgment ever rendered against a sovereign by a U.S. court. As lead counsel in an arbitration for a European oil and gas company against the Government of Kazakhstan, Reggie secured the largest award on record at the time under the Energy Charter Treaty. Reggie similarly took the lead in representing an investor against the Government of Egypt relating to the expropriation of a real estate project that resulted in the largest award on record for an individual claimant. Reggie also served as lead counsel in obtaining the largest moral damages award on record for an investor in an investment dispute against Vietnam. Reggie has prosecuted over 40 cases for investors against sovereigns under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing experience developed as a seasoned oil and gas litigator in the U.S. courts, Reggie also has deep expertise in representing energy companies in international and domestic commercial arbitration disputes. Whether the disputes involve the oil and gas sector or renewable energy projects, Reggie has taken the lead in representing some of the world's largest energy companies in high-stakes arbitrations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile clients routinely entrust Reggie to serve as their advocate in high stakes arbitrations and litigations, they also look to him as a trusted strategic advisor in helping them manage their disputes to reach a commercial solution that serves their long-term best interests. Reggie well understands that clients are not in the business of litigating their disputes, and litigation is simply a tool to be used in reaching a commercial resolution that furthers the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Commercial Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etwo steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDubai-based iron ore mining companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Investment Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor\u0026rsquo;s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a number of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean renewable energy company investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Kuwaiti investor group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish and Irish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government\u0026rsquo;s role in facilitating an illegal \u0026ldquo;tunneling\u0026rdquo; of the investors\u0026rsquo; investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eItalian\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003einvestors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea group of\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government\u0026rsquo;s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors\u0026rsquo; commercial real estate holdings in Baku.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Swedish investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Italian investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor\u0026rsquo;s resort development property.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation Relating to International Arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Canadian mining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European resort developer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean infrastructure construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethree of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest manufacturing companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSpanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ein litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest retailers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"AmLaw"},{"title":"Energy MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation ","detail":"Legal 500, repeated listings"},{"title":"Litigation Star ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1188}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:05:18.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:05:18.000Z","searchable_text":"Smith{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"AmLaw\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Energy MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, repeated listings\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}International Commercial Arbitration DisputesRepresenting an oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources.{{ FIELD }}Representing two steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies in a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine.{{ FIELD }}Representing Dubai-based iron ore mining companies in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company.{{ FIELD }}Representing an independent oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract.{{ FIELD }}Representing an independent oil and gas company in a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European oil and gas company in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm.{{ FIELD }}Representing an international petrochemical company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.{{ FIELD }}International Investment Arbitration DisputesRepresenting a European oil and gas company in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor’s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets.{{ FIELD }}Representing a number of European renewable energy company investors in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Kuwaiti investor group in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project.{{ FIELD }}Representing English and Irish investors in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government’s role in facilitating an illegal “tunneling” of the investors’ investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters.{{ FIELD }}Representing Italian investors in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession.{{ FIELD }}Representing a group of English investors in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government’s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors’ commercial real estate holdings in Baku.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Dutch investor in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Swedish investor in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union.{{ FIELD }}Representing an Italian investor in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor’s resort development property.{{ FIELD }}U.S. Litigation Relating to International ArbitrationRepresenting a Canadian mining company in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European resort developer in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement.{{ FIELD }}Representing an infrastructure construction company in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European energy company in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European energy company in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major energy company in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European energy company in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration.{{ FIELD }}U.S. LitigationRepresenting three of the world’s largest manufacturing companies in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market.{{ FIELD }}Representing Spanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund in litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing.{{ FIELD }}Representing one of the world’s largest retailers in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.{{ FIELD }}Reggie Smith's practice focus is international arbitration and cross-border litigation, with a particular specialty in handling commercial disputes in the energy sector as well as representing investors in disputes with sovereigns that have taken actions to either destroy or impair investments through conduct ranging from outright expropriations to the revocation or modification of investment incentive programs.\nRelying on years of experience in representing companies and individuals in significant business litigation disputes in U.S. courts, Reggie brings advocacy skills to his international arbitration and cross-border litigation practice that have yielded some of the largest investment arbitration awards and court judgments on record. For example, Reggie served as co-lead counsel in a suit against Argentina in federal court in New York that resulted in the largest judgment ever rendered against a sovereign by a U.S. court. As lead counsel in an arbitration for a European oil and gas company against the Government of Kazakhstan, Reggie secured the largest award on record at the time under the Energy Charter Treaty. Reggie similarly took the lead in representing an investor against the Government of Egypt relating to the expropriation of a real estate project that resulted in the largest award on record for an individual claimant. Reggie also served as lead counsel in obtaining the largest moral damages award on record for an investor in an investment dispute against Vietnam. Reggie has prosecuted over 40 cases for investors against sovereigns under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties.\nUsing experience developed as a seasoned oil and gas litigator in the U.S. courts, Reggie also has deep expertise in representing energy companies in international and domestic commercial arbitration disputes. Whether the disputes involve the oil and gas sector or renewable energy projects, Reggie has taken the lead in representing some of the world's largest energy companies in high-stakes arbitrations.\nWhile clients routinely entrust Reggie to serve as their advocate in high stakes arbitrations and litigations, they also look to him as a trusted strategic advisor in helping them manage their disputes to reach a commercial solution that serves their long-term best interests. Reggie well understands that clients are not in the business of litigating their disputes, and litigation is simply a tool to be used in reaching a commercial resolution that furthers the client’s business goals. Reginald R Smith Partner Litigator of the Week AmLaw Energy MVP Law360 Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation  Legal 500, repeated listings Litigation Star  Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016 Emory University Emory University School of Law University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia Texas American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia State Bar of Texas Houston County Bar Association International Commercial Arbitration DisputesRepresenting an oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources. Representing two steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies in a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine. Representing Dubai-based iron ore mining companies in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company. Representing an independent oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract. Representing an independent oil and gas company in a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale. Representing a European oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract. Representing a European oil and gas company in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm. Representing an international petrochemical company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility. International Investment Arbitration DisputesRepresenting a European oil and gas company in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor’s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets. Representing a number of European renewable energy company investors in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs. Representing a Kuwaiti investor group in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project. Representing English and Irish investors in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government’s role in facilitating an illegal “tunneling” of the investors’ investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters. Representing Italian investors in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession. Representing a group of English investors in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government’s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors’ commercial real estate holdings in Baku. Representing a Dutch investor in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises. Representing a Swedish investor in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union. Representing an Italian investor in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor’s resort development property. U.S. Litigation Relating to International ArbitrationRepresenting a Canadian mining company in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela. Representing a European resort developer in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement. Representing an infrastructure construction company in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S. Representing a European energy company in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK. Representing a European energy company in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Representing a major energy company in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Representing a European energy company in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration. U.S. LitigationRepresenting three of the world’s largest manufacturing companies in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market. Representing Spanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund in litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012. Representing a major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing. Representing one of the world’s largest retailers in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.","searchable_name":"Reginald R. Smith (Reggie)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":443994,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6954,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBen is a versatile litigator and former Silicon Valley in-house counsel focused on complex litigation, appellate and critical-issue advocacy, and regulatory investigations. Ben joins King \u0026amp; Spalding from Google, where he helped design and execute the company\u0026rsquo;s AI regulatory strategy. He has extensive experience helping clients inside and outside the technology sector navigate issues of administrative law, antitrust, consumer protection, privacy, and securities. Ben draws on his in-house experience to drive comprehensive client solutions that address legal, business, and reputational risk.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen was one of Google\u0026rsquo;s first AI regulatory lawyers. There, he led cross-functional teams responding to AI inquiries from regulators around the world, and, working closely with senior executives and business leaders, he helped develop and manage the company\u0026rsquo;s overarching AI regulatory strategy. Beyond AI, Ben directed defense strategy on litigation and regulatory matters arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act 5, state unfair and deceptive acts statutes, the federal securities laws, and global privacy laws. He also managed strategic regulatory compliance enhancements, working closely with business units like marketing, human resources, and finance to deliver compliance readiness on-time and on-budget.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore Google, Ben was a partner at a litigation boutique in Washington, D.C. There, in addition to trial court work, Ben argued numerous times in the federal courts of appeals, and was regularly tapped to draft appellate briefs, case-dispositive motions, and federal agency comments. He authored or co-authored winning briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States and in trial and appellate courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen served as a law clerk for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has been named \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e and \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003efor his work.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"benjamin-softness","email":"bsoftness@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended AT\u0026amp;T\u0026rsquo;s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, \u003cem\u003eUnited States v. AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), \u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;g \u003c/em\u003e310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFounding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants\u0026rsquo; failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in \u003cem\u003ePetersen Energ\u0026iacute;a Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored respondent\u0026rsquo;s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, \u003cem\u003eApple v. Pepper\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for the win.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored winning brief in \u003cem\u003eStuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; for victory).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored petitioners\u0026rsquo; winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in \u003cem\u003eGlobal Tel*Link v. FCC,\u003c/em\u003e 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBriefed and argued \u003cem\u003eSanders v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing \u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady\u0026rsquo;s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Softness","nick_name":"Benjamin","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. A Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","years_held":"2013 - 2014"},{"name":"Intern, Hon. Richard J. Leon, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia","years_held":"2011 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Benjamin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2282,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"summa cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2013-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"Global Competition Review, 2019"},{"title":"Legal Lion","detail":"Law360, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjamin-softness-7b16322/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBen is a versatile litigator and former Silicon Valley in-house counsel focused on complex litigation, appellate and critical-issue advocacy, and regulatory investigations. Ben joins King \u0026amp; Spalding from Google, where he helped design and execute the company\u0026rsquo;s AI regulatory strategy. He has extensive experience helping clients inside and outside the technology sector navigate issues of administrative law, antitrust, consumer protection, privacy, and securities. Ben draws on his in-house experience to drive comprehensive client solutions that address legal, business, and reputational risk.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen was one of Google\u0026rsquo;s first AI regulatory lawyers. There, he led cross-functional teams responding to AI inquiries from regulators around the world, and, working closely with senior executives and business leaders, he helped develop and manage the company\u0026rsquo;s overarching AI regulatory strategy. Beyond AI, Ben directed defense strategy on litigation and regulatory matters arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act 5, state unfair and deceptive acts statutes, the federal securities laws, and global privacy laws. He also managed strategic regulatory compliance enhancements, working closely with business units like marketing, human resources, and finance to deliver compliance readiness on-time and on-budget.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore Google, Ben was a partner at a litigation boutique in Washington, D.C. There, in addition to trial court work, Ben argued numerous times in the federal courts of appeals, and was regularly tapped to draft appellate briefs, case-dispositive motions, and federal agency comments. He authored or co-authored winning briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States and in trial and appellate courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen served as a law clerk for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has been named \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e and \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003efor his work.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended AT\u0026amp;T\u0026rsquo;s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, \u003cem\u003eUnited States v. AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), \u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;g \u003c/em\u003e310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFounding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants\u0026rsquo; failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in \u003cem\u003ePetersen Energ\u0026iacute;a Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored respondent\u0026rsquo;s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, \u003cem\u003eApple v. Pepper\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for the win.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored winning brief in \u003cem\u003eStuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; for victory).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored petitioners\u0026rsquo; winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in \u003cem\u003eGlobal Tel*Link v. FCC,\u003c/em\u003e 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBriefed and argued \u003cem\u003eSanders v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing \u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady\u0026rsquo;s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"Global Competition Review, 2019"},{"title":"Legal Lion","detail":"Law360, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12616}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:27.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:27.000Z","searchable_text":"Softness{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Competition Review, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal Lion\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws{{ FIELD }}Represented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws{{ FIELD }}Represented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals{{ FIELD }}Defended AT\u0026amp;T’s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, United States v. AT\u0026amp;T, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), aff’g 310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018).{{ FIELD }}Assisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case{{ FIELD }}Founding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants’ failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in Petersen Energía Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic.{{ FIELD }}Co-authored respondent’s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, Apple v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a Global Competition Review “Litigator of the Week” for the win.{{ FIELD }}Co-authored winning brief in Stuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named Law360 “Legal Lion” for victory).{{ FIELD }}Co-authored petitioners’ winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in Global Tel*Link v. FCC, 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017).{{ FIELD }}Briefed and argued Sanders v. United States, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing pro bono client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as amicus curiae. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady’s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.{{ FIELD }}Ben is a versatile litigator and former Silicon Valley in-house counsel focused on complex litigation, appellate and critical-issue advocacy, and regulatory investigations. Ben joins King \u0026amp; Spalding from Google, where he helped design and execute the company’s AI regulatory strategy. He has extensive experience helping clients inside and outside the technology sector navigate issues of administrative law, antitrust, consumer protection, privacy, and securities. Ben draws on his in-house experience to drive comprehensive client solutions that address legal, business, and reputational risk.\nBen was one of Google’s first AI regulatory lawyers. There, he led cross-functional teams responding to AI inquiries from regulators around the world, and, working closely with senior executives and business leaders, he helped develop and manage the company’s overarching AI regulatory strategy. Beyond AI, Ben directed defense strategy on litigation and regulatory matters arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act 5, state unfair and deceptive acts statutes, the federal securities laws, and global privacy laws. He also managed strategic regulatory compliance enhancements, working closely with business units like marketing, human resources, and finance to deliver compliance readiness on-time and on-budget.\nBefore Google, Ben was a partner at a litigation boutique in Washington, D.C. There, in addition to trial court work, Ben argued numerous times in the federal courts of appeals, and was regularly tapped to draft appellate briefs, case-dispositive motions, and federal agency comments. He authored or co-authored winning briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States and in trial and appellate courts across the country.\nBen served as a law clerk for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has been named “Litigator of the Week” by Global Competition Review and “Legal Lion” by Law360 for his work. Partner Litigator of the Week Global Competition Review, 2019 Legal Lion Law360, 2020 Amherst College  University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia California District of Columbia New York Bar Association of San Francisco Law Clerk, Hon. A Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Intern, Hon. Richard J. Leon, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Represented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws Represented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws Represented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals Defended AT\u0026amp;T’s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, United States v. AT\u0026amp;T, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), aff’g 310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018). Assisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case Founding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants’ failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in Petersen Energía Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic. Co-authored respondent’s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, Apple v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a Global Competition Review “Litigator of the Week” for the win. Co-authored winning brief in Stuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named Law360 “Legal Lion” for victory). Co-authored petitioners’ winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in Global Tel*Link v. FCC, 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Briefed and argued Sanders v. United States, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing pro bono client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as amicus curiae. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady’s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.","searchable_name":"Benjamin Softness","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442367,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":888,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Spigel focuses on advising clients on the antitrust issues related to successfully executing their business strategy. As a partner and co-head of our global Antitrust practice, clients routinely seek Jeff\u0026rsquo;s practical and business-friendly advice to guide them through their strategic transactions, criminal grand jury and civil DOJ, FTC, State AG and antitrust investigations and litigation. Working with our Brussels antitrust lawyers, Jeff also defends clients in multi-jurisdictional investigations that coordinate with the U.S., including the European Commission and the UK\u0026rsquo;s CMA.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff represents clients in responding to a range of civil and criminal antitrust investigations in the U.S. and abroad, obtaining Hart-Scott-Rodino clearance and coordinating approvals of proposed transactions in foreign jurisdictions. He also advises clients on pursuing or defending against antitrust claims and counsels on strategic antitrust issues such as those arising from benchmarking, compliance and audits, competitor collaborations, exclusivity and foreclosure, resale price maintenance, Robinson-Patman price discrimination, refusals to deal, and tying and predatory bundling issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith significant experience in the healthcare sector, Jeff frequently advises healthcare clients on strategic transactions, messenger model networks, financially- and/or clinically-integrated networks, Group Purchasing Organizations and claims by commercial payors, competitors, or the government.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff\u0026rsquo;s antitrust experience also includes advising clients in a broad range of industries such as building materials, chemicals, communications, consumer products, energy (oil, gas, power, and renewables), entertainment, financial, metals, paper, pharmaceutical, retail, technology, and transportation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn behalf of his clients, Jeff appears regularly before the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, and he coordinates with foreign counsel in dealing with competition authorities in jurisdictions around the globe, including before the European Commission. In addition, he represents clients on unfair and deceptive trade practice matters before the Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and state attorneys general.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA regular author and speaker, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e have identified Jeff as a recognized practitioner and leading antitrust lawyer. In addition, \u003cem\u003eNightingale Healthcare News\u003c/em\u003e named him one of the \u0026ldquo;Outstanding Healthcare Antitrust Lawyers\u0026rdquo; in the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jeffrey-spigel","email":"jspigel@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAgricultural/Food\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefending a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading food company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DOJ and State AG antitrust investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eViserion Grain, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, in DOJ\u0026rsquo;s approval of its acquisition of 11 grain elevator facilities from Zen-Noh Grain Corporation (\u0026ldquo;ZGC\u0026rdquo;). These facilities were required to be divested to remedy the DOJ\u0026rsquo;s challenge of ZGC\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of multiple grain facilities from Bunge North America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRockstar\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading energy drink maker, in an FTC investigation of its $3.85 billion acquisition by PepsiCo Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a leading provider of natural gas processing and treatment and compression products and services in a DOJ merger investigation of a merger with a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eConocoPhillips\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the sale of its Canadian oil, sand, and gas assets to Cenovus in a $13.3 billion transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eone of the leading operators and builders of offshore supply vessels\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of an acquisition of a leading provider of repair services and construction of offshore and military vessels.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading manufacturer of drill bits\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;used in mining and oil and gas exploration in a DOJ investigation of its acquisition by a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major global energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ criminal antitrust investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eWeatherford Internationa\u003c/strong\u003el in the sale of its pipeline business to Baker Hughes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMarubeni-Itochu Tubulars\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its acquisition of the casing and tubing business of Oil States International.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTransocean Ltd\u003c/strong\u003e. in connection with its $2.7 billion acquisition of Ocean Rig UDW, Inc., in the offshore oil and gas drilling sector and successfully obtained antitrust clearances in several jurisdictions around the world.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLS Power\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining antitrust clearances for various acquisitions of electric power-generating assets from several independent power producers around the U.S. and provided continued antitrust advice on subsequent potential transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest integrated petroleum companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an industry-wide investigation of gasoline prices by the FTC and Congress.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMirant Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ antitrust investigation of its merger with RRI Energy. The transaction closed without DOJ action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntertainment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCox Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of Axios Media.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCarmike Cinemas\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of its merger with AMC Theatres. Successfully negotiated a settlement with the DOJ. (\u003cem\u003eUnited States of America v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFinancial Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading payment processor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition by a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein antitrust litigation filed against it, TransUnion and Experian alleging violations of federal and California antitrust laws. (\u003cem\u003eAdams v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., E.D. Calif. (2:23-cv-01773).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTSYS\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading global payments provider, in merger clearances of its $54 billion all-stock merger of equals with Global Payments, a worldwide provider of payment technology and software solutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBank of America\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC consumer protection investigation and litigation of Countrywide Financial Corporation related to Countrywide\u0026rsquo;s mortgage loan servicing practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHealthcare/Life Sciences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a leading manufacturer of dental bone grafting products in a DOJ merger investigation of an acquisition by a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;regarding Lafayette General Health System\u0026rsquo;s merger into Ochsner.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the formation of a joint venture with LSU to acquire University Health Hospitals from BRFHH.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in forming JOAs with CHRISTUS Louisiana, Lafayette General Health, Slidell Memorial Hospital, St. Tammany Parish Hospital, and Terrebonne General Medical Center.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of Rush Health Systems, which added seven hospitals to extend Ochsner\u0026rsquo;s reach to east Mississippi/west Alabama region.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePiedmont Healthcare, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the acquisition of four hospitals in North Georgia and Macon from HCA Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePiedmont Healthcare\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisition of University Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHouston Methodist\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its acquisition of two CHRISTUS hospitals in the metropolitan Houston area.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSt. Joseph\u0026rsquo;s Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC investigation of its formation of a JOA with Emory Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Cente\u003c/strong\u003er\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e(UTSW)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its formation of a JOA with Texas Health Resources.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKing\u0026rsquo;s Daughter Hospital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition by Scott \u0026amp; White Healthcare, which ultimately received clearance from the FTC under a failing firm defense.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e1,000-plus member, exclusive clinically-integrated physician network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC price fixing investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented physician clients and their messenger model network in an FTC civil price fixing and concerted refusal to deal investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHospital Corporation of America\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Sections 1 and 2 Sherman Act (tying) federal antitrust action against a competing hospital system.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Palmyra Park Medical Center, Inc. v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., et al.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea branded pharmaceutical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DOJ and FTC antitrust investigations of a proposed patent settlement and the use of authorized generics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eManufacturing/Chemical/Paper\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuikrete Holdings, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition of Forterra Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eWestRock,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;which is a leading manufacturer of containerboard and paperboard, in DOJ and other competition authorities\u0026rsquo; investigations of strategic transactions, including WestRock\u0026rsquo;s $16 billion merger with MeadWestvaco, its $2.28 billion acquisition of MultiPackaging Solution, its $4.9 billion acquisition of KapStone, and its sale of its partitions business to Sonoco.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSchweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(now known as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMativ\u003c/strong\u003e) in a DOJ investigation of its merger of equals with Neenah, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eH.I.G. CAPITAL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and its subsidiary\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDCL Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as the divestiture buyer of Sun Chemical\u0026rsquo;s DIC Corporation Bushy Park assets in front of the Federal Trade Commission, European Commission and the Japanese Fair Trade Commission as part of a settlement regarding DIC\u0026rsquo;s acquisition by BASF\u0026rsquo;s pigment business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented global chemical company\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKraton Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its merger with DL Chemical Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of DL Holdings Co., Ltd. (formerly Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eForterra Brick\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the combination of its brick business with Boral Brick as part of the formation of a new joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eForterra Building Products\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of U.S. Pipe.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLafarge\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on numerous strategic transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUCAR International\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e(now\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrafTech)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a federal grand jury price fixing investigation of graphite electrodes.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(United States v. UCAR International Inc.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRetail\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a leading home furnishing company in an FTC merger investigation of a leading e-commerce platform.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading branded apparel company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of an acquisition of a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHanesBrands, Inc.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;one of the leading providers of licensed athletic apparel and related services, in its collaboration with Fanatics, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading manufacturer and retailer of recreational boats\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC investigation of the acquisition of a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Belk Stores\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisitions of the Parisian, Proffitt\u0026rsquo;s and McCrae\u0026rsquo;s department store chains from Saks Fifth Avenue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMcLane Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Section 1 Sherman Act in an action in federal District Court in Connecticut.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Loretta N. Bansavich D/B/A/Lori\u0026rsquo;s Mobil v. McLane Company, Inc.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTechnology\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein numerous strategic transactions, including the acquisitions of LawLogix Edge and LawLogix Guardian software solutions, Midigator Holdings, LLC, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions, Appriss Insights, a trusted and comprehensive source of risk and criminal justice data intelligence, Health e(fx), a leading and experienced provider of Affordable Care Act digital services, Teletrack, a U.S. leader in alternative credit data and Kount, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMailchimp\u003c/strong\u003e, a world-class, global customer engagement and marketing platform, in a DOJ investigation of its $12 billion acquisition by Mountain View, CA-based Intuit Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCox Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of Logicworks, which provides cloud management, automation, migration, and operations services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRed Ventures\u003c/strong\u003e, whose portfolio includes\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHealthline\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading digital health company in its $675 million acquisition of Healthgrades.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSharecare\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading digital health company, in its $3.9 billion SPAC merger with Falcon Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBrookfield Infrastructure Group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its $1.1 billion acquisition of 31 Data Centers in 10 Countries on 4 Continents from AT\u0026amp;T.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChoicePoint\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of ChoicePoint\u0026rsquo;s acquisition by Reed Elsevier.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSprint\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of its $35 billion merger with Nextel.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":22,"guid":"22.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1114,"guid":"1114.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":14,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":15,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":17,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Spigel","nick_name":"Jeff","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jeffrey","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized practitioner and leading antitrust lawyer","detail":"Chambers USA, Legal 500 and Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Named one of the “Outstanding Healthcare Antitrust Lawyers” in the U.S.","detail":"Nightingale Healthcare News"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-spigel-06a0914/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Spigel focuses on advising clients on the antitrust issues related to successfully executing their business strategy. As a partner and co-head of our global Antitrust practice, clients routinely seek Jeff\u0026rsquo;s practical and business-friendly advice to guide them through their strategic transactions, criminal grand jury and civil DOJ, FTC, State AG and antitrust investigations and litigation. Working with our Brussels antitrust lawyers, Jeff also defends clients in multi-jurisdictional investigations that coordinate with the U.S., including the European Commission and the UK\u0026rsquo;s CMA.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff represents clients in responding to a range of civil and criminal antitrust investigations in the U.S. and abroad, obtaining Hart-Scott-Rodino clearance and coordinating approvals of proposed transactions in foreign jurisdictions. He also advises clients on pursuing or defending against antitrust claims and counsels on strategic antitrust issues such as those arising from benchmarking, compliance and audits, competitor collaborations, exclusivity and foreclosure, resale price maintenance, Robinson-Patman price discrimination, refusals to deal, and tying and predatory bundling issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith significant experience in the healthcare sector, Jeff frequently advises healthcare clients on strategic transactions, messenger model networks, financially- and/or clinically-integrated networks, Group Purchasing Organizations and claims by commercial payors, competitors, or the government.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff\u0026rsquo;s antitrust experience also includes advising clients in a broad range of industries such as building materials, chemicals, communications, consumer products, energy (oil, gas, power, and renewables), entertainment, financial, metals, paper, pharmaceutical, retail, technology, and transportation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn behalf of his clients, Jeff appears regularly before the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, and he coordinates with foreign counsel in dealing with competition authorities in jurisdictions around the globe, including before the European Commission. In addition, he represents clients on unfair and deceptive trade practice matters before the Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and state attorneys general.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA regular author and speaker, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e have identified Jeff as a recognized practitioner and leading antitrust lawyer. In addition, \u003cem\u003eNightingale Healthcare News\u003c/em\u003e named him one of the \u0026ldquo;Outstanding Healthcare Antitrust Lawyers\u0026rdquo; in the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAgricultural/Food\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefending a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading food company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DOJ and State AG antitrust investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eViserion Grain, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, in DOJ\u0026rsquo;s approval of its acquisition of 11 grain elevator facilities from Zen-Noh Grain Corporation (\u0026ldquo;ZGC\u0026rdquo;). These facilities were required to be divested to remedy the DOJ\u0026rsquo;s challenge of ZGC\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of multiple grain facilities from Bunge North America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRockstar\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading energy drink maker, in an FTC investigation of its $3.85 billion acquisition by PepsiCo Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a leading provider of natural gas processing and treatment and compression products and services in a DOJ merger investigation of a merger with a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eConocoPhillips\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the sale of its Canadian oil, sand, and gas assets to Cenovus in a $13.3 billion transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eone of the leading operators and builders of offshore supply vessels\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of an acquisition of a leading provider of repair services and construction of offshore and military vessels.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading manufacturer of drill bits\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;used in mining and oil and gas exploration in a DOJ investigation of its acquisition by a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major global energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ criminal antitrust investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eWeatherford Internationa\u003c/strong\u003el in the sale of its pipeline business to Baker Hughes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMarubeni-Itochu Tubulars\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its acquisition of the casing and tubing business of Oil States International.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTransocean Ltd\u003c/strong\u003e. in connection with its $2.7 billion acquisition of Ocean Rig UDW, Inc., in the offshore oil and gas drilling sector and successfully obtained antitrust clearances in several jurisdictions around the world.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLS Power\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining antitrust clearances for various acquisitions of electric power-generating assets from several independent power producers around the U.S. and provided continued antitrust advice on subsequent potential transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest integrated petroleum companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an industry-wide investigation of gasoline prices by the FTC and Congress.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMirant Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ antitrust investigation of its merger with RRI Energy. The transaction closed without DOJ action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntertainment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCox Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of Axios Media.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCarmike Cinemas\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of its merger with AMC Theatres. Successfully negotiated a settlement with the DOJ. (\u003cem\u003eUnited States of America v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFinancial Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading payment processor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition by a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein antitrust litigation filed against it, TransUnion and Experian alleging violations of federal and California antitrust laws. (\u003cem\u003eAdams v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., E.D. Calif. (2:23-cv-01773).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTSYS\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading global payments provider, in merger clearances of its $54 billion all-stock merger of equals with Global Payments, a worldwide provider of payment technology and software solutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBank of America\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC consumer protection investigation and litigation of Countrywide Financial Corporation related to Countrywide\u0026rsquo;s mortgage loan servicing practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHealthcare/Life Sciences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a leading manufacturer of dental bone grafting products in a DOJ merger investigation of an acquisition by a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;regarding Lafayette General Health System\u0026rsquo;s merger into Ochsner.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the formation of a joint venture with LSU to acquire University Health Hospitals from BRFHH.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in forming JOAs with CHRISTUS Louisiana, Lafayette General Health, Slidell Memorial Hospital, St. Tammany Parish Hospital, and Terrebonne General Medical Center.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of Rush Health Systems, which added seven hospitals to extend Ochsner\u0026rsquo;s reach to east Mississippi/west Alabama region.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePiedmont Healthcare, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the acquisition of four hospitals in North Georgia and Macon from HCA Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePiedmont Healthcare\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisition of University Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHouston Methodist\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its acquisition of two CHRISTUS hospitals in the metropolitan Houston area.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSt. Joseph\u0026rsquo;s Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC investigation of its formation of a JOA with Emory Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Cente\u003c/strong\u003er\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e(UTSW)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its formation of a JOA with Texas Health Resources.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKing\u0026rsquo;s Daughter Hospital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition by Scott \u0026amp; White Healthcare, which ultimately received clearance from the FTC under a failing firm defense.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e1,000-plus member, exclusive clinically-integrated physician network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC price fixing investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented physician clients and their messenger model network in an FTC civil price fixing and concerted refusal to deal investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHospital Corporation of America\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Sections 1 and 2 Sherman Act (tying) federal antitrust action against a competing hospital system.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Palmyra Park Medical Center, Inc. v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., et al.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea branded pharmaceutical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DOJ and FTC antitrust investigations of a proposed patent settlement and the use of authorized generics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eManufacturing/Chemical/Paper\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuikrete Holdings, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition of Forterra Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eWestRock,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;which is a leading manufacturer of containerboard and paperboard, in DOJ and other competition authorities\u0026rsquo; investigations of strategic transactions, including WestRock\u0026rsquo;s $16 billion merger with MeadWestvaco, its $2.28 billion acquisition of MultiPackaging Solution, its $4.9 billion acquisition of KapStone, and its sale of its partitions business to Sonoco.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSchweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(now known as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMativ\u003c/strong\u003e) in a DOJ investigation of its merger of equals with Neenah, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eH.I.G. CAPITAL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and its subsidiary\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDCL Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as the divestiture buyer of Sun Chemical\u0026rsquo;s DIC Corporation Bushy Park assets in front of the Federal Trade Commission, European Commission and the Japanese Fair Trade Commission as part of a settlement regarding DIC\u0026rsquo;s acquisition by BASF\u0026rsquo;s pigment business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented global chemical company\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKraton Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its merger with DL Chemical Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of DL Holdings Co., Ltd. (formerly Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eForterra Brick\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the combination of its brick business with Boral Brick as part of the formation of a new joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eForterra Building Products\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of U.S. Pipe.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLafarge\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on numerous strategic transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUCAR International\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e(now\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrafTech)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a federal grand jury price fixing investigation of graphite electrodes.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(United States v. UCAR International Inc.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRetail\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a leading home furnishing company in an FTC merger investigation of a leading e-commerce platform.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading branded apparel company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of an acquisition of a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHanesBrands, Inc.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;one of the leading providers of licensed athletic apparel and related services, in its collaboration with Fanatics, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading manufacturer and retailer of recreational boats\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC investigation of the acquisition of a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Belk Stores\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisitions of the Parisian, Proffitt\u0026rsquo;s and McCrae\u0026rsquo;s department store chains from Saks Fifth Avenue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMcLane Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Section 1 Sherman Act in an action in federal District Court in Connecticut.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Loretta N. Bansavich D/B/A/Lori\u0026rsquo;s Mobil v. McLane Company, Inc.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTechnology\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein numerous strategic transactions, including the acquisitions of LawLogix Edge and LawLogix Guardian software solutions, Midigator Holdings, LLC, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions, Appriss Insights, a trusted and comprehensive source of risk and criminal justice data intelligence, Health e(fx), a leading and experienced provider of Affordable Care Act digital services, Teletrack, a U.S. leader in alternative credit data and Kount, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMailchimp\u003c/strong\u003e, a world-class, global customer engagement and marketing platform, in a DOJ investigation of its $12 billion acquisition by Mountain View, CA-based Intuit Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCox Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of Logicworks, which provides cloud management, automation, migration, and operations services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRed Ventures\u003c/strong\u003e, whose portfolio includes\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHealthline\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading digital health company in its $675 million acquisition of Healthgrades.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSharecare\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading digital health company, in its $3.9 billion SPAC merger with Falcon Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBrookfield Infrastructure Group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its $1.1 billion acquisition of 31 Data Centers in 10 Countries on 4 Continents from AT\u0026amp;T.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChoicePoint\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of ChoicePoint\u0026rsquo;s acquisition by Reed Elsevier.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSprint\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of its $35 billion merger with Nextel.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized practitioner and leading antitrust lawyer","detail":"Chambers USA, Legal 500 and Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Named one of the “Outstanding Healthcare Antitrust Lawyers” in the U.S.","detail":"Nightingale Healthcare News"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1194}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:37.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:37.000Z","searchable_text":"Spigel{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized practitioner and leading antitrust lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Legal 500 and Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named one of the “Outstanding Healthcare Antitrust Lawyers” in the U.S.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Nightingale Healthcare News\"}{{ FIELD }}Agricultural/Food\nDefending a leading food company in DOJ and State AG antitrust investigations.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Viserion Grain, LLC, in DOJ’s approval of its acquisition of 11 grain elevator facilities from Zen-Noh Grain Corporation (“ZGC”). These facilities were required to be divested to remedy the DOJ’s challenge of ZGC’s acquisition of multiple grain facilities from Bunge North America.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Rockstar, a leading energy drink maker, in an FTC investigation of its $3.85 billion acquisition by PepsiCo Inc.{{ FIELD }}Energy\nSuccessfully represented a leading provider of natural gas processing and treatment and compression products and services in a DOJ merger investigation of a merger with a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented ConocoPhillips on the sale of its Canadian oil, sand, and gas assets to Cenovus in a $13.3 billion transaction.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented one of the leading operators and builders of offshore supply vessels in a DOJ investigation of an acquisition of a leading provider of repair services and construction of offshore and military vessels.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a leading manufacturer of drill bits used in mining and oil and gas exploration in a DOJ investigation of its acquisition by a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a major global energy company in a DOJ criminal antitrust investigation.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Weatherford International in the sale of its pipeline business to Baker Hughes.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Marubeni-Itochu Tubulars on its acquisition of the casing and tubing business of Oil States International.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Transocean Ltd. in connection with its $2.7 billion acquisition of Ocean Rig UDW, Inc., in the offshore oil and gas drilling sector and successfully obtained antitrust clearances in several jurisdictions around the world.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented LS Power in obtaining antitrust clearances for various acquisitions of electric power-generating assets from several independent power producers around the U.S. and provided continued antitrust advice on subsequent potential transactions.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented one of the world’s largest integrated petroleum companies in an industry-wide investigation of gasoline prices by the FTC and Congress.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Mirant Corporation in a DOJ antitrust investigation of its merger with RRI Energy. The transaction closed without DOJ action.{{ FIELD }}Entertainment\nSuccessfully represented Cox Enterprises in its acquisition of Axios Media.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Carmike Cinemas in a DOJ investigation of its merger with AMC Theatres. Successfully negotiated a settlement with the DOJ. (United States of America v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.).{{ FIELD }}Financial Services\nSuccessfully represented a leading payment processor in a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition by a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Defending Equifax in antitrust litigation filed against it, TransUnion and Experian alleging violations of federal and California antitrust laws. (Adams v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al., E.D. Calif. (2:23-cv-01773).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented TSYS, a leading global payments provider, in merger clearances of its $54 billion all-stock merger of equals with Global Payments, a worldwide provider of payment technology and software solutions.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Bank of America in an FTC consumer protection investigation and litigation of Countrywide Financial Corporation related to Countrywide’s mortgage loan servicing practices.{{ FIELD }}Healthcare/Life Sciences\nSuccessfully represented a leading manufacturer of dental bone grafting products in a DOJ merger investigation of an acquisition by a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Ochsner Health System regarding Lafayette General Health System’s merger into Ochsner.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Ochsner Health System in the formation of a joint venture with LSU to acquire University Health Hospitals from BRFHH.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Ochsner Health System in forming JOAs with CHRISTUS Louisiana, Lafayette General Health, Slidell Memorial Hospital, St. Tammany Parish Hospital, and Terrebonne General Medical Center.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Ochsner Health System in its acquisition of Rush Health Systems, which added seven hospitals to extend Ochsner’s reach to east Mississippi/west Alabama region.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Piedmont Healthcare, Inc. in the acquisition of four hospitals in North Georgia and Macon from HCA Healthcare.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Piedmont Healthcare in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisition of University Healthcare.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Houston Methodist in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its acquisition of two CHRISTUS hospitals in the metropolitan Houston area.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented St. Joseph’s Health System in an FTC investigation of its formation of a JOA with Emory Healthcare.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW) in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its formation of a JOA with Texas Health Resources.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented King’s Daughter Hospital in its acquisition by Scott \u0026amp; White Healthcare, which ultimately received clearance from the FTC under a failing firm defense.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a 1,000-plus member, exclusive clinically-integrated physician network in an FTC price fixing investigation.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented physician clients and their messenger model network in an FTC civil price fixing and concerted refusal to deal investigation.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Hospital Corporation of America in a Sections 1 and 2 Sherman Act (tying) federal antitrust action against a competing hospital system. (Palmyra Park Medical Center, Inc. v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., et al.).{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a branded pharmaceutical manufacturer in DOJ and FTC antitrust investigations of a proposed patent settlement and the use of authorized generics.{{ FIELD }}Manufacturing/Chemical/Paper\nSuccessfully represented Quikrete Holdings, Inc. in a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition of Forterra Inc.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented WestRock, which is a leading manufacturer of containerboard and paperboard, in DOJ and other competition authorities’ investigations of strategic transactions, including WestRock’s $16 billion merger with MeadWestvaco, its $2.28 billion acquisition of MultiPackaging Solution, its $4.9 billion acquisition of KapStone, and its sale of its partitions business to Sonoco.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc. (now known as Mativ) in a DOJ investigation of its merger of equals with Neenah, Inc.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented H.I.G. CAPITAL and its subsidiary DCL Corporation as the divestiture buyer of Sun Chemical’s DIC Corporation Bushy Park assets in front of the Federal Trade Commission, European Commission and the Japanese Fair Trade Commission as part of a settlement regarding DIC’s acquisition by BASF’s pigment business.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented global chemical company Kraton Corporation in its merger with DL Chemical Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of DL Holdings Co., Ltd. (formerly Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd.).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Forterra Brick on the combination of its brick business with Boral Brick as part of the formation of a new joint venture.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Forterra Building Products in its acquisition of U.S. Pipe.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Lafarge on numerous strategic transactions.{{ FIELD }}Defended UCAR International (now GrafTech) in a federal grand jury price fixing investigation of graphite electrodes. (United States v. UCAR International Inc.).{{ FIELD }}Retail\nSuccessfully represented a leading home furnishing company in an FTC merger investigation of a leading e-commerce platform.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a leading branded apparel company in an FTC merger investigation of an acquisition of a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented HanesBrands, Inc., one of the leading providers of licensed athletic apparel and related services, in its collaboration with Fanatics, Inc.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a leading manufacturer and retailer of recreational boats in an FTC investigation of the acquisition of a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented The Belk Stores in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisitions of the Parisian, Proffitt’s and McCrae’s department store chains from Saks Fifth Avenue.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented McLane Company in a Section 1 Sherman Act in an action in federal District Court in Connecticut. (Loretta N. Bansavich D/B/A/Lori’s Mobil v. McLane Company, Inc.).{{ FIELD }}Technology\nSuccessfully represented Equifax in numerous strategic transactions, including the acquisitions of LawLogix Edge and LawLogix Guardian software solutions, Midigator Holdings, LLC, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions, Appriss Insights, a trusted and comprehensive source of risk and criminal justice data intelligence, Health e(fx), a leading and experienced provider of Affordable Care Act digital services, Teletrack, a U.S. leader in alternative credit data and Kount, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Mailchimp, a world-class, global customer engagement and marketing platform, in a DOJ investigation of its $12 billion acquisition by Mountain View, CA-based Intuit Inc.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Cox Enterprises in its acquisition of Logicworks, which provides cloud management, automation, migration, and operations services.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Red Ventures, whose portfolio includes Healthline, a leading digital health company in its $675 million acquisition of Healthgrades.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Sharecare, a leading digital health company, in its $3.9 billion SPAC merger with Falcon Capital.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Brookfield Infrastructure Group in its $1.1 billion acquisition of 31 Data Centers in 10 Countries on 4 Continents from AT\u0026amp;T.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented ChoicePoint in an FTC merger investigation of ChoicePoint’s acquisition by Reed Elsevier.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Sprint in a DOJ investigation of its $35 billion merger with Nextel.{{ FIELD }}Jeff Spigel focuses on advising clients on the antitrust issues related to successfully executing their business strategy. As a partner and co-head of our global Antitrust practice, clients routinely seek Jeff’s practical and business-friendly advice to guide them through their strategic transactions, criminal grand jury and civil DOJ, FTC, State AG and antitrust investigations and litigation. Working with our Brussels antitrust lawyers, Jeff also defends clients in multi-jurisdictional investigations that coordinate with the U.S., including the European Commission and the UK’s CMA.\nJeff represents clients in responding to a range of civil and criminal antitrust investigations in the U.S. and abroad, obtaining Hart-Scott-Rodino clearance and coordinating approvals of proposed transactions in foreign jurisdictions. He also advises clients on pursuing or defending against antitrust claims and counsels on strategic antitrust issues such as those arising from benchmarking, compliance and audits, competitor collaborations, exclusivity and foreclosure, resale price maintenance, Robinson-Patman price discrimination, refusals to deal, and tying and predatory bundling issues.\nWith significant experience in the healthcare sector, Jeff frequently advises healthcare clients on strategic transactions, messenger model networks, financially- and/or clinically-integrated networks, Group Purchasing Organizations and claims by commercial payors, competitors, or the government.\nJeff’s antitrust experience also includes advising clients in a broad range of industries such as building materials, chemicals, communications, consumer products, energy (oil, gas, power, and renewables), entertainment, financial, metals, paper, pharmaceutical, retail, technology, and transportation.\nOn behalf of his clients, Jeff appears regularly before the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, and he coordinates with foreign counsel in dealing with competition authorities in jurisdictions around the globe, including before the European Commission. In addition, he represents clients on unfair and deceptive trade practice matters before the Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and state attorneys general.\nA regular author and speaker, Chambers USA, Legal 500 and Super Lawyers have identified Jeff as a recognized practitioner and leading antitrust lawyer. In addition, Nightingale Healthcare News named him one of the “Outstanding Healthcare Antitrust Lawyers” in the U.S. Partner Recognized practitioner and leading antitrust lawyer Chambers USA, Legal 500 and Super Lawyers Named one of the “Outstanding Healthcare Antitrust Lawyers” in the U.S. Nightingale Healthcare News Emory University Emory University School of Law University of Miami University of Miami School of Law Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia Tennessee The District of Columbia Bar American Health Lawyers Association American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law Agricultural/Food\nDefending a leading food company in DOJ and State AG antitrust investigations. Successfully represented Viserion Grain, LLC, in DOJ’s approval of its acquisition of 11 grain elevator facilities from Zen-Noh Grain Corporation (“ZGC”). These facilities were required to be divested to remedy the DOJ’s challenge of ZGC’s acquisition of multiple grain facilities from Bunge North America. Successfully represented Rockstar, a leading energy drink maker, in an FTC investigation of its $3.85 billion acquisition by PepsiCo Inc. Energy\nSuccessfully represented a leading provider of natural gas processing and treatment and compression products and services in a DOJ merger investigation of a merger with a competitor. Successfully represented ConocoPhillips on the sale of its Canadian oil, sand, and gas assets to Cenovus in a $13.3 billion transaction. Successfully represented one of the leading operators and builders of offshore supply vessels in a DOJ investigation of an acquisition of a leading provider of repair services and construction of offshore and military vessels. Successfully represented a leading manufacturer of drill bits used in mining and oil and gas exploration in a DOJ investigation of its acquisition by a competitor. Successfully represented a major global energy company in a DOJ criminal antitrust investigation. Successfully represented Weatherford International in the sale of its pipeline business to Baker Hughes. Successfully represented Marubeni-Itochu Tubulars on its acquisition of the casing and tubing business of Oil States International. Successfully represented Transocean Ltd. in connection with its $2.7 billion acquisition of Ocean Rig UDW, Inc., in the offshore oil and gas drilling sector and successfully obtained antitrust clearances in several jurisdictions around the world. Successfully represented LS Power in obtaining antitrust clearances for various acquisitions of electric power-generating assets from several independent power producers around the U.S. and provided continued antitrust advice on subsequent potential transactions. Successfully represented one of the world’s largest integrated petroleum companies in an industry-wide investigation of gasoline prices by the FTC and Congress. Successfully represented Mirant Corporation in a DOJ antitrust investigation of its merger with RRI Energy. The transaction closed without DOJ action. Entertainment\nSuccessfully represented Cox Enterprises in its acquisition of Axios Media. Successfully represented Carmike Cinemas in a DOJ investigation of its merger with AMC Theatres. Successfully negotiated a settlement with the DOJ. (United States of America v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.). Financial Services\nSuccessfully represented a leading payment processor in a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition by a competitor. Defending Equifax in antitrust litigation filed against it, TransUnion and Experian alleging violations of federal and California antitrust laws. (Adams v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al., E.D. Calif. (2:23-cv-01773). Successfully represented TSYS, a leading global payments provider, in merger clearances of its $54 billion all-stock merger of equals with Global Payments, a worldwide provider of payment technology and software solutions. Successfully represented Bank of America in an FTC consumer protection investigation and litigation of Countrywide Financial Corporation related to Countrywide’s mortgage loan servicing practices. Healthcare/Life Sciences\nSuccessfully represented a leading manufacturer of dental bone grafting products in a DOJ merger investigation of an acquisition by a competitor. Successfully represented Ochsner Health System regarding Lafayette General Health System’s merger into Ochsner. Successfully represented Ochsner Health System in the formation of a joint venture with LSU to acquire University Health Hospitals from BRFHH. Successfully represented Ochsner Health System in forming JOAs with CHRISTUS Louisiana, Lafayette General Health, Slidell Memorial Hospital, St. Tammany Parish Hospital, and Terrebonne General Medical Center. Successfully represented Ochsner Health System in its acquisition of Rush Health Systems, which added seven hospitals to extend Ochsner’s reach to east Mississippi/west Alabama region. Successfully represented Piedmont Healthcare, Inc. in the acquisition of four hospitals in North Georgia and Macon from HCA Healthcare. Successfully represented Piedmont Healthcare in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisition of University Healthcare. Successfully represented Houston Methodist in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its acquisition of two CHRISTUS hospitals in the metropolitan Houston area. Successfully represented St. Joseph’s Health System in an FTC investigation of its formation of a JOA with Emory Healthcare. Successfully represented University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW) in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its formation of a JOA with Texas Health Resources. Successfully represented King’s Daughter Hospital in its acquisition by Scott \u0026amp; White Healthcare, which ultimately received clearance from the FTC under a failing firm defense. Successfully represented a 1,000-plus member, exclusive clinically-integrated physician network in an FTC price fixing investigation. Successfully represented physician clients and their messenger model network in an FTC civil price fixing and concerted refusal to deal investigation. Successfully represented Hospital Corporation of America in a Sections 1 and 2 Sherman Act (tying) federal antitrust action against a competing hospital system. (Palmyra Park Medical Center, Inc. v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., et al.). Successfully defended a branded pharmaceutical manufacturer in DOJ and FTC antitrust investigations of a proposed patent settlement and the use of authorized generics. Manufacturing/Chemical/Paper\nSuccessfully represented Quikrete Holdings, Inc. in a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition of Forterra Inc. Successfully represented WestRock, which is a leading manufacturer of containerboard and paperboard, in DOJ and other competition authorities’ investigations of strategic transactions, including WestRock’s $16 billion merger with MeadWestvaco, its $2.28 billion acquisition of MultiPackaging Solution, its $4.9 billion acquisition of KapStone, and its sale of its partitions business to Sonoco. Successfully represented Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc. (now known as Mativ) in a DOJ investigation of its merger of equals with Neenah, Inc. Successfully represented H.I.G. CAPITAL and its subsidiary DCL Corporation as the divestiture buyer of Sun Chemical’s DIC Corporation Bushy Park assets in front of the Federal Trade Commission, European Commission and the Japanese Fair Trade Commission as part of a settlement regarding DIC’s acquisition by BASF’s pigment business. Successfully represented global chemical company Kraton Corporation in its merger with DL Chemical Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of DL Holdings Co., Ltd. (formerly Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd.). Successfully represented Forterra Brick on the combination of its brick business with Boral Brick as part of the formation of a new joint venture. Successfully represented Forterra Building Products in its acquisition of U.S. Pipe. Successfully represented Lafarge on numerous strategic transactions. Defended UCAR International (now GrafTech) in a federal grand jury price fixing investigation of graphite electrodes. (United States v. UCAR International Inc.). Retail\nSuccessfully represented a leading home furnishing company in an FTC merger investigation of a leading e-commerce platform. Successfully represented a leading branded apparel company in an FTC merger investigation of an acquisition of a competitor. Successfully represented HanesBrands, Inc., one of the leading providers of licensed athletic apparel and related services, in its collaboration with Fanatics, Inc. Successfully represented a leading manufacturer and retailer of recreational boats in an FTC investigation of the acquisition of a competitor. Successfully represented The Belk Stores in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisitions of the Parisian, Proffitt’s and McCrae’s department store chains from Saks Fifth Avenue. Successfully represented McLane Company in a Section 1 Sherman Act in an action in federal District Court in Connecticut. (Loretta N. Bansavich D/B/A/Lori’s Mobil v. McLane Company, Inc.). Technology\nSuccessfully represented Equifax in numerous strategic transactions, including the acquisitions of LawLogix Edge and LawLogix Guardian software solutions, Midigator Holdings, LLC, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions, Appriss Insights, a trusted and comprehensive source of risk and criminal justice data intelligence, Health e(fx), a leading and experienced provider of Affordable Care Act digital services, Teletrack, a U.S. leader in alternative credit data and Kount, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions. Successfully represented Mailchimp, a world-class, global customer engagement and marketing platform, in a DOJ investigation of its $12 billion acquisition by Mountain View, CA-based Intuit Inc. Successfully represented Cox Enterprises in its acquisition of Logicworks, which provides cloud management, automation, migration, and operations services. Successfully represented Red Ventures, whose portfolio includes Healthline, a leading digital health company in its $675 million acquisition of Healthgrades. Successfully represented Sharecare, a leading digital health company, in its $3.9 billion SPAC merger with Falcon Capital. Successfully represented Brookfield Infrastructure Group in its $1.1 billion acquisition of 31 Data Centers in 10 Countries on 4 Continents from AT\u0026amp;T. Successfully represented ChoicePoint in an FTC merger investigation of ChoicePoint’s acquisition by Reed Elsevier. Successfully represented Sprint in a DOJ investigation of its $35 billion merger with Nextel.","searchable_name":"Jeffrey S. Spigel (Jeff)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446161,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3412,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star)\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken\u0026rsquo;s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kenneth-steinthal","email":"ksteinthal@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 917 825 7293","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Copyright Litigations/Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings \u0026hellip; (\u003c/em\u003eknown as the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeb V\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings). Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels\u0026rsquo; positions and adopting much of Google\u0026rsquo;s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018\u0026ndash;2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit\u0026rsquo;s rejection of the publishers\u0026rsquo; core appeal positions while granting the services\u0026rsquo; request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB\u0026rsquo;s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFour Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Orchard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(known as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePB IV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;). Ken is lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporation for Public Broadcasting\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNPR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;PBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;PB III\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken\u0026rsquo;s clients\u0026rsquo; determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken\u0026rsquo;s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePeloton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton\u0026rsquo;s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers\u0026rsquo; Association (\u0026ldquo;NMPA\u0026rdquo;) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (\u0026ldquo;RMLC\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRMLC,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016\u0026ndash;2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eESPN v. BMI\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI\u0026rsquo;s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePandora\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit\u0026rsquo;s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora\u0026rsquo;s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to \u0026ldquo;partially\u0026rdquo; withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora\u0026rsquo;s position.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMobiTV\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP\u0026rsquo;s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eReal Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo!\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken co-defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo! Music\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Napster II\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al\u003c/em\u003e). Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBertelsmann\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEMI Music v. Multiply Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI\u0026rsquo;s label and publisher catalogues asserting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMultiply\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMusicNet\u003c/strong\u003e, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eColeman, et al. v. ESPN\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN\u0026rsquo;s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN\u0026rsquo;s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN\u0026rsquo;s assertion of the \u0026ldquo;fair use\u0026rdquo; defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers\u0026rsquo; summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eABC Television Network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;had infringed the publishers\u0026rsquo; rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called \u0026ldquo;one time uses\u0026rdquo; of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports \u0026ldquo;bio-pic\u0026rdquo; segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther \u0026ldquo;Rate Court\u0026rdquo; Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eASCAP/BMI licensees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe local television industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the early 1980s (\u003cem\u003eBuffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al\u003c/em\u003e.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (\u003cem\u003eNCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al\u003c/em\u003e.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken has been granted \u0026ldquo;rights of audience\u0026rdquo; in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eiJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebaazee.com\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(the \u0026ldquo;eBay of India,\u0026rdquo; in which News Corp\u0026rsquo;s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColumbia Pictures\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Airlines.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Plaintiff claimed American\u0026rsquo;s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFilm Finances and production/distribution entities.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLeague\u003c/em\u003e. Ken assisted in representing the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNASL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;cross ownership\u0026rdquo; ban, which would have prevented \u0026ldquo;cross-owners\u0026rdquo; such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eN.Y. Islanders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAirborne defendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter alia\u003c/em\u003e, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea national title insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNNN\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBritannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edefendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFirst Aviation and its principals.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants\u0026rsquo; verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePIA v. UBS Securities, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUBS,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;stemming from UBS\u0026rsquo; termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million \u0026ldquo;kitchen sink\u0026rdquo; action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRitz Carlton.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrupo Industrial Alfa\u0026rsquo;s steel company, Hylsa, SA,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of \u0026ldquo;HYL Process\u0026rdquo; steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Steinthal","nick_name":"Kenneth","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Kenneth","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2022"},{"title":"IP Trailblazers","detail":"National Law Journal, 2016"},{"title":"1 of 5 Media \u0026 Entertainment MVPs","detail":"Law360, 2015"},{"title":"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers","detail":"The Daily Journal"},{"title":"Leading IP Attorneys: California","detail":"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)"},{"title":"Legal 500 USA ","detail":"multiple years through 2022"},{"title":"Northern California Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"2026 Lawdragon 500","detail":"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyers"},{"title":"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel ","detail":"Hollywood Reporter"},{"title":"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist ","detail":"AAI, 2014"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star)\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken\u0026rsquo;s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Copyright Litigations/Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings \u0026hellip; (\u003c/em\u003eknown as the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeb V\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings). Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels\u0026rsquo; positions and adopting much of Google\u0026rsquo;s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018\u0026ndash;2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit\u0026rsquo;s rejection of the publishers\u0026rsquo; core appeal positions while granting the services\u0026rsquo; request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB\u0026rsquo;s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFour Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Orchard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(known as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePB IV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;). Ken is lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporation for Public Broadcasting\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNPR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;PBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;PB III\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken\u0026rsquo;s clients\u0026rsquo; determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken\u0026rsquo;s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePeloton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton\u0026rsquo;s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers\u0026rsquo; Association (\u0026ldquo;NMPA\u0026rdquo;) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (\u0026ldquo;RMLC\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRMLC,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016\u0026ndash;2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eESPN v. BMI\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI\u0026rsquo;s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePandora\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit\u0026rsquo;s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora\u0026rsquo;s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to \u0026ldquo;partially\u0026rdquo; withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora\u0026rsquo;s position.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMobiTV\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP\u0026rsquo;s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eReal Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo!\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken co-defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo! Music\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Napster II\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al\u003c/em\u003e). Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBertelsmann\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEMI Music v. Multiply Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI\u0026rsquo;s label and publisher catalogues asserting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMultiply\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMusicNet\u003c/strong\u003e, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eColeman, et al. v. ESPN\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN\u0026rsquo;s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN\u0026rsquo;s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN\u0026rsquo;s assertion of the \u0026ldquo;fair use\u0026rdquo; defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers\u0026rsquo; summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eABC Television Network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;had infringed the publishers\u0026rsquo; rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called \u0026ldquo;one time uses\u0026rdquo; of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports \u0026ldquo;bio-pic\u0026rdquo; segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther \u0026ldquo;Rate Court\u0026rdquo; Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eASCAP/BMI licensees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe local television industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the early 1980s (\u003cem\u003eBuffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al\u003c/em\u003e.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (\u003cem\u003eNCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al\u003c/em\u003e.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken has been granted \u0026ldquo;rights of audience\u0026rdquo; in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eiJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebaazee.com\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(the \u0026ldquo;eBay of India,\u0026rdquo; in which News Corp\u0026rsquo;s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColumbia Pictures\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Airlines.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Plaintiff claimed American\u0026rsquo;s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFilm Finances and production/distribution entities.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLeague\u003c/em\u003e. Ken assisted in representing the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNASL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;cross ownership\u0026rdquo; ban, which would have prevented \u0026ldquo;cross-owners\u0026rdquo; such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eN.Y. Islanders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAirborne defendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter alia\u003c/em\u003e, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea national title insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNNN\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBritannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edefendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFirst Aviation and its principals.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants\u0026rsquo; verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePIA v. UBS Securities, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUBS,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;stemming from UBS\u0026rsquo; termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million \u0026ldquo;kitchen sink\u0026rdquo; action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRitz Carlton.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrupo Industrial Alfa\u0026rsquo;s steel company, Hylsa, SA,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of \u0026ldquo;HYL Process\u0026rdquo; steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2022"},{"title":"IP Trailblazers","detail":"National Law Journal, 2016"},{"title":"1 of 5 Media \u0026 Entertainment MVPs","detail":"Law360, 2015"},{"title":"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers","detail":"The Daily Journal"},{"title":"Leading IP Attorneys: California","detail":"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)"},{"title":"Legal 500 USA ","detail":"multiple years through 2022"},{"title":"Northern California Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"2026 Lawdragon 500","detail":"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyers"},{"title":"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel ","detail":"Hollywood Reporter"},{"title":"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist ","detail":"AAI, 2014"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4405},{"id":4405}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-25T16:42:53.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-25T16:42:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Steinthal{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"IP Trailblazers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Daily Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading IP Attorneys: California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026amp; Entertainment\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 USA \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"multiple years through 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Northern California Super Lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2026 Lawdragon 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Hollywood Reporter\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"AAI, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}Representative Copyright Litigations/Matters\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings … (known as the Web V proceedings). Ken leads the representation of Google in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels’ positions and adopting much of Google’s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.{{ FIELD }}In re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords. Ken leads the representation of Google in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018–2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the publishers’ core appeal positions while granting the services’ request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial. Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB’s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.{{ FIELD }}Four Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al. Ken led the defense of The Orchard (a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the “mechanical” reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities (known as “PB IV”). Ken is lead counsel for Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR and PBS in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior PB III proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\nDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including Netflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken’s clients’ determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken’s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\nDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. Ken led the defense of Peloton in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton’s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\nSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”). Ken was lead counsel for the RMLC, the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016–2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\nESPN v. BMI. Ken was lead counsel for ESPN in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI’s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\nPandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP. Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on Pandora’s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit’s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora’s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to “partially” withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora’s position.\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc. Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client MobiTV’s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP’s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc. Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of Real Networks and Yahoo! leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\nArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media. Ken co-defended Yahoo! Music (f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\n“Napster II” (UMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al). Ken led the defense of Bertelsmann against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\nEMI Music v. Multiply Inc. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI’s label and publisher catalogues asserting Multiply did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\nSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc. Ken led the defense of MusicNet, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\nColeman, et al. v. ESPN. Ken led the defense of ESPN against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN’s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN’s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN’s assertion of the “fair use” defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers’ summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\nAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the ABC Television Network had infringed the publishers’ rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called “one time uses” of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports “bio-pic” segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\nOther “Rate Court” Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI. Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other ASCAP/BMI licensees engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\nAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI. Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by the local television industry in the early 1980s (Buffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (NCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\nInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters. Ken has been granted “rights of audience” in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Representative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\niJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending baazee.com (the “eBay of India,” in which News Corp’s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\nPersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by Columbia Pictures of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\nRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by American Airlines. Plaintiff claimed American’s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\nEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients Film Finances and production/distribution entities. After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\nNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football League. Ken assisted in representing the NASL in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL’s “cross ownership” ban, which would have prevented “cross-owners” such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\nNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for the N.Y. Islanders hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.{{ FIELD }}Representative Other Engagements\nDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the Airborne defendants in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging, inter alia, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\nIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation. Ken was lead trial counsel for a national title insurance company in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL §17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\nNNN Britannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for defendants in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL §17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\nRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against First Aviation and its principals. The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants’ verdict.\nPIA v. UBS Securities, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against UBS, stemming from UBS’ termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant’s favor.\nOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million “kitchen sink” action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client Ritz Carlton. The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\nIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co. Ken was lead trial counsel for Grupo Industrial Alfa’s steel company, Hylsa, SA, in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of “HYL Process” steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.{{ FIELD }}Kenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by National Law Journal as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by Law360 as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by Legal 500 as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of Legal 500, Chambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star) and the Daily Journal’s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. \nKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken’s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\nIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice’s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions. Partner “He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.” CHAMBERS USA 2022 IP Trailblazers National Law Journal, 2016 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs Law360, 2015 Top 10 Copyright Lawyers The Daily Journal Leading IP Attorneys: California The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021) Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026amp; Entertainment Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022) Legal 500 USA  multiple years through 2022 Northern California Super Lawyer  Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021) 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel  Hollywood Reporter Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist  AAI, 2014 Williams College  Fordham University Fordham University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California California New York Representative Copyright Litigations/Matters\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings … (known as the Web V proceedings). Ken leads the representation of Google in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels’ positions and adopting much of Google’s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing. In re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords. Ken leads the representation of Google in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018–2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the publishers’ core appeal positions while granting the services’ request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial. Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB’s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate. Four Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al. Ken led the defense of The Orchard (a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the “mechanical” reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities (known as “PB IV”). Ken is lead counsel for Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR and PBS in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior PB III proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\nDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including Netflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken’s clients’ determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken’s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\nDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. Ken led the defense of Peloton in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton’s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\nSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”). Ken was lead counsel for the RMLC, the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016–2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\nESPN v. BMI. Ken was lead counsel for ESPN in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI’s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\nPandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP. Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on Pandora’s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit’s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora’s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to “partially” withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora’s position.\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc. Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client MobiTV’s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP’s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc. Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of Real Networks and Yahoo! leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\nArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media. Ken co-defended Yahoo! Music (f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\n“Napster II” (UMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al). Ken led the defense of Bertelsmann against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\nEMI Music v. Multiply Inc. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI’s label and publisher catalogues asserting Multiply did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\nSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc. Ken led the defense of MusicNet, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\nColeman, et al. v. ESPN. Ken led the defense of ESPN against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN’s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN’s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN’s assertion of the “fair use” defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers’ summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\nAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the ABC Television Network had infringed the publishers’ rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called “one time uses” of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports “bio-pic” segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\nOther “Rate Court” Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI. Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other ASCAP/BMI licensees engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\nAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI. Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by the local television industry in the early 1980s (Buffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (NCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\nInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters. Ken has been granted “rights of audience” in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial. Representative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\niJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending baazee.com (the “eBay of India,” in which News Corp’s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\nPersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by Columbia Pictures of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\nRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by American Airlines. Plaintiff claimed American’s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\nEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients Film Finances and production/distribution entities. After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\nNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football League. Ken assisted in representing the NASL in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL’s “cross ownership” ban, which would have prevented “cross-owners” such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\nNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for the N.Y. Islanders hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis. Representative Other Engagements\nDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the Airborne defendants in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging, inter alia, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\nIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation. Ken was lead trial counsel for a national title insurance company in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL §17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\nNNN Britannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for defendants in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL §17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\nRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against First Aviation and its principals. The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants’ verdict.\nPIA v. UBS Securities, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against UBS, stemming from UBS’ termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant’s favor.\nOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million “kitchen sink” action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client Ritz Carlton. The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\nIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co. Ken was lead trial counsel for Grupo Industrial Alfa’s steel company, Hylsa, SA, in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of “HYL Process” steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.","searchable_name":"Kenneth L. Steinthal","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442854,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6020,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCliff Stricklin, a longtime Texas and Colorado based trial lawyer,\u0026nbsp;guides companies and executives through critical situations where litigation is a possible result. He advises clients in commercial disputes and defends them against government inquiries and private allegations of wrongdoing. He is a trusted advisor to C-suite executives and board members. He performs independent investigations on behalf of corporations and boards on subjects that include auditing, accounting, corporate governance and control, sexual harassment, and fraud. Should litigation become necessary, Cliff is an accomplished trial lawyer who has successfully tried and won some of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest, most complex cases, including those involving Enron and Qwest.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCliff aggressively defends corporations and executives in serious matters involving commercial litigation, antitrust, the False Claims Act, securities fraud and regulation (including cryptocurrency issues), industrial accidents, healthcare fraud, and environmental claims. He provides sophisticated advice and counseling in government\u0026nbsp;investigations and parallel civil suits.\u0026nbsp; His industry experience includes healthcare, finance \u0026amp; banking, fintech \u0026amp; cryptocurrency, oil \u0026amp; gas, pipelines, regulated utilities, telecommunications, civil engineering, web-based retail, biotech, medical devices, food production, faith-based organizations, real estate investments, recreation \u0026amp; hospitality, sports \u0026amp; entertainment, higher education, and mining.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis public service positions have\u0026nbsp;included the roles of First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney with the Enron Task Force in Houston and Dallas, Texas, State District Judge in Dallas, Texas, and Assistant U.S. Attorney in Plano and Dallas, Texas.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a federal prosecutor, Cliff was one of the few attorneys to have won the two highest awards bestowed by the U.S. Department of Justice: the Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s Award for Exceptional Service for his work as a key member of the Enron Task Force, and the Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s Award for Distinguished Service for his work prosecuting the CEO of Qwest Communications for insider trading.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCliff\u0026rsquo;s courtroom experience also extends to the bench. During his distinguished term as a Texas state district judge in which he heard thousands of cases \u0026ndash; not a single case was overturned on appeal. Cliff also served as presiding judge in Dallas County, Texas, a position he used to implement a number of measures designed to bring openness and fairness to the justice system. \u003cem\u003eThe Dallas Morning News\u003c/em\u003e opined, \u0026ldquo;Mr. Stricklin totes impressive credentials. His work ethic, calm judicial temperament and judgment have earned him the respect of his robed colleagues \u0026hellip; Mr. Stricklin has performed admirably on the bench.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, Cliff created the White Collar Criminal Law program at the University of Colorado\u0026rsquo;s School of Law and served there as an adjunct professor for ten years. He also\u0026nbsp;taught trial advocacy at SMU Dedman School of Law in Dallas, Texas, and at the U.S. Department of Justice's National Advocacy Center in Columbia, South Carolina and Washington, D.C.\u0026nbsp;He is also Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"cliff-stricklin","email":"cstricklin@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 303 489 6679","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented the former CFO of a technology company in a federal grand jury investigation led by the U.S. Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s Antitrust Division into alleged non-solicitation and \u0026ldquo;no poach\u0026rdquo; agreements. After a six-month long investigation, the government declined to prosecute and closed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a U.S. Olympic athletic organization in a multi-year investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice that included response to wide-ranging grand jury subpoenas. The matter was concluded when the Department declined to pursue charges.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of a large food manufacturing company and its majority shareholders against claims of breach of fiduciary duty and oppression brought by the minority shareholders in a two-week jury trial. The plaintiffs' lawsuit sought to dissolve the company and $2 billion in damages. After a two-week trial a jury found for the company and the majority shareholders and the plaintiffs took nothing. The jury foreperson was later quoted as saying, \"[Stricklin's] closing was amazing. [The defense team] did a great job. To us at least, the closing really pieced together a lot of the evidence we had questions about or thoughts about.\"\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the former CEO of a Fortune 250 healthcare company against first of their kind federal antitrust criminal charges involving \"no poach\" agreements brought by the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. After a two-week trial a jury found the client not guilty of all charges.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented two banking executives in a grand jury investigation involving theft of trade secrets and computer crimes. After a six month investigation, case was dismissed by prosecutors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a midstream pipeline company in relation to largest pipeline spill of its kind. After a seven year investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice's Environmental and Natural Resources Division, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, all claims were resolved with a Clean Water Act Misdemeanor and Failure to Report felony. The plea did not include any individuals or restitution, did not require a corporate monitor or debarment, and allowed the fine to be paid out over five years.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of a large food manufacturing company in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;action under the False Claims Act matter brought by an individual U.S. Department of Agriculture Inspector valued at over $1b. The matter resulted in the government declining to intervene and the U.S. District Court dismissing the Inspector's lawsuit with prejudice and awarding client costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Fortune 250 healthcare company in a False Claims Act lawsuit brought by a whistleblower. The matter resulted in the U.S. District Court dismissing the complaint based on motions, and the relator did not re-file.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Fortune 250 healthcare company in an investigation by the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office and U.S. Health and Human Services in an investigation relating to the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law. The matter resulted in no action being taken.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a CEO of a large, publicly-traded tech company in an independent board member investigation. The matter resulted in no action being taken.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Chief Accounting Officer of a large civil engineering firm in an U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into financial reporting issues. The matter resulted in a \u0026ldquo;no action\u0026rdquo; letter provided by SEC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a corporate owner in an insider trading investigation brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Department of Justice. The result of the matter was the entry of a \u0026ldquo;no admit or deny\u0026rdquo; administrative order and no charges were brought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a national telecom provider in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;matter under the False Claims Act matter alleging fraud into the Federal Government E-Rate program. The matter resulted in the federal government declining to intervene and the case being dismissed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large regional not-for-profit hospital in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;matter under the False Claims Act alleging Medicare and Medicaid fraud. The investigation lasted 18 months, with the results being a minimal settlement with the state Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office, and the federal government declining to intervene.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large civil engineering firm in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;matter under the False Claims Act matter and a civil and criminal investigation by the Department of Energy and the Department of Justice. The matter resulted in the relator being dismissed, and there was a civil settlement with the DOJ that included a non-prosecution agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large engineering and infrastructure corporation in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;matter under the False Claims Act investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office related to liquid petroleum gas installation issued during Hurricane Katrina recovery. The matter resulted in the government declining to intervene and the case being dismissed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a principal investor in a complicated investment plan investigated over a three-year period for securities fraud. The matter resulted in no charges being filed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a healthcare industry executive investigated for conspiracy to defraud the government and importation of unlicensed medical devices. The matter resulted in no jail time, no probation, a guilty plea to misprision and a $10k fine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of Xcel Energy, Inc. and Public Service Company of Colorado against federal criminal charges arising out of an accident that killed five contractors at a hydroelectric power plant. The result of the matter after a five-week long trial involving complex OSHA regulations, was a jury returning not-guilty verdicts in favor of both companies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large food production company in environmental litigation against the seller of property that failed to disclose the presence of asbestos. The result of the matter was a successful settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Chemical \u0026amp; Metal Industries, Inc. in an appeal from a $3m fine and restitution award in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The result of the matter was the restitution being vacated completely and the fine being reduced to $500k.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an executive at a Fortune 500 healthcare company in a matter involving the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law. The matter resulted in no charges being brought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a natural gas production and distribution company against a civil complaint filed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The result of the matter was a successful settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended Eddie Bauer in an intellectual property case involving trademarked brand names. The matter resulted in a successful resolution for Eddie Bauer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Nobel Prize winning scientist in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce relating to climate change issues. The matter resulted in no charges being brought.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1168,"guid":"1168.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":18,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Stricklin","nick_name":"Cliff","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Cliff","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2484,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1991-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Lawyer of the Year","detail":"Colorado Law Week, 2024"},{"title":"Barrister’s Best White Collar Lawyer ","detail":"Colorado Law Week, October 2023"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"The American Lawyer, December 2022"},{"title":"Band One, Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026 Government Investigations","detail":"Chambers USA, Colorado, 2012-Present"},{"title":"U.S. Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service","detail":"U.S. Department of Justice"},{"title":"U.S. Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service","detail":"U.S. Department of Justice"},{"title":"Colorado Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2011-Present"},{"title":"Named to “Alumni 150” as being one of the Baylor University’s 150 most remarkable graduates over the last 150 years","detail":"Baylor University"},{"title":"Best Overall Litigator","detail":"Law Week Colorado’s Best in Show, 2011"},{"title":"Winner of the PowerBook Legal Industry Leader Award","detail":"Denver Business Journal, 2007"},{"title":"Awarded the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Director’s Award for Outstanding Criminal Investigation","detail":"FBI"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/cliff-stricklin-8603001a/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCliff Stricklin, a longtime Texas and Colorado based trial lawyer,\u0026nbsp;guides companies and executives through critical situations where litigation is a possible result. He advises clients in commercial disputes and defends them against government inquiries and private allegations of wrongdoing. He is a trusted advisor to C-suite executives and board members. He performs independent investigations on behalf of corporations and boards on subjects that include auditing, accounting, corporate governance and control, sexual harassment, and fraud. Should litigation become necessary, Cliff is an accomplished trial lawyer who has successfully tried and won some of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest, most complex cases, including those involving Enron and Qwest.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCliff aggressively defends corporations and executives in serious matters involving commercial litigation, antitrust, the False Claims Act, securities fraud and regulation (including cryptocurrency issues), industrial accidents, healthcare fraud, and environmental claims. He provides sophisticated advice and counseling in government\u0026nbsp;investigations and parallel civil suits.\u0026nbsp; His industry experience includes healthcare, finance \u0026amp; banking, fintech \u0026amp; cryptocurrency, oil \u0026amp; gas, pipelines, regulated utilities, telecommunications, civil engineering, web-based retail, biotech, medical devices, food production, faith-based organizations, real estate investments, recreation \u0026amp; hospitality, sports \u0026amp; entertainment, higher education, and mining.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis public service positions have\u0026nbsp;included the roles of First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney with the Enron Task Force in Houston and Dallas, Texas, State District Judge in Dallas, Texas, and Assistant U.S. Attorney in Plano and Dallas, Texas.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a federal prosecutor, Cliff was one of the few attorneys to have won the two highest awards bestowed by the U.S. Department of Justice: the Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s Award for Exceptional Service for his work as a key member of the Enron Task Force, and the Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s Award for Distinguished Service for his work prosecuting the CEO of Qwest Communications for insider trading.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCliff\u0026rsquo;s courtroom experience also extends to the bench. During his distinguished term as a Texas state district judge in which he heard thousands of cases \u0026ndash; not a single case was overturned on appeal. Cliff also served as presiding judge in Dallas County, Texas, a position he used to implement a number of measures designed to bring openness and fairness to the justice system. \u003cem\u003eThe Dallas Morning News\u003c/em\u003e opined, \u0026ldquo;Mr. Stricklin totes impressive credentials. His work ethic, calm judicial temperament and judgment have earned him the respect of his robed colleagues \u0026hellip; Mr. Stricklin has performed admirably on the bench.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdditionally, Cliff created the White Collar Criminal Law program at the University of Colorado\u0026rsquo;s School of Law and served there as an adjunct professor for ten years. He also\u0026nbsp;taught trial advocacy at SMU Dedman School of Law in Dallas, Texas, and at the U.S. Department of Justice's National Advocacy Center in Columbia, South Carolina and Washington, D.C.\u0026nbsp;He is also Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented the former CFO of a technology company in a federal grand jury investigation led by the U.S. Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s Antitrust Division into alleged non-solicitation and \u0026ldquo;no poach\u0026rdquo; agreements. After a six-month long investigation, the government declined to prosecute and closed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a U.S. Olympic athletic organization in a multi-year investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice that included response to wide-ranging grand jury subpoenas. The matter was concluded when the Department declined to pursue charges.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of a large food manufacturing company and its majority shareholders against claims of breach of fiduciary duty and oppression brought by the minority shareholders in a two-week jury trial. The plaintiffs' lawsuit sought to dissolve the company and $2 billion in damages. After a two-week trial a jury found for the company and the majority shareholders and the plaintiffs took nothing. The jury foreperson was later quoted as saying, \"[Stricklin's] closing was amazing. [The defense team] did a great job. To us at least, the closing really pieced together a lot of the evidence we had questions about or thoughts about.\"\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the former CEO of a Fortune 250 healthcare company against first of their kind federal antitrust criminal charges involving \"no poach\" agreements brought by the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. After a two-week trial a jury found the client not guilty of all charges.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented two banking executives in a grand jury investigation involving theft of trade secrets and computer crimes. After a six month investigation, case was dismissed by prosecutors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a midstream pipeline company in relation to largest pipeline spill of its kind. After a seven year investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice's Environmental and Natural Resources Division, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, all claims were resolved with a Clean Water Act Misdemeanor and Failure to Report felony. The plea did not include any individuals or restitution, did not require a corporate monitor or debarment, and allowed the fine to be paid out over five years.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of a large food manufacturing company in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;action under the False Claims Act matter brought by an individual U.S. Department of Agriculture Inspector valued at over $1b. The matter resulted in the government declining to intervene and the U.S. District Court dismissing the Inspector's lawsuit with prejudice and awarding client costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Fortune 250 healthcare company in a False Claims Act lawsuit brought by a whistleblower. The matter resulted in the U.S. District Court dismissing the complaint based on motions, and the relator did not re-file.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Fortune 250 healthcare company in an investigation by the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office and U.S. Health and Human Services in an investigation relating to the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law. The matter resulted in no action being taken.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a CEO of a large, publicly-traded tech company in an independent board member investigation. The matter resulted in no action being taken.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Chief Accounting Officer of a large civil engineering firm in an U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into financial reporting issues. The matter resulted in a \u0026ldquo;no action\u0026rdquo; letter provided by SEC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a corporate owner in an insider trading investigation brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Department of Justice. The result of the matter was the entry of a \u0026ldquo;no admit or deny\u0026rdquo; administrative order and no charges were brought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a national telecom provider in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;matter under the False Claims Act matter alleging fraud into the Federal Government E-Rate program. The matter resulted in the federal government declining to intervene and the case being dismissed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large regional not-for-profit hospital in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;matter under the False Claims Act alleging Medicare and Medicaid fraud. The investigation lasted 18 months, with the results being a minimal settlement with the state Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office, and the federal government declining to intervene.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large civil engineering firm in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;matter under the False Claims Act matter and a civil and criminal investigation by the Department of Energy and the Department of Justice. The matter resulted in the relator being dismissed, and there was a civil settlement with the DOJ that included a non-prosecution agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large engineering and infrastructure corporation in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;matter under the False Claims Act investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office related to liquid petroleum gas installation issued during Hurricane Katrina recovery. The matter resulted in the government declining to intervene and the case being dismissed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a principal investor in a complicated investment plan investigated over a three-year period for securities fraud. The matter resulted in no charges being filed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a healthcare industry executive investigated for conspiracy to defraud the government and importation of unlicensed medical devices. The matter resulted in no jail time, no probation, a guilty plea to misprision and a $10k fine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of Xcel Energy, Inc. and Public Service Company of Colorado against federal criminal charges arising out of an accident that killed five contractors at a hydroelectric power plant. The result of the matter after a five-week long trial involving complex OSHA regulations, was a jury returning not-guilty verdicts in favor of both companies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large food production company in environmental litigation against the seller of property that failed to disclose the presence of asbestos. The result of the matter was a successful settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Chemical \u0026amp; Metal Industries, Inc. in an appeal from a $3m fine and restitution award in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The result of the matter was the restitution being vacated completely and the fine being reduced to $500k.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an executive at a Fortune 500 healthcare company in a matter involving the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law. The matter resulted in no charges being brought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a natural gas production and distribution company against a civil complaint filed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The result of the matter was a successful settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended Eddie Bauer in an intellectual property case involving trademarked brand names. The matter resulted in a successful resolution for Eddie Bauer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Nobel Prize winning scientist in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce relating to climate change issues. The matter resulted in no charges being brought.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Lawyer of the Year","detail":"Colorado Law Week, 2024"},{"title":"Barrister’s Best White Collar Lawyer ","detail":"Colorado Law Week, October 2023"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"The American Lawyer, December 2022"},{"title":"Band One, Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026 Government Investigations","detail":"Chambers USA, Colorado, 2012-Present"},{"title":"U.S. Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service","detail":"U.S. Department of Justice"},{"title":"U.S. Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service","detail":"U.S. Department of Justice"},{"title":"Colorado Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2011-Present"},{"title":"Named to “Alumni 150” as being one of the Baylor University’s 150 most remarkable graduates over the last 150 years","detail":"Baylor University"},{"title":"Best Overall Litigator","detail":"Law Week Colorado’s Best in Show, 2011"},{"title":"Winner of the PowerBook Legal Industry Leader Award","detail":"Denver Business Journal, 2007"},{"title":"Awarded the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Director’s Award for Outstanding Criminal Investigation","detail":"FBI"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8785}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:47.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:47.000Z","searchable_text":"Stricklin{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Lawyer of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Colorado Law Week, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Barrister’s Best White Collar Lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Colorado Law Week, October 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Lawyer, December 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band One, Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026amp; Government Investigations\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Colorado, 2012-Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Department of Justice\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Department of Justice\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Colorado Super Lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2011-Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to “Alumni 150” as being one of the Baylor University’s 150 most remarkable graduates over the last 150 years\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Baylor University\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Overall Litigator\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law Week Colorado’s Best in Show, 2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Winner of the PowerBook Legal Industry Leader Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Denver Business Journal, 2007\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Awarded the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Director’s Award for Outstanding Criminal Investigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"FBI\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented the former CFO of a technology company in a federal grand jury investigation led by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division into alleged non-solicitation and “no poach” agreements. After a six-month long investigation, the government declined to prosecute and closed the case.{{ FIELD }}Represented a U.S. Olympic athletic organization in a multi-year investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice that included response to wide-ranging grand jury subpoenas. The matter was concluded when the Department declined to pursue charges.{{ FIELD }}Led the defense of a large food manufacturing company and its majority shareholders against claims of breach of fiduciary duty and oppression brought by the minority shareholders in a two-week jury trial. The plaintiffs' lawsuit sought to dissolve the company and $2 billion in damages. After a two-week trial a jury found for the company and the majority shareholders and the plaintiffs took nothing. The jury foreperson was later quoted as saying, \"[Stricklin's] closing was amazing. [The defense team] did a great job. To us at least, the closing really pieced together a lot of the evidence we had questions about or thoughts about.\"{{ FIELD }}Represented the former CEO of a Fortune 250 healthcare company against first of their kind federal antitrust criminal charges involving \"no poach\" agreements brought by the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. After a two-week trial a jury found the client not guilty of all charges.{{ FIELD }}Represented two banking executives in a grand jury investigation involving theft of trade secrets and computer crimes. After a six month investigation, case was dismissed by prosecutors.{{ FIELD }}Represented a midstream pipeline company in relation to largest pipeline spill of its kind. After a seven year investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice's Environmental and Natural Resources Division, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, all claims were resolved with a Clean Water Act Misdemeanor and Failure to Report felony. The plea did not include any individuals or restitution, did not require a corporate monitor or debarment, and allowed the fine to be paid out over five years.{{ FIELD }}Led the defense of a large food manufacturing company in a qui tam action under the False Claims Act matter brought by an individual U.S. Department of Agriculture Inspector valued at over $1b. The matter resulted in the government declining to intervene and the U.S. District Court dismissing the Inspector's lawsuit with prejudice and awarding client costs.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Fortune 250 healthcare company in a False Claims Act lawsuit brought by a whistleblower. The matter resulted in the U.S. District Court dismissing the complaint based on motions, and the relator did not re-file.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Fortune 250 healthcare company in an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Health and Human Services in an investigation relating to the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law. The matter resulted in no action being taken.{{ FIELD }}Represented a CEO of a large, publicly-traded tech company in an independent board member investigation. The matter resulted in no action being taken.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Chief Accounting Officer of a large civil engineering firm in an U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into financial reporting issues. The matter resulted in a “no action” letter provided by SEC.{{ FIELD }}Represented a corporate owner in an insider trading investigation brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Department of Justice. The result of the matter was the entry of a “no admit or deny” administrative order and no charges were brought.{{ FIELD }}Represented a national telecom provider in a qui tam matter under the False Claims Act matter alleging fraud into the Federal Government E-Rate program. The matter resulted in the federal government declining to intervene and the case being dismissed.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large regional not-for-profit hospital in a qui tam matter under the False Claims Act alleging Medicare and Medicaid fraud. The investigation lasted 18 months, with the results being a minimal settlement with the state Attorney General’s office, and the federal government declining to intervene.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large civil engineering firm in a qui tam matter under the False Claims Act matter and a civil and criminal investigation by the Department of Energy and the Department of Justice. The matter resulted in the relator being dismissed, and there was a civil settlement with the DOJ that included a non-prosecution agreement.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large engineering and infrastructure corporation in a qui tam matter under the False Claims Act investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office related to liquid petroleum gas installation issued during Hurricane Katrina recovery. The matter resulted in the government declining to intervene and the case being dismissed.{{ FIELD }}Represented a principal investor in a complicated investment plan investigated over a three-year period for securities fraud. The matter resulted in no charges being filed.{{ FIELD }}Represented a healthcare industry executive investigated for conspiracy to defraud the government and importation of unlicensed medical devices. The matter resulted in no jail time, no probation, a guilty plea to misprision and a $10k fine.{{ FIELD }}Led the defense of Xcel Energy, Inc. and Public Service Company of Colorado against federal criminal charges arising out of an accident that killed five contractors at a hydroelectric power plant. The result of the matter after a five-week long trial involving complex OSHA regulations, was a jury returning not-guilty verdicts in favor of both companies.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large food production company in environmental litigation against the seller of property that failed to disclose the presence of asbestos. The result of the matter was a successful settlement for the client.{{ FIELD }}Represented Chemical \u0026amp; Metal Industries, Inc. in an appeal from a $3m fine and restitution award in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The result of the matter was the restitution being vacated completely and the fine being reduced to $500k.{{ FIELD }}Represented an executive at a Fortune 500 healthcare company in a matter involving the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law. The matter resulted in no charges being brought.{{ FIELD }}Defended a natural gas production and distribution company against a civil complaint filed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The result of the matter was a successful settlement for the client.{{ FIELD }}Defended Eddie Bauer in an intellectual property case involving trademarked brand names. The matter resulted in a successful resolution for Eddie Bauer.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Nobel Prize winning scientist in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce relating to climate change issues. The matter resulted in no charges being brought.{{ FIELD }}Cliff Stricklin, a longtime Texas and Colorado based trial lawyer, guides companies and executives through critical situations where litigation is a possible result. He advises clients in commercial disputes and defends them against government inquiries and private allegations of wrongdoing. He is a trusted advisor to C-suite executives and board members. He performs independent investigations on behalf of corporations and boards on subjects that include auditing, accounting, corporate governance and control, sexual harassment, and fraud. Should litigation become necessary, Cliff is an accomplished trial lawyer who has successfully tried and won some of the nation’s largest, most complex cases, including those involving Enron and Qwest.\nCliff aggressively defends corporations and executives in serious matters involving commercial litigation, antitrust, the False Claims Act, securities fraud and regulation (including cryptocurrency issues), industrial accidents, healthcare fraud, and environmental claims. He provides sophisticated advice and counseling in government investigations and parallel civil suits.  His industry experience includes healthcare, finance \u0026amp; banking, fintech \u0026amp; cryptocurrency, oil \u0026amp; gas, pipelines, regulated utilities, telecommunications, civil engineering, web-based retail, biotech, medical devices, food production, faith-based organizations, real estate investments, recreation \u0026amp; hospitality, sports \u0026amp; entertainment, higher education, and mining.\nHis public service positions have included the roles of First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Colorado, Special Assistant U.S. Attorney with the Enron Task Force in Houston and Dallas, Texas, State District Judge in Dallas, Texas, and Assistant U.S. Attorney in Plano and Dallas, Texas.  \nAs a federal prosecutor, Cliff was one of the few attorneys to have won the two highest awards bestowed by the U.S. Department of Justice: the Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service for his work as a key member of the Enron Task Force, and the Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service for his work prosecuting the CEO of Qwest Communications for insider trading.\nCliff’s courtroom experience also extends to the bench. During his distinguished term as a Texas state district judge in which he heard thousands of cases – not a single case was overturned on appeal. Cliff also served as presiding judge in Dallas County, Texas, a position he used to implement a number of measures designed to bring openness and fairness to the justice system. The Dallas Morning News opined, “Mr. Stricklin totes impressive credentials. His work ethic, calm judicial temperament and judgment have earned him the respect of his robed colleagues … Mr. Stricklin has performed admirably on the bench.”\nAdditionally, Cliff created the White Collar Criminal Law program at the University of Colorado’s School of Law and served there as an adjunct professor for ten years. He also taught trial advocacy at SMU Dedman School of Law in Dallas, Texas, and at the U.S. Department of Justice's National Advocacy Center in Columbia, South Carolina and Washington, D.C. He is also Board Certified in Criminal Law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization. Partner Lawyer of the Year Colorado Law Week, 2024 Barrister’s Best White Collar Lawyer  Colorado Law Week, October 2023 Litigator of the Week The American Lawyer, December 2022 Band One, Litigation: White-Collar Crime \u0026amp; Government Investigations Chambers USA, Colorado, 2012-Present U.S. Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service U.S. Department of Justice Colorado Super Lawyer  Super Lawyers, 2011-Present Named to “Alumni 150” as being one of the Baylor University’s 150 most remarkable graduates over the last 150 years Baylor University Best Overall Litigator Law Week Colorado’s Best in Show, 2011 Winner of the PowerBook Legal Industry Leader Award Denver Business Journal, 2007 Awarded the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Director’s Award for Outstanding Criminal Investigation FBI Baylor University Baylor University School of Law Washington and Lee University Washington and Lee University School of Law Colorado Texas American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section, Rocky Mountain Region White Collar Crime Committee Chair Colorado Bar Association, Securities Section Urban Peak, a Homeless Youth Prevention \u0026amp; Assistance Organization, Board Member The Blue Bench, a Sexual Assault Prevention, Care \u0026amp; Advocacy Organization, Board Member Represented the former CFO of a technology company in a federal grand jury investigation led by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division into alleged non-solicitation and “no poach” agreements. After a six-month long investigation, the government declined to prosecute and closed the case. Represented a U.S. Olympic athletic organization in a multi-year investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice that included response to wide-ranging grand jury subpoenas. The matter was concluded when the Department declined to pursue charges. Led the defense of a large food manufacturing company and its majority shareholders against claims of breach of fiduciary duty and oppression brought by the minority shareholders in a two-week jury trial. The plaintiffs' lawsuit sought to dissolve the company and $2 billion in damages. After a two-week trial a jury found for the company and the majority shareholders and the plaintiffs took nothing. The jury foreperson was later quoted as saying, \"[Stricklin's] closing was amazing. [The defense team] did a great job. To us at least, the closing really pieced together a lot of the evidence we had questions about or thoughts about.\" Represented the former CEO of a Fortune 250 healthcare company against first of their kind federal antitrust criminal charges involving \"no poach\" agreements brought by the U.S. Department of Justice's Antitrust Division. After a two-week trial a jury found the client not guilty of all charges. Represented two banking executives in a grand jury investigation involving theft of trade secrets and computer crimes. After a six month investigation, case was dismissed by prosecutors. Represented a midstream pipeline company in relation to largest pipeline spill of its kind. After a seven year investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice's Environmental and Natural Resources Division, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the North Dakota Department of Environmental Quality, all claims were resolved with a Clean Water Act Misdemeanor and Failure to Report felony. The plea did not include any individuals or restitution, did not require a corporate monitor or debarment, and allowed the fine to be paid out over five years. Led the defense of a large food manufacturing company in a qui tam action under the False Claims Act matter brought by an individual U.S. Department of Agriculture Inspector valued at over $1b. The matter resulted in the government declining to intervene and the U.S. District Court dismissing the Inspector's lawsuit with prejudice and awarding client costs. Represented a Fortune 250 healthcare company in a False Claims Act lawsuit brought by a whistleblower. The matter resulted in the U.S. District Court dismissing the complaint based on motions, and the relator did not re-file. Represented a Fortune 250 healthcare company in an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Health and Human Services in an investigation relating to the Anti-Kickback Statute and Stark Law. The matter resulted in no action being taken. Represented a CEO of a large, publicly-traded tech company in an independent board member investigation. The matter resulted in no action being taken. Represented a Chief Accounting Officer of a large civil engineering firm in an U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into financial reporting issues. The matter resulted in a “no action” letter provided by SEC. Represented a corporate owner in an insider trading investigation brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and U.S. Department of Justice. The result of the matter was the entry of a “no admit or deny” administrative order and no charges were brought. Represented a national telecom provider in a qui tam matter under the False Claims Act matter alleging fraud into the Federal Government E-Rate program. The matter resulted in the federal government declining to intervene and the case being dismissed. Represented a large regional not-for-profit hospital in a qui tam matter under the False Claims Act alleging Medicare and Medicaid fraud. The investigation lasted 18 months, with the results being a minimal settlement with the state Attorney General’s office, and the federal government declining to intervene. Represented a large civil engineering firm in a qui tam matter under the False Claims Act matter and a civil and criminal investigation by the Department of Energy and the Department of Justice. The matter resulted in the relator being dismissed, and there was a civil settlement with the DOJ that included a non-prosecution agreement. Represented a large engineering and infrastructure corporation in a qui tam matter under the False Claims Act investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office related to liquid petroleum gas installation issued during Hurricane Katrina recovery. The matter resulted in the government declining to intervene and the case being dismissed. Represented a principal investor in a complicated investment plan investigated over a three-year period for securities fraud. The matter resulted in no charges being filed. Represented a healthcare industry executive investigated for conspiracy to defraud the government and importation of unlicensed medical devices. The matter resulted in no jail time, no probation, a guilty plea to misprision and a $10k fine. Led the defense of Xcel Energy, Inc. and Public Service Company of Colorado against federal criminal charges arising out of an accident that killed five contractors at a hydroelectric power plant. The result of the matter after a five-week long trial involving complex OSHA regulations, was a jury returning not-guilty verdicts in favor of both companies. Represented a large food production company in environmental litigation against the seller of property that failed to disclose the presence of asbestos. The result of the matter was a successful settlement for the client. Represented Chemical \u0026amp; Metal Industries, Inc. in an appeal from a $3m fine and restitution award in the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. The result of the matter was the restitution being vacated completely and the fine being reduced to $500k. Represented an executive at a Fortune 500 healthcare company in a matter involving the Anti-Kickback Statute and the Stark Law. The matter resulted in no charges being brought. Defended a natural gas production and distribution company against a civil complaint filed by the Environmental Protection Agency. The result of the matter was a successful settlement for the client. Defended Eddie Bauer in an intellectual property case involving trademarked brand names. The matter resulted in a successful resolution for Eddie Bauer. Represented a Nobel Prize winning scientist in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Commerce relating to climate change issues. The matter resulted in no charges being brought.","searchable_name":"Cliff Stricklin","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444323,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6837,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Stute is a nationally recognized first-chair trial lawyer who represents companies in their most consequential, high-stakes litigation across the United States. He is known for trying\u0026mdash;and winning\u0026mdash;cases others resolve short of trial, and for guiding clients through complex disputes where reputational, financial, and operational risks are at their highest.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill has led numerous jury trials involving mass tort, personal injury, antitrust, False Claims Act, securities fraud, and residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) claims, as well as matters at the intersection of technology, finance, and life sciences. Will served as lead trial counsel in three separate jury trials for the NCAA, including the first two cases to test claims that the NCAA is responsible for concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in college football. The defense verdicts in those matters were widely recognized as landmark results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill has also served as first-chair trial counsel in a series of the most closely watched product liability trials in the country, defending a global consumer products manufacturer against allegations that legacy talc-based products caused asbestos-related disease, including mesothelioma. These cases required juries to assess decades of science, regulatory oversight, and historical manufacturing practices under intense public and media scrutiny. Will achieved highly favorable results in these cases in some of the most difficult jurisdictions in the United States, including Portland, Oregon; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and New Orleans, Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026rsquo;s trial successes have earned significant national recognition. He has been named the \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u0026rsquo;s \u003c/em\u003eWinning Litigator of the Year, was a finalist for \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u0026rsquo;s \u003c/em\u003eLitigator of the Year, and received honors including \u003cem\u003eCourtroom View Network\u0026rsquo;s \u003c/em\u003eMost Impressive Defense Verdict, \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u0026rsquo;s \u003c/em\u003eLitigator of the Week, the \u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u0026rsquo;s \u003c/em\u003eDefense Verdict of the Year, and was recognized by \u003cem\u003eForbes\u003c/em\u003e as one the 100 best lawyers in the United States. Commentators have described his results as \u0026ldquo;incredible victories\u0026rdquo; and praised his courtroom approach as that of a trial lawyer \u0026ldquo;playing to win.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClients value Will\u0026rsquo;s strategic judgment, command of the courtroom, and ability to distill complex factual and scientific issues into compelling narratives that juries understand. He is frequently called upon to step into matters at critical inflection points\u0026mdash;when trial is imminent, settlement leverage must be reset, or a decisive courtroom strategy is required.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"will-stute","email":"wstute@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eTrial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eZynga\u003c/strong\u003e in patent ligation brought by gambling technology company IGT, securing a complete defense win.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel for the \u003cstrong\u003eNCAA\u003c/strong\u003e in dozens of concussion/CTE cases across the United States.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel for the \u003cstrong\u003eNCAA \u003c/strong\u003ein \u003cem\u003eGee v. NCAA\u003c/em\u003e, securing defense verdict in first concussion case to reach a full trial in the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel for the \u003cstrong\u003eNCAA\u003c/strong\u003e in \u003cem\u003eFinnerty v. NCAA\u003c/em\u003e, securing defense verdict in second concussion case to go to trial in the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel for the \u003cstrong\u003eNCAA\u003c/strong\u003e in \u003cem\u003eBrenner v. NCAA\u003c/em\u003e, securing defense verdict in $150 million personal injury case involving former University of Oregon football player.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest life sciences companies\u003c/strong\u003e in the successful resolution of major False Claims Act litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003epioneering gig economy company\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation and regulatory matters brought by state attorneys general, successfully resolving the matter for the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eDHL Holdings\u003c/strong\u003e in a case against United Airlines, successfully resolving an antitrust and price-fixing class action on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003eleading tech company\u003c/strong\u003e in high-profile antitrust litigation, playing an instrumental role in securing a preliminary injunction for the client after a bench trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Linguist Solutions LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, in a civil Qui Tam action in Maryland alleging False Claims Act violations in connection with intelligence activities in Kuwait during the Iraq War.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003eleading biopharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in a federal court case in Pennsylvania involving False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statutes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of trial team for \u003cstrong\u003eCredit Suisse\u003c/strong\u003e in high-stakes RMBS case brought by the FDIC as receiver for a failed bank in Alabama state court, successfully settling prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003emajor institutional investors\u003c/strong\u003e victimized in several of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history, securing the recovery of tens of millions of dollars for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003emajor food producer\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining early dismissal of a highly publicized class action with industry-wide implications for food manufacturers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eJohnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/strong\u003e as Trial counsel in two recent talc litigation matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eRoblox\u003c/strong\u003e as lead counsel in national litigation alleging gaming causes addiction in adolescents.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":109,"guid":"109.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1165,"guid":"1165.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Stute","nick_name":"Will","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Will","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2758,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1997-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"American Lawyer Litigator of the Year Finalist","detail":"2023"},{"title":"Most Impressive Defense Verdict","detail":"CVN, 2022"},{"title":"Named as one of the 100 most influential lawyers","detail":"Savoy Magazine, 2024"},{"title":"Named as \"Top 200 Lawyer\" ","detail":"Forbes, 2024"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Year","detail":"National Law Journal, 2023"},{"title":"Named Leading Commercial Litigator","detail":"Daily Journal, 2023"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Week","detail":"The American Lawyer, 2022"},{"title":"Named Client Service All- Star","detail":"BTI Consulting Group, 2017"},{"title":"Stars Rated Lawyer","detail":"Acritas, 2020"},{"title":"Super Lawyers List","detail":"Washington DC, 2019"},{"title":"Sports Editorial Advisory Board Member","detail":"Law360, 2019"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/willstute/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Stute is a nationally recognized first-chair trial lawyer who represents companies in their most consequential, high-stakes litigation across the United States. He is known for trying\u0026mdash;and winning\u0026mdash;cases others resolve short of trial, and for guiding clients through complex disputes where reputational, financial, and operational risks are at their highest.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill has led numerous jury trials involving mass tort, personal injury, antitrust, False Claims Act, securities fraud, and residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) claims, as well as matters at the intersection of technology, finance, and life sciences. Will served as lead trial counsel in three separate jury trials for the NCAA, including the first two cases to test claims that the NCAA is responsible for concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in college football. The defense verdicts in those matters were widely recognized as landmark results.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill has also served as first-chair trial counsel in a series of the most closely watched product liability trials in the country, defending a global consumer products manufacturer against allegations that legacy talc-based products caused asbestos-related disease, including mesothelioma. These cases required juries to assess decades of science, regulatory oversight, and historical manufacturing practices under intense public and media scrutiny. Will achieved highly favorable results in these cases in some of the most difficult jurisdictions in the United States, including Portland, Oregon; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and New Orleans, Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026rsquo;s trial successes have earned significant national recognition. He has been named the \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u0026rsquo;s \u003c/em\u003eWinning Litigator of the Year, was a finalist for \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u0026rsquo;s \u003c/em\u003eLitigator of the Year, and received honors including \u003cem\u003eCourtroom View Network\u0026rsquo;s \u003c/em\u003eMost Impressive Defense Verdict, \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u0026rsquo;s \u003c/em\u003eLitigator of the Week, the \u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u0026rsquo;s \u003c/em\u003eDefense Verdict of the Year, and was recognized by \u003cem\u003eForbes\u003c/em\u003e as one the 100 best lawyers in the United States. Commentators have described his results as \u0026ldquo;incredible victories\u0026rdquo; and praised his courtroom approach as that of a trial lawyer \u0026ldquo;playing to win.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eClients value Will\u0026rsquo;s strategic judgment, command of the courtroom, and ability to distill complex factual and scientific issues into compelling narratives that juries understand. He is frequently called upon to step into matters at critical inflection points\u0026mdash;when trial is imminent, settlement leverage must be reset, or a decisive courtroom strategy is required.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eTrial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eZynga\u003c/strong\u003e in patent ligation brought by gambling technology company IGT, securing a complete defense win.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel for the \u003cstrong\u003eNCAA\u003c/strong\u003e in dozens of concussion/CTE cases across the United States.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel for the \u003cstrong\u003eNCAA \u003c/strong\u003ein \u003cem\u003eGee v. NCAA\u003c/em\u003e, securing defense verdict in first concussion case to reach a full trial in the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel for the \u003cstrong\u003eNCAA\u003c/strong\u003e in \u003cem\u003eFinnerty v. NCAA\u003c/em\u003e, securing defense verdict in second concussion case to go to trial in the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel for the \u003cstrong\u003eNCAA\u003c/strong\u003e in \u003cem\u003eBrenner v. NCAA\u003c/em\u003e, securing defense verdict in $150 million personal injury case involving former University of Oregon football player.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest life sciences companies\u003c/strong\u003e in the successful resolution of major False Claims Act litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003epioneering gig economy company\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation and regulatory matters brought by state attorneys general, successfully resolving the matter for the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eDHL Holdings\u003c/strong\u003e in a case against United Airlines, successfully resolving an antitrust and price-fixing class action on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003eleading tech company\u003c/strong\u003e in high-profile antitrust litigation, playing an instrumental role in securing a preliminary injunction for the client after a bench trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Linguist Solutions LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, in a civil Qui Tam action in Maryland alleging False Claims Act violations in connection with intelligence activities in Kuwait during the Iraq War.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel for a \u003cstrong\u003eleading biopharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e in a federal court case in Pennsylvania involving False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statutes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of trial team for \u003cstrong\u003eCredit Suisse\u003c/strong\u003e in high-stakes RMBS case brought by the FDIC as receiver for a failed bank in Alabama state court, successfully settling prior to trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003emajor institutional investors\u003c/strong\u003e victimized in several of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history, securing the recovery of tens of millions of dollars for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003emajor food producer\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining early dismissal of a highly publicized class action with industry-wide implications for food manufacturers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eJohnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/strong\u003e as Trial counsel in two recent talc litigation matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eRoblox\u003c/strong\u003e as lead counsel in national litigation alleging gaming causes addiction in adolescents.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"American Lawyer Litigator of the Year Finalist","detail":"2023"},{"title":"Most Impressive Defense Verdict","detail":"CVN, 2022"},{"title":"Named as one of the 100 most influential lawyers","detail":"Savoy Magazine, 2024"},{"title":"Named as \"Top 200 Lawyer\" ","detail":"Forbes, 2024"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Year","detail":"National Law Journal, 2023"},{"title":"Named Leading Commercial Litigator","detail":"Daily Journal, 2023"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Week","detail":"The American Lawyer, 2022"},{"title":"Named Client Service All- Star","detail":"BTI Consulting Group, 2017"},{"title":"Stars Rated Lawyer","detail":"Acritas, 2020"},{"title":"Super Lawyers List","detail":"Washington DC, 2019"},{"title":"Sports Editorial Advisory Board Member","detail":"Law360, 2019"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12079}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-16T15:45:08.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-16T15:45:08.000Z","searchable_text":"Stute{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"American Lawyer Litigator of the Year Finalist\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Most Impressive Defense Verdict\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CVN, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as one of the 100 most influential lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Savoy Magazine, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as \\\"Top 200 Lawyer\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Forbes, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Litigator of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Leading Commercial Litigator\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Lawyer, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Client Service All- Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI Consulting Group, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Stars Rated Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Acritas, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washington DC, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Sports Editorial Advisory Board Member\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}Trial counsel for Zynga in patent ligation brought by gambling technology company IGT, securing a complete defense win.{{ FIELD }}Lead trial counsel for the NCAA in dozens of concussion/CTE cases across the United States.{{ FIELD }}Lead trial counsel for the NCAA in Gee v. NCAA, securing defense verdict in first concussion case to reach a full trial in the U.S.{{ FIELD }}Lead trial counsel for the NCAA in Finnerty v. NCAA, securing defense verdict in second concussion case to go to trial in the U.S.{{ FIELD }}Lead trial counsel for the NCAA in Brenner v. NCAA, securing defense verdict in $150 million personal injury case involving former University of Oregon football player.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the world’s largest life sciences companies in the successful resolution of major False Claims Act litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented a pioneering gig economy company in litigation and regulatory matters brought by state attorneys general, successfully resolving the matter for the company.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for DHL Holdings in a case against United Airlines, successfully resolving an antitrust and price-fixing class action on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading tech company in high-profile antitrust litigation, playing an instrumental role in securing a preliminary injunction for the client after a bench trial.{{ FIELD }}Lead trial counsel for Global Linguist Solutions LLC, in a civil Qui Tam action in Maryland alleging False Claims Act violations in connection with intelligence activities in Kuwait during the Iraq War.{{ FIELD }}Lead trial counsel for a leading biopharmaceutical company in a federal court case in Pennsylvania involving False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statutes.{{ FIELD }}Member of trial team for Credit Suisse in high-stakes RMBS case brought by the FDIC as receiver for a failed bank in Alabama state court, successfully settling prior to trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented major institutional investors victimized in several of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history, securing the recovery of tens of millions of dollars for clients.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major food producer in obtaining early dismissal of a highly publicized class action with industry-wide implications for food manufacturers.{{ FIELD }}Representing Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson as Trial counsel in two recent talc litigation matters.{{ FIELD }}Representing Roblox as lead counsel in national litigation alleging gaming causes addiction in adolescents.{{ FIELD }}Will Stute is a nationally recognized first-chair trial lawyer who represents companies in their most consequential, high-stakes litigation across the United States. He is known for trying—and winning—cases others resolve short of trial, and for guiding clients through complex disputes where reputational, financial, and operational risks are at their highest. \nWill has led numerous jury trials involving mass tort, personal injury, antitrust, False Claims Act, securities fraud, and residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS) claims, as well as matters at the intersection of technology, finance, and life sciences. Will served as lead trial counsel in three separate jury trials for the NCAA, including the first two cases to test claims that the NCAA is responsible for concussions and chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in college football. The defense verdicts in those matters were widely recognized as landmark results.\nWill has also served as first-chair trial counsel in a series of the most closely watched product liability trials in the country, defending a global consumer products manufacturer against allegations that legacy talc-based products caused asbestos-related disease, including mesothelioma. These cases required juries to assess decades of science, regulatory oversight, and historical manufacturing practices under intense public and media scrutiny. Will achieved highly favorable results in these cases in some of the most difficult jurisdictions in the United States, including Portland, Oregon; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and New Orleans, Louisiana.\nWill’s trial successes have earned significant national recognition. He has been named the National Law Journal’s Winning Litigator of the Year, was a finalist for The American Lawyer’s Litigator of the Year, and received honors including Courtroom View Network’s Most Impressive Defense Verdict, The American Lawyer’s Litigator of the Week, the Daily Journal’s Defense Verdict of the Year, and was recognized by Forbes as one the 100 best lawyers in the United States. Commentators have described his results as “incredible victories” and praised his courtroom approach as that of a trial lawyer “playing to win.”\nClients value Will’s strategic judgment, command of the courtroom, and ability to distill complex factual and scientific issues into compelling narratives that juries understand. He is frequently called upon to step into matters at critical inflection points—when trial is imminent, settlement leverage must be reset, or a decisive courtroom strategy is required. Partner American Lawyer Litigator of the Year Finalist 2023 Most Impressive Defense Verdict CVN, 2022 Named as one of the 100 most influential lawyers Savoy Magazine, 2024 Named as \"Top 200 Lawyer\"  Forbes, 2024 Named Litigator of the Year National Law Journal, 2023 Named Leading Commercial Litigator Daily Journal, 2023 Named Litigator of the Week The American Lawyer, 2022 Named Client Service All- Star BTI Consulting Group, 2017 Stars Rated Lawyer Acritas, 2020 Super Lawyers List Washington DC, 2019 Sports Editorial Advisory Board Member Law360, 2019 Augsburg College  William Mitchell College of Law William Mitchell College of Law District of Columbia Florida Minnesota American Bar Association, Securities Litigation and Minority Attorney sections National Bar Association, Commercial Litigation and Corporate Law sections U.S. Congressional Awards, board member Twin Cities Diversity in Practice, former president William Mitchell College of Law, former member of the board of trustees Teaching faculty at Harvard Law School’s Trial Advocacy Workshop, member LCLD Fellow, 2010 Trial counsel for Zynga in patent ligation brought by gambling technology company IGT, securing a complete defense win. Lead trial counsel for the NCAA in dozens of concussion/CTE cases across the United States. Lead trial counsel for the NCAA in Gee v. NCAA, securing defense verdict in first concussion case to reach a full trial in the U.S. Lead trial counsel for the NCAA in Finnerty v. NCAA, securing defense verdict in second concussion case to go to trial in the U.S. Lead trial counsel for the NCAA in Brenner v. NCAA, securing defense verdict in $150 million personal injury case involving former University of Oregon football player. Represented one of the world’s largest life sciences companies in the successful resolution of major False Claims Act litigation. Represented a pioneering gig economy company in litigation and regulatory matters brought by state attorneys general, successfully resolving the matter for the company. Lead counsel for DHL Holdings in a case against United Airlines, successfully resolving an antitrust and price-fixing class action on the eve of trial. Represented a leading tech company in high-profile antitrust litigation, playing an instrumental role in securing a preliminary injunction for the client after a bench trial. Lead trial counsel for Global Linguist Solutions LLC, in a civil Qui Tam action in Maryland alleging False Claims Act violations in connection with intelligence activities in Kuwait during the Iraq War. Lead trial counsel for a leading biopharmaceutical company in a federal court case in Pennsylvania involving False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statutes. Member of trial team for Credit Suisse in high-stakes RMBS case brought by the FDIC as receiver for a failed bank in Alabama state court, successfully settling prior to trial. Represented major institutional investors victimized in several of the largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history, securing the recovery of tens of millions of dollars for clients. Represented a major food producer in obtaining early dismissal of a highly publicized class action with industry-wide implications for food manufacturers. Representing Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson as Trial counsel in two recent talc litigation matters. Representing Roblox as lead counsel in national litigation alleging gaming causes addiction in adolescents.","searchable_name":"Will Stute","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446152,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":457,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLisa Smith is Counsel in the firm\u0026rsquo;s Trial and Global Disputes practice, where she focuses on strategic case management across all phases of complex litigation. She advises litigation teams and clients on designing and executing efficient, defensible discovery and information-management strategies, with particular experience supporting matters involving automotive, consumer products, pharmaceutical, medical device, and energy companies. Lisa partners closely with clients to streamline workflows, manage risk, and align discovery efforts with overall case strategy. She is especially experienced in leveraging technology\u0026mdash;including advanced analytics and generative AI\u0026mdash;to improve decision-making, control costs, and enhance outcomes in product liability matters, class actions, and government investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLisa has also served as a member of the executive board of directors for VSA arts of Georgia, a non-profit arts organization affiliated with the Kennedy Center dedicated to providing arts opportunities for persons with disabilities.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lisa-smith","email":"lcsmith@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3301}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":687,"guid":"687.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Smith","nick_name":"Lisa","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Lisa","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"C.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/public-profile/settings?trk=d_flagship3_profile_self_view_public_profile","seodescription":"Lisa C. Smith is a Counsel in King \u0026 Spalding. Read more about her.","primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLisa Smith is Counsel in the firm\u0026rsquo;s Trial and Global Disputes practice, where she focuses on strategic case management across all phases of complex litigation. She advises litigation teams and clients on designing and executing efficient, defensible discovery and information-management strategies, with particular experience supporting matters involving automotive, consumer products, pharmaceutical, medical device, and energy companies. Lisa partners closely with clients to streamline workflows, manage risk, and align discovery efforts with overall case strategy. She is especially experienced in leveraging technology\u0026mdash;including advanced analytics and generative AI\u0026mdash;to improve decision-making, control costs, and enhance outcomes in product liability matters, class actions, and government investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLisa has also served as a member of the executive board of directors for VSA arts of Georgia, a non-profit arts organization affiliated with the Kennedy Center dedicated to providing arts opportunities for persons with disabilities.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11807}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-24T23:22:14.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-24T23:22:14.000Z","searchable_text":"Smith{{ FIELD }}Lisa Smith is Counsel in the firm’s Trial and Global Disputes practice, where she focuses on strategic case management across all phases of complex litigation. She advises litigation teams and clients on designing and executing efficient, defensible discovery and information-management strategies, with particular experience supporting matters involving automotive, consumer products, pharmaceutical, medical device, and energy companies. Lisa partners closely with clients to streamline workflows, manage risk, and align discovery efforts with overall case strategy. She is especially experienced in leveraging technology—including advanced analytics and generative AI—to improve decision-making, control costs, and enhance outcomes in product liability matters, class actions, and government investigations. \nLisa has also served as a member of the executive board of directors for VSA arts of Georgia, a non-profit arts organization affiliated with the Kennedy Center dedicated to providing arts opportunities for persons with disabilities. Lisa C. Smith Counsel Counsel Howard University Howard University School of Law Tulane University Tulane University Law School Georgia State Bar of Georgia American Bar Association; Atlanta Bar Association","searchable_name":"Lisa C. Smith","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444811,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5213,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLauren Smith is a Senior\u0026nbsp;Associate in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm's Business Litigation Practice Group.\u0026nbsp;Her practice focuses on\u0026nbsp;high-stakes business disputes, including purported class actions,\u0026nbsp;contract disputes, and business torts. Lauren has experience representing clients in a diverse range of matters, including antitrust, ERISA, and securities and shareholder matters.\u0026nbsp;Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Lauren served as a law clerk to the Honorable Orinda D. Evans\u0026nbsp;of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lauren-newman","email":"lnsmith@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3746}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":502,"guid":"502.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Smith","nick_name":"Newman","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Orinda Evans, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","years_held":"2019 - 2020"}],"first_name":"Lauren","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":761,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"summa cum laude, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2019-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/lauren-smith-44556242/","seodescription":"Lauren Smith is a lawyer of our Business Litigation Practice Group. Read more.","primary_title_id":75,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLauren Smith is a Senior\u0026nbsp;Associate in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm's Business Litigation Practice Group.\u0026nbsp;Her practice focuses on\u0026nbsp;high-stakes business disputes, including purported class actions,\u0026nbsp;contract disputes, and business torts. Lauren has experience representing clients in a diverse range of matters, including antitrust, ERISA, and securities and shareholder matters.\u0026nbsp;Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Lauren served as a law clerk to the Honorable Orinda D. Evans\u0026nbsp;of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12852}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-06T18:09:09.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-06T18:09:09.000Z","searchable_text":"Smith{{ FIELD }}Lauren Smith is a Senior Associate in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm's Business Litigation Practice Group. Her practice focuses on high-stakes business disputes, including purported class actions, contract disputes, and business torts. Lauren has experience representing clients in a diverse range of matters, including antitrust, ERISA, and securities and shareholder matters. Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Lauren served as a law clerk to the Honorable Orinda D. Evans of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Lauren Smith lawyer Senior Associate Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia State University Georgia State University College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia Law Clerk, Orinda Evans, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","searchable_name":"Lauren Smith (Newman)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447507,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7237,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAnjelica Sarmiento represents clients in complex antitrust investigations, merger reviews, and competition litigation. She brings to her practice extensive experience from the federal judiciary and the Federal Trade Commission, offering clients a practical understanding of how enforcement agencies evaluate transactions and conduct litigation and how courts preside over these matters. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnjelica\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on advising companies in merger and non-merger investigations before the FTC and DOJ, assessing antitrust risk in strategic transactions, and developing compliance strategies. She counsels clients across industries including pharmaceuticals, healthcare, technology, and consumer goods.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Anjelica served as a Staff Attorney in the Federal Trade Commission\u0026rsquo;s Bureau of Competition, Mergers I Division, where she investigated and litigated mergers involving major national and global companies. She was a member of the FTC teams that challenged the Kroger\u0026ndash;Albertsons, IQVIA\u0026ndash;Propel Media, and Amgen\u0026ndash;Horizon transactions. In those matters, she conducted investigational hearings and depositions, coordinated expert discovery, and collaborated with economists and industry experts in developing litigation strategy and economic evidence.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAnjelica also clerked for the Honorable John Z. Lee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Honorable James L. Cott of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Earlier in her career, she was an associate in the intellectual property litigation group at a global law firm in New York, where she represented clients in trademark, copyright, and trade dress disputes.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAnjelica\u0026rsquo;s combined experience in government, the judiciary, and private practice enables her to provide clients with informed and strategic counsel in navigating the intersection of enforcement, litigation, and business objectives.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"anjelica-sarmiento","email":"asarmiento@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Sarmiento","nick_name":"Anjelica","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. John Z. Lee, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit","years_held":"2024 - 2025"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California","years_held":"2020 - 2022"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. James L. Cott, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","years_held":"2019 - 2020"}],"first_name":"Anjelica","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2162,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":null},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAnjelica Sarmiento represents clients in complex antitrust investigations, merger reviews, and competition litigation. She brings to her practice extensive experience from the federal judiciary and the Federal Trade Commission, offering clients a practical understanding of how enforcement agencies evaluate transactions and conduct litigation and how courts preside over these matters. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnjelica\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on advising companies in merger and non-merger investigations before the FTC and DOJ, assessing antitrust risk in strategic transactions, and developing compliance strategies. She counsels clients across industries including pharmaceuticals, healthcare, technology, and consumer goods.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Anjelica served as a Staff Attorney in the Federal Trade Commission\u0026rsquo;s Bureau of Competition, Mergers I Division, where she investigated and litigated mergers involving major national and global companies. She was a member of the FTC teams that challenged the Kroger\u0026ndash;Albertsons, IQVIA\u0026ndash;Propel Media, and Amgen\u0026ndash;Horizon transactions. In those matters, she conducted investigational hearings and depositions, coordinated expert discovery, and collaborated with economists and industry experts in developing litigation strategy and economic evidence.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAnjelica also clerked for the Honorable John Z. Lee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Honorable James L. Cott of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Earlier in her career, she was an associate in the intellectual property litigation group at a global law firm in New York, where she represented clients in trademark, copyright, and trade dress disputes.\u003cbr\u003e\u003cbr\u003eAnjelica\u0026rsquo;s combined experience in government, the judiciary, and private practice enables her to provide clients with informed and strategic counsel in navigating the intersection of enforcement, litigation, and business objectives.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13457}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-04-13T22:06:51.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-13T22:06:51.000Z","searchable_text":"Sarmiento{{ FIELD }}Anjelica Sarmiento represents clients in complex antitrust investigations, merger reviews, and competition litigation. She brings to her practice extensive experience from the federal judiciary and the Federal Trade Commission, offering clients a practical understanding of how enforcement agencies evaluate transactions and conduct litigation and how courts preside over these matters. \nAnjelica’s practice focuses on advising companies in merger and non-merger investigations before the FTC and DOJ, assessing antitrust risk in strategic transactions, and developing compliance strategies. She counsels clients across industries including pharmaceuticals, healthcare, technology, and consumer goods.Before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Anjelica served as a Staff Attorney in the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition, Mergers I Division, where she investigated and litigated mergers involving major national and global companies. She was a member of the FTC teams that challenged the Kroger–Albertsons, IQVIA–Propel Media, and Amgen–Horizon transactions. In those matters, she conducted investigational hearings and depositions, coordinated expert discovery, and collaborated with economists and industry experts in developing litigation strategy and economic evidence.Anjelica also clerked for the Honorable John Z. Lee of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, and the Honorable James L. Cott of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Earlier in her career, she was an associate in the intellectual property litigation group at a global law firm in New York, where she represented clients in trademark, copyright, and trade dress disputes.Anjelica’s combined experience in government, the judiciary, and private practice enables her to provide clients with informed and strategic counsel in navigating the intersection of enforcement, litigation, and business objectives. Associate University of California-Los Angeles UCLA School of Law University of California-Los Angeles UCLA School of Law California District of Columbia New York Law Clerk, Hon. John Z. Lee, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Law Clerk, Hon. Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Law Clerk, Hon. James L. Cott, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York","searchable_name":"Anjelica Sarmiento","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446420,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6796,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael's practice focuses on complex commercial litigation in both state and federal\u0026nbsp;courts. He has experience representing clients in real estate, contractual, antitrust, and securities disputes, as well as in government and internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;Michael also maintains an active pro bono practice.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"michael-schmid","email":"mschmid@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":36,"guid":"36.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Schmid","nick_name":"Michael","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2410,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael's practice focuses on complex commercial litigation in both state and federal\u0026nbsp;courts. He has experience representing clients in real estate, contractual, antitrust, and securities disputes, as well as in government and internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;Michael also maintains an active pro bono practice.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11955}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T22:02:02.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T22:02:02.000Z","searchable_text":"Schmid{{ FIELD }}Michael's practice focuses on complex commercial litigation in both state and federal courts. He has experience representing clients in real estate, contractual, antitrust, and securities disputes, as well as in government and internal investigations. Michael also maintains an active pro bono practice. Associate Le Moyne College  University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York New York","searchable_name":"Michael Schmid","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}