{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"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 / 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 Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"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 Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"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":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"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":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"102","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"id":442405,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1250,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRoberto Aguirre Luzi specializes in counseling multinational corporations on complex arbitration. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Roberto is experienced in administrative and civil law, government contracts, oil and gas contracts, public utilities, and power and infrastructure projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003eForeign Legal Consultant, Authorized to Practice law in Argentina (not licensed in Texas)\u003c/h5\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoberto represents clients in complex arbitrations before the World Bank Group\u0026rsquo;s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and UN Commission on International Trade Law, as well as in arbitration under the International Centre for Dispute Resolution and International Chamber of Commerce rules. Roberto also has extensive experience in civil and administrative law, government contracts, oil and gas contracts, public utilities, and power and infrastructure projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eListed as a leading member of the international arbitration bar in the 2011 \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eGlobal Arbitration Review\u003c/em\u003e 45 Under 45 rankings, Roberto has also been individually recognized by \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eChambers Latin America\u003c/em\u003e and featured in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who in International Arbitration.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoberto worked for five years as an associate for Marval, O\u0026rsquo;Farrell \u0026amp; Mairal before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2003. He was born in San Juan, Argentina. Roberto is fluent in Spanish and English, and reads French, Italian and Portuguese.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"roberto-aguirreluzi","email":"raguirreluzi@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 832 814 5375","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLinea Amarilla S.A\u003c/strong\u003e.C. (owned by VINCI Highways) against the City of Lima in a toll road project regarding the nullity of the concession agreement. Lima is claiming the nullity of the concession based on the alleged imbalance of the economic terms of several agreements entered into during the contract execution. The case also involves construction claims against the City of Lima. It is a high-profile case, involving criminal proceedings against former mayors and government officials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea French company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute under the France-Peru Bilateral Investment Treaty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSociedad Aeroportuaria Kuntur Wasi S.A.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporaci\u0026oacute;n Am\u0026eacute;rica S.A\u003c/strong\u003e. in an ICSID arbitration under the Peru-Argentina bilateral investment treaty, a concession contract for the construction and operation of the new airport in Cuzco, and a guaranty contract (Contrato Ley), involving the unlawful termination and unfair treatment provided to both investors. The Peruvian government has initiated criminal proceedings regarding the concession and its addenda.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGente Oil Ecuador Pte.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLtd\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a UNCITRAL arbitration administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration arising out of a dispute involving a risk service oil contract with Ecuador. The matter also includes allegations of corruption and fraud, including proceedings before criminal courts and the Comptroller Office (Contralor\u0026iacute;a).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eReficar\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against CB\u0026amp;I, an EPC contractor. The dispute concerns costs and delays in connection with the construction of a refinery in Colombia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTeinver S.A.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina involving the nationalization of the two largest airlines in that country.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSalini Impregilo SpA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in three international arbitrations against Argentina involving its investments in a water management concession, a roadway concession and a bridge.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMurphy Oil\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEuropean company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a potential arbitration against a state and a state-owned energy company. The dispute concerns the nationalization of the energy company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSempra Energy International\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses and in a potential arbitration against another South American country involving its investment in a power distribution company, and advised it in two ICC arbitrations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003etwo American oil and gas companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two ICSID arbitrations against Argentina, one of which involved claimant\u0026rsquo;s investment in two power plants and a natural gas field.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor American oil company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multibillion-dollar U.S. claim against a South American state concerning the breach of a bilateral investment treaty, an oil concession agreement and an environmental claim initiated against the oil company in the courts of the South American state.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCity Oriente Limited\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID contract arbitration against Ecuador and Petroecuador concerning the violation of an Oil Production Sharing Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eglobal supplier of power plants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its arbitration claim involving an engineering, procurement and construction contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNoble Energy, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eand MachalaPower Cia. Ltda.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in their arbitration claim against a South American country concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty, an investment agreement and a concession contract for the construction and operation of a power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003etelecommunications company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina concerning the violation of a treaty and the nationalization of its concession contract with the Argentine Government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCamuzzi Internacional\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge international water company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its ICSID arbitration against Argentina.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor American energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in preparing an ICSID arbitration against a Central American state concerning the breach of different contracts with distribution companies for the purchase of electricity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor independent company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a potential LCIA arbitration under a Joint Operating Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNorthrop Grumman\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its US$200 million bidding to, and contract work for, the Argentine government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;initiated by P\u0026eacute;rez Companc against Enersys.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":121}]},"expertise":[{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":116,"guid":"116.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":132,"guid":"132.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":108,"guid":"108.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Aguirre Luzi","nick_name":"Roberto","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Roberto","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for Latin America-wide arbitration, he is \"very skillful presenting arguments and cross-examining witnesses.” ","detail":"Chambers Global 2017"},{"title":"“Knowledgeable, highly proactive attitude”; a “high-level bilingual lawyer.” ","detail":"Chambers Latin America"},{"title":"45 Under 45 ","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"","detail":"Who’s Who in International Arbitration"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/aguirre-luzi-roberto-7120852b/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRoberto Aguirre Luzi specializes in counseling multinational corporations on complex arbitration. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Roberto is experienced in administrative and civil law, government contracts, oil and gas contracts, public utilities, and power and infrastructure projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003eForeign Legal Consultant, Authorized to Practice law in Argentina (not licensed in Texas)\u003c/h5\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoberto represents clients in complex arbitrations before the World Bank Group\u0026rsquo;s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and UN Commission on International Trade Law, as well as in arbitration under the International Centre for Dispute Resolution and International Chamber of Commerce rules. Roberto also has extensive experience in civil and administrative law, government contracts, oil and gas contracts, public utilities, and power and infrastructure projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eListed as a leading member of the international arbitration bar in the 2011 \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eGlobal Arbitration Review\u003c/em\u003e 45 Under 45 rankings, Roberto has also been individually recognized by \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eChambers Latin America\u003c/em\u003e and featured in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who in International Arbitration.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoberto worked for five years as an associate for Marval, O\u0026rsquo;Farrell \u0026amp; Mairal before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2003. He was born in San Juan, Argentina. Roberto is fluent in Spanish and English, and reads French, Italian and Portuguese.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLinea Amarilla S.A\u003c/strong\u003e.C. (owned by VINCI Highways) against the City of Lima in a toll road project regarding the nullity of the concession agreement. Lima is claiming the nullity of the concession based on the alleged imbalance of the economic terms of several agreements entered into during the contract execution. The case also involves construction claims against the City of Lima. It is a high-profile case, involving criminal proceedings against former mayors and government officials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea French company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute under the France-Peru Bilateral Investment Treaty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSociedad Aeroportuaria Kuntur Wasi S.A.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporaci\u0026oacute;n Am\u0026eacute;rica S.A\u003c/strong\u003e. in an ICSID arbitration under the Peru-Argentina bilateral investment treaty, a concession contract for the construction and operation of the new airport in Cuzco, and a guaranty contract (Contrato Ley), involving the unlawful termination and unfair treatment provided to both investors. The Peruvian government has initiated criminal proceedings regarding the concession and its addenda.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGente Oil Ecuador Pte.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLtd\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a UNCITRAL arbitration administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration arising out of a dispute involving a risk service oil contract with Ecuador. The matter also includes allegations of corruption and fraud, including proceedings before criminal courts and the Comptroller Office (Contralor\u0026iacute;a).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eReficar\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against CB\u0026amp;I, an EPC contractor. The dispute concerns costs and delays in connection with the construction of a refinery in Colombia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTeinver S.A.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina involving the nationalization of the two largest airlines in that country.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSalini Impregilo SpA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in three international arbitrations against Argentina involving its investments in a water management concession, a roadway concession and a bridge.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMurphy Oil\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEuropean company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a potential arbitration against a state and a state-owned energy company. The dispute concerns the nationalization of the energy company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSempra Energy International\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses and in a potential arbitration against another South American country involving its investment in a power distribution company, and advised it in two ICC arbitrations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003etwo American oil and gas companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two ICSID arbitrations against Argentina, one of which involved claimant\u0026rsquo;s investment in two power plants and a natural gas field.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor American oil company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multibillion-dollar U.S. claim against a South American state concerning the breach of a bilateral investment treaty, an oil concession agreement and an environmental claim initiated against the oil company in the courts of the South American state.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCity Oriente Limited\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID contract arbitration against Ecuador and Petroecuador concerning the violation of an Oil Production Sharing Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eglobal supplier of power plants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its arbitration claim involving an engineering, procurement and construction contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNoble Energy, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eand MachalaPower Cia. Ltda.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in their arbitration claim against a South American country concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty, an investment agreement and a concession contract for the construction and operation of a power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003etelecommunications company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina concerning the violation of a treaty and the nationalization of its concession contract with the Argentine Government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCamuzzi Internacional\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge international water company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its ICSID arbitration against Argentina.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor American energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in preparing an ICSID arbitration against a Central American state concerning the breach of different contracts with distribution companies for the purchase of electricity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor independent company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a potential LCIA arbitration under a Joint Operating Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNorthrop Grumman\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its US$200 million bidding to, and contract work for, the Argentine government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;initiated by P\u0026eacute;rez Companc against Enersys.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for Latin America-wide arbitration, he is \"very skillful presenting arguments and cross-examining witnesses.” ","detail":"Chambers Global 2017"},{"title":"“Knowledgeable, highly proactive attitude”; a “high-level bilingual lawyer.” ","detail":"Chambers Latin America"},{"title":"45 Under 45 ","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"","detail":"Who’s Who in International Arbitration"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4503}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:26.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:26.000Z","searchable_text":"Aguirre Luzi{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Latin America-wide arbitration, he is \\\"very skillful presenting arguments and cross-examining witnesses.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Knowledgeable, highly proactive attitude”; a “high-level bilingual lawyer.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Latin America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"45 Under 45 \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Arbitration Review, 2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who in International Arbitration\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing a Linea Amarilla S.A.C. (owned by VINCI Highways) against the City of Lima in a toll road project regarding the nullity of the concession agreement. Lima is claiming the nullity of the concession based on the alleged imbalance of the economic terms of several agreements entered into during the contract execution. The case also involves construction claims against the City of Lima. It is a high-profile case, involving criminal proceedings against former mayors and government officials.{{ FIELD }}Representing a French company in a dispute under the France-Peru Bilateral Investment Treaty.{{ FIELD }}Representing Sociedad Aeroportuaria Kuntur Wasi S.A. and Corporación América S.A. in an ICSID arbitration under the Peru-Argentina bilateral investment treaty, a concession contract for the construction and operation of the new airport in Cuzco, and a guaranty contract (Contrato Ley), involving the unlawful termination and unfair treatment provided to both investors. The Peruvian government has initiated criminal proceedings regarding the concession and its addenda.{{ FIELD }}Representing Gente Oil Ecuador Pte. Ltd in a UNCITRAL arbitration administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration arising out of a dispute involving a risk service oil contract with Ecuador. The matter also includes allegations of corruption and fraud, including proceedings before criminal courts and the Comptroller Office (Contraloría).{{ FIELD }}Representing Reficar in an ICC arbitration against CB\u0026amp;I, an EPC contractor. The dispute concerns costs and delays in connection with the construction of a refinery in Colombia.{{ FIELD }}Representing Teinver S.A. in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina involving the nationalization of the two largest airlines in that country.{{ FIELD }}Representing Salini Impregilo SpA in three international arbitrations against Argentina involving its investments in a water management concession, a roadway concession and a bridge.{{ FIELD }}Representing Murphy Oil in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European company in a potential arbitration against a state and a state-owned energy company. The dispute concerns the nationalization of the energy company.{{ FIELD }}Represented Sempra Energy International in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses and in a potential arbitration against another South American country involving its investment in a power distribution company, and advised it in two ICC arbitrations.{{ FIELD }}Represented two American oil and gas companies in two ICSID arbitrations against Argentina, one of which involved claimant’s investment in two power plants and a natural gas field.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major American oil company in a multibillion-dollar U.S. claim against a South American state concerning the breach of a bilateral investment treaty, an oil concession agreement and an environmental claim initiated against the oil company in the courts of the South American state.{{ FIELD }}Represented City Oriente Limited in an ICSID contract arbitration against Ecuador and Petroecuador concerning the violation of an Oil Production Sharing Agreement.{{ FIELD }}Represented a global supplier of power plants in its arbitration claim involving an engineering, procurement and construction contract.{{ FIELD }}Represented Noble Energy, Inc. and MachalaPower Cia. Ltda. in their arbitration claim against a South American country concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty, an investment agreement and a concession contract for the construction and operation of a power plant.{{ FIELD }}Represented a telecommunications company in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina concerning the violation of a treaty and the nationalization of its concession contract with the Argentine Government.{{ FIELD }}Represented Camuzzi Internacional in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large international water company in its ICSID arbitration against Argentina.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major American energy company in preparing an ICSID arbitration against a Central American state concerning the breach of different contracts with distribution companies for the purchase of electricity.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major independent company in a potential LCIA arbitration under a Joint Operating Agreement.{{ FIELD }}Advised Northrop Grumman in its US$200 million bidding to, and contract work for, the Argentine government.{{ FIELD }}Participated in an ICC arbitration initiated by Pérez Companc against Enersys.{{ FIELD }}Roberto Aguirre Luzi specializes in counseling multinational corporations on complex arbitration. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Roberto is experienced in administrative and civil law, government contracts, oil and gas contracts, public utilities, and power and infrastructure projects.\nForeign Legal Consultant, Authorized to Practice law in Argentina (not licensed in Texas)\n\nRoberto represents clients in complex arbitrations before the World Bank Group’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and UN Commission on International Trade Law, as well as in arbitration under the International Centre for Dispute Resolution and International Chamber of Commerce rules. Roberto also has extensive experience in civil and administrative law, government contracts, oil and gas contracts, public utilities, and power and infrastructure projects.\nListed as a leading member of the international arbitration bar in the 2011 Global Arbitration Review 45 Under 45 rankings, Roberto has also been individually recognized by Chambers Latin America and featured in Who’s Who in International Arbitration.\nRoberto worked for five years as an associate for Marval, O’Farrell \u0026amp; Mairal before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2003. He was born in San Juan, Argentina. Roberto is fluent in Spanish and English, and reads French, Italian and Portuguese. Roberto J Aguirre Luzi Partner Ranked for Latin America-wide arbitration, he is \"very skillful presenting arguments and cross-examining witnesses.”  Chambers Global 2017 “Knowledgeable, highly proactive attitude”; a “high-level bilingual lawyer.”  Chambers Latin America 45 Under 45  Global Arbitration Review, 2011  Who’s Who in International Arbitration University of Buenos Aires, Argentina  The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Foreign Legal Consultant, Texas Bar of the City of Buenos Aires, Argentina Representing a Linea Amarilla S.A.C. (owned by VINCI Highways) against the City of Lima in a toll road project regarding the nullity of the concession agreement. Lima is claiming the nullity of the concession based on the alleged imbalance of the economic terms of several agreements entered into during the contract execution. The case also involves construction claims against the City of Lima. It is a high-profile case, involving criminal proceedings against former mayors and government officials. Representing a French company in a dispute under the France-Peru Bilateral Investment Treaty. Representing Sociedad Aeroportuaria Kuntur Wasi S.A. and Corporación América S.A. in an ICSID arbitration under the Peru-Argentina bilateral investment treaty, a concession contract for the construction and operation of the new airport in Cuzco, and a guaranty contract (Contrato Ley), involving the unlawful termination and unfair treatment provided to both investors. The Peruvian government has initiated criminal proceedings regarding the concession and its addenda. Representing Gente Oil Ecuador Pte. Ltd in a UNCITRAL arbitration administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration arising out of a dispute involving a risk service oil contract with Ecuador. The matter also includes allegations of corruption and fraud, including proceedings before criminal courts and the Comptroller Office (Contraloría). Representing Reficar in an ICC arbitration against CB\u0026amp;I, an EPC contractor. The dispute concerns costs and delays in connection with the construction of a refinery in Colombia. Representing Teinver S.A. in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina involving the nationalization of the two largest airlines in that country. Representing Salini Impregilo SpA in three international arbitrations against Argentina involving its investments in a water management concession, a roadway concession and a bridge. Representing Murphy Oil in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty. Representing a European company in a potential arbitration against a state and a state-owned energy company. The dispute concerns the nationalization of the energy company. Represented Sempra Energy International in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses and in a potential arbitration against another South American country involving its investment in a power distribution company, and advised it in two ICC arbitrations. Represented two American oil and gas companies in two ICSID arbitrations against Argentina, one of which involved claimant’s investment in two power plants and a natural gas field. Represented a major American oil company in a multibillion-dollar U.S. claim against a South American state concerning the breach of a bilateral investment treaty, an oil concession agreement and an environmental claim initiated against the oil company in the courts of the South American state. Represented City Oriente Limited in an ICSID contract arbitration against Ecuador and Petroecuador concerning the violation of an Oil Production Sharing Agreement. Represented a global supplier of power plants in its arbitration claim involving an engineering, procurement and construction contract. Represented Noble Energy, Inc. and MachalaPower Cia. Ltda. in their arbitration claim against a South American country concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty, an investment agreement and a concession contract for the construction and operation of a power plant. Represented a telecommunications company in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina concerning the violation of a treaty and the nationalization of its concession contract with the Argentine Government. Represented Camuzzi Internacional in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses. Represented a large international water company in its ICSID arbitration against Argentina. Represented a major American energy company in preparing an ICSID arbitration against a Central American state concerning the breach of different contracts with distribution companies for the purchase of electricity. Represented a major independent company in a potential LCIA arbitration under a Joint Operating Agreement. Advised Northrop Grumman in its US$200 million bidding to, and contract work for, the Argentine government. Participated in an ICC arbitration initiated by Pérez Companc against Enersys.","searchable_name":"Roberto J. Aguirre Luzi","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":436413,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3400,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSajid Ahmed is a Partner in the London office of King \u0026amp; Spalding.\u0026nbsp; He specialises in international arbitration and trade matters.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSajid\u0026rsquo;s cases are typically high-value complex disputes, often dealing with political, commercial and/or social issues involving State owned entities and governments. \u0026nbsp;Sajid represents both claimants and respondents in arbitral proceedings under all the major arbitral rules and institutions including the ICC, LCIA, ICSID and UNCITRAL. While sector agnostic, Sajid is particularly well-known for handling disputes in energy, mining, life sciences, financial services, and media where he is listed as a \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ename to note\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp; Although experienced across various geographies, Sajid is prominently known for his disputes work in India, Turkey and Central Asia. Correspondingly, Sajid's global clientele include multi-nationals and State/State entities in those regions.\u0026nbsp; As a recipient of a number of recognitions from legal directories and industry commentators over the years, \u0026nbsp;Sajid is described as having \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eindispensable leadership\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(IBLJ (2022)) and as being \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ean excellent lawyer with good business acumen and understands client\u0026rsquo;s perspective and overall business context and comes out with pragmatic solutions\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Legal 500 UK, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSajid also has notable experience in international trade matters including export controls and sanctions. He assists clients prepare disclosures of export control and economic sanctions laws violations and represents them in regulatory investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"sajid-ahmed","email":"sahmed@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent Representations \u0026ndash; Arbitration Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAn Asian\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eExploration \u0026amp; Production company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an ad hoc UNCITRAL\u0026nbsp;arbitration against the Government of India with respect to cross-boundary gas migration issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eIndian pharmaceuticals company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a LCIA arbitration in London against a major Canadian generics producer with respect to a breach of exclusivity provisions in a licence agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA significant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil \u0026amp; gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitrations against an Asian sovereign state, one relating to the company\u0026rsquo;s right to cost recovery under a PSC and the other relating to gas pricing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRepublic of Turkey\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTurkish state-owned\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eentity BOTAS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Paris against the Republic of Iraq in relation to a dispute concerning an intergovernmental pipeline agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA significant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTurkish E\u0026amp;P company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against the Republic of Kazakhstan in an ICSID arbitration brought under the Turkey\u0026ndash;Kazakhstan bilateral investment treaty relating to a tax stabilization clause.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eIndian electrical engineering company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in London against a UK company involving claims of defective products provided pursuant to a Supply Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultinational life sciences company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a US company in an ICC arbitration in London concerning a breach of a licence agreement with respect to the marketing of a biopharmaceutical product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant Asian company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration in London against a U.S. investment bank relating to breaches of a services agreement in connection with an M\u0026amp;A deal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration proceeding in New York against a German company relating to breaches of a manufacturing and supply agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRecent Representations \u0026ndash; Export Controls and Sanctions Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on EU-Russia sanctions concerning the provision of loans, capital market instruments and other types of financial instruments to Russia-related persons.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor Middle East petrochemicals company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on EU sanctions with respect to Iran and Syria and potential exposure based on business transactions with Iranian and Syrian entities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant Middle East sovereign wealth fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the successful de-listing of one its associated companies from the EU sanctions list.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA major Asian oil and gas company in connection with the EU relaxation of sanctions on investments in the Iranian hydrocarbons sector and on Iranian oil exports under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant aircraft manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on export sales of aircraft and aircraft parts from certain EU countries to the Middle East region and South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eaerospace client\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its UK voluntary self-disclosures due to potential violation of UK/EU export control rules. The representation included review of customer due-diligence policies and procedures as well as sales contracts for the purposes of export controls and sanctions compliance.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":12}]},"expertise":[{"id":25,"guid":"25.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1142,"guid":"1142.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":108,"guid":"108.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1327,"guid":"1327.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Ahmed","nick_name":"Sajid","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Sajid","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":174,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“Indispensable Leadership” ","detail":"India Business Law Journal (2022)"},{"title":"Recognized as “an excellent lawyer with good business acumen\"","detail":"LEGAL 500, 2021"},{"title":"\"Understands client’s perspective and overall business context and comes out with pragmatic solutions\" ","detail":"Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"Recognized as “a name to note”","detail":"LEGAL 500, 2021"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSajid Ahmed is a Partner in the London office of King \u0026amp; Spalding.\u0026nbsp; He specialises in international arbitration and trade matters.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSajid\u0026rsquo;s cases are typically high-value complex disputes, often dealing with political, commercial and/or social issues involving State owned entities and governments. \u0026nbsp;Sajid represents both claimants and respondents in arbitral proceedings under all the major arbitral rules and institutions including the ICC, LCIA, ICSID and UNCITRAL. While sector agnostic, Sajid is particularly well-known for handling disputes in energy, mining, life sciences, financial services, and media where he is listed as a \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ename to note\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp; Although experienced across various geographies, Sajid is prominently known for his disputes work in India, Turkey and Central Asia. Correspondingly, Sajid's global clientele include multi-nationals and State/State entities in those regions.\u0026nbsp; As a recipient of a number of recognitions from legal directories and industry commentators over the years, \u0026nbsp;Sajid is described as having \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eindispensable leadership\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(IBLJ (2022)) and as being \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ean excellent lawyer with good business acumen and understands client\u0026rsquo;s perspective and overall business context and comes out with pragmatic solutions\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Legal 500 UK, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSajid also has notable experience in international trade matters including export controls and sanctions. He assists clients prepare disclosures of export control and economic sanctions laws violations and represents them in regulatory investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent Representations \u0026ndash; Arbitration Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAn Asian\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eExploration \u0026amp; Production company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an ad hoc UNCITRAL\u0026nbsp;arbitration against the Government of India with respect to cross-boundary gas migration issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eIndian pharmaceuticals company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a LCIA arbitration in London against a major Canadian generics producer with respect to a breach of exclusivity provisions in a licence agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA significant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil \u0026amp; gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitrations against an Asian sovereign state, one relating to the company\u0026rsquo;s right to cost recovery under a PSC and the other relating to gas pricing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRepublic of Turkey\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTurkish state-owned\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eentity BOTAS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Paris against the Republic of Iraq in relation to a dispute concerning an intergovernmental pipeline agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA significant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTurkish E\u0026amp;P company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against the Republic of Kazakhstan in an ICSID arbitration brought under the Turkey\u0026ndash;Kazakhstan bilateral investment treaty relating to a tax stabilization clause.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eIndian electrical engineering company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in London against a UK company involving claims of defective products provided pursuant to a Supply Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultinational life sciences company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a US company in an ICC arbitration in London concerning a breach of a licence agreement with respect to the marketing of a biopharmaceutical product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant Asian company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration in London against a U.S. investment bank relating to breaches of a services agreement in connection with an M\u0026amp;A deal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration proceeding in New York against a German company relating to breaches of a manufacturing and supply agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRecent Representations \u0026ndash; Export Controls and Sanctions Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on EU-Russia sanctions concerning the provision of loans, capital market instruments and other types of financial instruments to Russia-related persons.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor Middle East petrochemicals company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on EU sanctions with respect to Iran and Syria and potential exposure based on business transactions with Iranian and Syrian entities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant Middle East sovereign wealth fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the successful de-listing of one its associated companies from the EU sanctions list.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA major Asian oil and gas company in connection with the EU relaxation of sanctions on investments in the Iranian hydrocarbons sector and on Iranian oil exports under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant aircraft manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on export sales of aircraft and aircraft parts from certain EU countries to the Middle East region and South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eaerospace client\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its UK voluntary self-disclosures due to potential violation of UK/EU export control rules. The representation included review of customer due-diligence policies and procedures as well as sales contracts for the purposes of export controls and sanctions compliance.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“Indispensable Leadership” ","detail":"India Business Law Journal (2022)"},{"title":"Recognized as “an excellent lawyer with good business acumen\"","detail":"LEGAL 500, 2021"},{"title":"\"Understands client’s perspective and overall business context and comes out with pragmatic solutions\" ","detail":"Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"Recognized as “a name to note”","detail":"LEGAL 500, 2021"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6066}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:52:36.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:52:36.000Z","searchable_text":"Ahmed{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Indispensable Leadership” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"India Business Law Journal (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as “an excellent lawyer with good business acumen\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LEGAL 500, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Understands client’s perspective and overall business context and comes out with pragmatic solutions\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as “a name to note”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LEGAL 500, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}Recent Representations – Arbitration MattersAn Asian Exploration \u0026amp; Production company in an ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration against the Government of India with respect to cross-boundary gas migration issues.{{ FIELD }}An Indian pharmaceuticals company in a LCIA arbitration in London against a major Canadian generics producer with respect to a breach of exclusivity provisions in a licence agreement.{{ FIELD }}A significant oil \u0026amp; gas company in two ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitrations against an Asian sovereign state, one relating to the company’s right to cost recovery under a PSC and the other relating to gas pricing.{{ FIELD }}The Republic of Turkey and Turkish state-owned entity BOTAS in an ICC arbitration in Paris against the Republic of Iraq in relation to a dispute concerning an intergovernmental pipeline agreement.{{ FIELD }}A significant Turkish E\u0026amp;P company against the Republic of Kazakhstan in an ICSID arbitration brought under the Turkey–Kazakhstan bilateral investment treaty relating to a tax stabilization clause.{{ FIELD }}An Indian electrical engineering company in an ICC arbitration in London against a UK company involving claims of defective products provided pursuant to a Supply Agreement.{{ FIELD }}A multinational life sciences company against a US company in an ICC arbitration in London concerning a breach of a licence agreement with respect to the marketing of a biopharmaceutical product.{{ FIELD }}A significant Asian company in an LCIA arbitration in London against a U.S. investment bank relating to breaches of a services agreement in connection with an M\u0026amp;A deal.{{ FIELD }}A significant pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration proceeding in New York against a German company relating to breaches of a manufacturing and supply agreement.{{ FIELD }}Recent Representations – Export Controls and Sanctions MattersA major financial institution on EU-Russia sanctions concerning the provision of loans, capital market instruments and other types of financial instruments to Russia-related persons.{{ FIELD }}A major Middle East petrochemicals company on EU sanctions with respect to Iran and Syria and potential exposure based on business transactions with Iranian and Syrian entities.{{ FIELD }}A significant Middle East sovereign wealth fund on the successful de-listing of one its associated companies from the EU sanctions list.{{ FIELD }}A major Asian oil and gas company in connection with the EU relaxation of sanctions on investments in the Iranian hydrocarbons sector and on Iranian oil exports under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.{{ FIELD }}A significant aircraft manufacturer on export sales of aircraft and aircraft parts from certain EU countries to the Middle East region and South America.{{ FIELD }}An aerospace client in its UK voluntary self-disclosures due to potential violation of UK/EU export control rules. The representation included review of customer due-diligence policies and procedures as well as sales contracts for the purposes of export controls and sanctions compliance.{{ FIELD }}Sajid Ahmed is a Partner in the London office of King \u0026amp; Spalding.  He specialises in international arbitration and trade matters. \nSajid’s cases are typically high-value complex disputes, often dealing with political, commercial and/or social issues involving State owned entities and governments.  Sajid represents both claimants and respondents in arbitral proceedings under all the major arbitral rules and institutions including the ICC, LCIA, ICSID and UNCITRAL. While sector agnostic, Sajid is particularly well-known for handling disputes in energy, mining, life sciences, financial services, and media where he is listed as a “name to note”.  Although experienced across various geographies, Sajid is prominently known for his disputes work in India, Turkey and Central Asia. Correspondingly, Sajid's global clientele include multi-nationals and State/State entities in those regions.  As a recipient of a number of recognitions from legal directories and industry commentators over the years,  Sajid is described as having “indispensable leadership” (IBLJ (2022)) and as being “an excellent lawyer with good business acumen and understands client’s perspective and overall business context and comes out with pragmatic solutions” (Legal 500 UK, 2021).\nSajid also has notable experience in international trade matters including export controls and sanctions. He assists clients prepare disclosures of export control and economic sanctions laws violations and represents them in regulatory investigations. Sajid Ahmed Partner “Indispensable Leadership”  India Business Law Journal (2022) Recognized as “an excellent lawyer with good business acumen\" LEGAL 500, 2021 \"Understands client’s perspective and overall business context and comes out with pragmatic solutions\"  Legal 500, 2021 Recognized as “a name to note” LEGAL 500, 2021 Law Society of England and Wales Recent Representations – Arbitration MattersAn Asian Exploration \u0026amp; Production company in an ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration against the Government of India with respect to cross-boundary gas migration issues. An Indian pharmaceuticals company in a LCIA arbitration in London against a major Canadian generics producer with respect to a breach of exclusivity provisions in a licence agreement. A significant oil \u0026amp; gas company in two ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitrations against an Asian sovereign state, one relating to the company’s right to cost recovery under a PSC and the other relating to gas pricing. The Republic of Turkey and Turkish state-owned entity BOTAS in an ICC arbitration in Paris against the Republic of Iraq in relation to a dispute concerning an intergovernmental pipeline agreement. A significant Turkish E\u0026amp;P company against the Republic of Kazakhstan in an ICSID arbitration brought under the Turkey–Kazakhstan bilateral investment treaty relating to a tax stabilization clause. An Indian electrical engineering company in an ICC arbitration in London against a UK company involving claims of defective products provided pursuant to a Supply Agreement. A multinational life sciences company against a US company in an ICC arbitration in London concerning a breach of a licence agreement with respect to the marketing of a biopharmaceutical product. A significant Asian company in an LCIA arbitration in London against a U.S. investment bank relating to breaches of a services agreement in connection with an M\u0026amp;A deal. A significant pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration proceeding in New York against a German company relating to breaches of a manufacturing and supply agreement. Recent Representations – Export Controls and Sanctions MattersA major financial institution on EU-Russia sanctions concerning the provision of loans, capital market instruments and other types of financial instruments to Russia-related persons. A major Middle East petrochemicals company on EU sanctions with respect to Iran and Syria and potential exposure based on business transactions with Iranian and Syrian entities. A significant Middle East sovereign wealth fund on the successful de-listing of one its associated companies from the EU sanctions list. A major Asian oil and gas company in connection with the EU relaxation of sanctions on investments in the Iranian hydrocarbons sector and on Iranian oil exports under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. A significant aircraft manufacturer on export sales of aircraft and aircraft parts from certain EU countries to the Middle East region and South America. An aerospace client in its UK voluntary self-disclosures due to potential violation of UK/EU export control rules. The representation included review of customer due-diligence policies and procedures as well as sales contracts for the purposes of export controls and sanctions compliance.","searchable_name":"Sajid Ahmed","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":174,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445566,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":854,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCarolyn Alford\u0026nbsp;represents\u0026nbsp;financial institutions, funds, private equity sponsors,\u0026nbsp;issuers and corporate borrowers on a wide range of complex and innovative finance matters including acquisition, unitranche, first lien/second lien and mezzanine financings, leveraged and investment-grade syndicated credit facilities, private placements of notes and\u0026nbsp;asset-based lending.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile her industry experience is broad, she has an extensive track record in financing matters for\u0026nbsp;healthcare, pharma, energy, telecom and media sectors.\u0026nbsp;Notably, Carolyn co-leads King \u0026amp; Spalding's Finance \u0026amp; Restructuring practice and serves on the firm's\u0026nbsp;managing Policy Committee. Carolyn has been recognized by her clients as \u0026ldquo;an extremely impressive attorney\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;stand out for her professionalism, expertise and dedication.\u0026rdquo; Additionally, Chambers USA has noted Carolyn as Band 1 for her Finance practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarolyn also has experience structuring programmatic lending platforms and is frequently called upon by clients to advise on structuring innovative financial products and to represent their interests in workouts and out of court restructurings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarolyn is a fellow and past-President\u0026nbsp;of the American College of Investment Counsel, where she served on the Board of Trustees for eight years, and the American College of Commercial Finance Lawyers, where she has\u0026nbsp;served\u0026nbsp;on the Nominating Committee. As a passionate proponent for diversity, Carolyn is proud to serve on the Board of the Atlanta Women's Foundation. Carolyn also has the honor of serving as a board member of the Children's Hospital of Atlanta Foundation.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"carolyn-alford","email":"czalford@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":13}]},"expertise":[{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":29,"guid":"29.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":82,"guid":"82.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":734,"guid":"734.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":716,"guid":"716.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1148,"guid":"1148.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1165,"guid":"1165.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":15,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1261,"guid":"1261.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":26,"guid":"26.capabilities","index":18,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":19,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":20,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Alford","nick_name":"Carolyn","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Carolyn","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"Zander","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to Bank Lenders (Nationwide)","detail":"LEGAL500, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to direct lenders / private credit (Nationwide) ","detail":"LEGAL500, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026 Finance (New York)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026 Finance (Nationwide)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA,2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026 Finance (Georgia)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2025"},{"title":"Individually Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026 Finance (Georgia)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, ABS - Band 2 (Nationwide)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2022"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, Whole Business - Band 1 (Nationwide)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2022"},{"title":"Individually Ranked in Band 1 for Banking \u0026 Finance (Georgia)","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Banking \u0026 Finance - Band 1 (Georgia) and Band 5 (Nationwide) ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022"},{"title":"Highly Regarded Practitioner in Banking ","detail":"IFLR 1000 US, 2021"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Commercial Lending - Advice to Borrowers and Lenders","detail":"LEGAL 500 US, 2022"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/carolynalford/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCarolyn Alford\u0026nbsp;represents\u0026nbsp;financial institutions, funds, private equity sponsors,\u0026nbsp;issuers and corporate borrowers on a wide range of complex and innovative finance matters including acquisition, unitranche, first lien/second lien and mezzanine financings, leveraged and investment-grade syndicated credit facilities, private placements of notes and\u0026nbsp;asset-based lending.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile her industry experience is broad, she has an extensive track record in financing matters for\u0026nbsp;healthcare, pharma, energy, telecom and media sectors.\u0026nbsp;Notably, Carolyn co-leads King \u0026amp; Spalding's Finance \u0026amp; Restructuring practice and serves on the firm's\u0026nbsp;managing Policy Committee. Carolyn has been recognized by her clients as \u0026ldquo;an extremely impressive attorney\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;stand out for her professionalism, expertise and dedication.\u0026rdquo; Additionally, Chambers USA has noted Carolyn as Band 1 for her Finance practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarolyn also has experience structuring programmatic lending platforms and is frequently called upon by clients to advise on structuring innovative financial products and to represent their interests in workouts and out of court restructurings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCarolyn is a fellow and past-President\u0026nbsp;of the American College of Investment Counsel, where she served on the Board of Trustees for eight years, and the American College of Commercial Finance Lawyers, where she has\u0026nbsp;served\u0026nbsp;on the Nominating Committee. As a passionate proponent for diversity, Carolyn is proud to serve on the Board of the Atlanta Women's Foundation. Carolyn also has the honor of serving as a board member of the Children's Hospital of Atlanta Foundation.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to Bank Lenders (Nationwide)","detail":"LEGAL500, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to direct lenders / private credit (Nationwide) ","detail":"LEGAL500, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026 Finance (New York)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026 Finance (Nationwide)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA,2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026 Finance (Georgia)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2025"},{"title":"Individually Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026 Finance (Georgia)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2025"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, ABS - Band 2 (Nationwide)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2022"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, Whole Business - Band 1 (Nationwide)","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2022"},{"title":"Individually Ranked in Band 1 for Banking \u0026 Finance (Georgia)","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Banking \u0026 Finance - Band 1 (Georgia) and Band 5 (Nationwide) ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022"},{"title":"Highly Regarded Practitioner in Banking ","detail":"IFLR 1000 US, 2021"},{"title":"Practice Ranked: Commercial Lending - Advice to Borrowers and Lenders","detail":"LEGAL 500 US, 2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10086}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2026-02-04T14:34:26.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-04T14:34:26.000Z","searchable_text":"Alford{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to Bank Lenders (Nationwide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LEGAL500, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to direct lenders / private credit (Nationwide) \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LEGAL500, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026amp; Finance (New York)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Nationwide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA,2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Georgia)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Individually Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Georgia)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, ABS - Band 2 (Nationwide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, Whole Business - Band 1 (Nationwide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Individually Ranked in Band 1 for Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Georgia)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked: Banking \u0026amp; Finance - Band 1 (Georgia) and Band 5 (Nationwide) \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Highly Regarded Practitioner in Banking \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IFLR 1000 US, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice Ranked: Commercial Lending - Advice to Borrowers and Lenders\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LEGAL 500 US, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Carolyn Alford represents financial institutions, funds, private equity sponsors, issuers and corporate borrowers on a wide range of complex and innovative finance matters including acquisition, unitranche, first lien/second lien and mezzanine financings, leveraged and investment-grade syndicated credit facilities, private placements of notes and asset-based lending.\nWhile her industry experience is broad, she has an extensive track record in financing matters for healthcare, pharma, energy, telecom and media sectors. Notably, Carolyn co-leads King \u0026amp; Spalding's Finance \u0026amp; Restructuring practice and serves on the firm's managing Policy Committee. Carolyn has been recognized by her clients as “an extremely impressive attorney” and “stand out for her professionalism, expertise and dedication.” Additionally, Chambers USA has noted Carolyn as Band 1 for her Finance practice.\nCarolyn also has experience structuring programmatic lending platforms and is frequently called upon by clients to advise on structuring innovative financial products and to represent their interests in workouts and out of court restructurings.\nCarolyn is a fellow and past-President of the American College of Investment Counsel, where she served on the Board of Trustees for eight years, and the American College of Commercial Finance Lawyers, where she has served on the Nominating Committee. As a passionate proponent for diversity, Carolyn is proud to serve on the Board of the Atlanta Women's Foundation. Carolyn also has the honor of serving as a board member of the Children's Hospital of Atlanta Foundation. Carolyn Zander Alford Partner Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to Bank Lenders (Nationwide) LEGAL500, 2025 Practice Ranked in Commercial Lending, Advice to direct lenders / private credit (Nationwide)  LEGAL500, 2025 Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026amp; Finance (New York) CHAMBERS USA, 2025 Practice Ranked in Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Nationwide) CHAMBERS USA,2025 Practice Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Georgia) CHAMBERS USA, 2025 Individually Ranked in Band 1 Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Georgia) CHAMBERS USA, 2025 Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, ABS - Band 2 (Nationwide) CHAMBERS USA, 2022 Practice Ranked: Capital Markets Securitization, Whole Business - Band 1 (Nationwide) CHAMBERS USA, 2022 Individually Ranked in Band 1 for Banking \u0026amp; Finance (Georgia) Chambers USA, 2022 Practice Ranked: Banking \u0026amp; Finance - Band 1 (Georgia) and Band 5 (Nationwide)  Chambers USA, 2022 Highly Regarded Practitioner in Banking  IFLR 1000 US, 2021 Practice Ranked: Commercial Lending - Advice to Borrowers and Lenders LEGAL 500 US, 2022 Duke University Duke University School of Law Harvard University Harvard Law School Georgia New York State Bar of Georgia","searchable_name":"Carolyn Zander Alford","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":444836,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3981,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eErich represents energy industry clients in high-stakes commercial disputes and torts in the areas of construction and engineering, decommissioning, oil and gas royalties, environmental justice, and personal injury and property damage matters. He also represents mineral lessees and operators in disputes before federal agencies relating to decommissioning and oil and gas royalties and provides pre-litigation counseling on contractual risk allocation and compliance with Department of the Interior regulations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErich has experience in large-scale, multiparty litigation, as well as in individual actions. He practices in numerous jurisdictions, representing clients in all aspects of litigation across the country. Erich has represented public and private companies in a broad range of disputes in arbitration and federal and state court relating to breach of contract, trade secrets, securities, and RICO violations and provided litigation risk counseling and strategic advice on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues. He has also represented clients in False Claims Act and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErich earned his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center and served on the Journal for Poverty Law and Policy. After law school, he served as an Infantry Officer in the United States Army. Erich has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, has published two articles in Infantry Magazine and is an alumnus of the Army\u0026rsquo;s Strategic Studies Fellowship Program.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"erich-almonte","email":"ealmonte@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented owners in several construction disputes with general contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented major energy company in natural gas royalty multi-state class action litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented major energy company in natural gas royalty disputes against the U.S. Department of the Interior.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eAdvised major beer manufacturer on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eDefended national retailer in misappropriation of trade secret and conspiracy litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresented major technology company in securities and shareholder derivative litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global pharmaceutical company in a FCPA enforcement action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eExtensive pro bono work, including a Special Immigrant Visa application, Violence Against Women Act self-petition for immigration, veteran landlord-tenant dispute, divorce with custody, and United States Supreme Court \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e brief on behalf of the Innocence Project regarding the application of the scientific method in determining the reliability of expert witnesses.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":125,"guid":"125.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1143,"guid":"1143.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1236,"guid":"1236.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1237,"guid":"1237.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Almonte","nick_name":"Erich","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Erich","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":755,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2005-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eErich represents energy industry clients in high-stakes commercial disputes and torts in the areas of construction and engineering, decommissioning, oil and gas royalties, environmental justice, and personal injury and property damage matters. He also represents mineral lessees and operators in disputes before federal agencies relating to decommissioning and oil and gas royalties and provides pre-litigation counseling on contractual risk allocation and compliance with Department of the Interior regulations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErich has experience in large-scale, multiparty litigation, as well as in individual actions. He practices in numerous jurisdictions, representing clients in all aspects of litigation across the country. Erich has represented public and private companies in a broad range of disputes in arbitration and federal and state court relating to breach of contract, trade secrets, securities, and RICO violations and provided litigation risk counseling and strategic advice on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues. He has also represented clients in False Claims Act and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErich earned his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center and served on the Journal for Poverty Law and Policy. After law school, he served as an Infantry Officer in the United States Army. Erich has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, has published two articles in Infantry Magazine and is an alumnus of the Army\u0026rsquo;s Strategic Studies Fellowship Program.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented owners in several construction disputes with general contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented major energy company in natural gas royalty multi-state class action litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented major energy company in natural gas royalty disputes against the U.S. Department of the Interior.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eAdvised major beer manufacturer on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eDefended national retailer in misappropriation of trade secret and conspiracy litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresented major technology company in securities and shareholder derivative litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global pharmaceutical company in a FCPA enforcement action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eExtensive pro bono work, including a Special Immigrant Visa application, Violence Against Women Act self-petition for immigration, veteran landlord-tenant dispute, divorce with custody, and United States Supreme Court \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e brief on behalf of the Innocence Project regarding the application of the scientific method in determining the reliability of expert witnesses.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":693}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-07T04:54:37.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-07T04:54:37.000Z","searchable_text":"Almonte{{ FIELD }}Represented owners in several construction disputes with general contractors.{{ FIELD }}Represented major energy company in natural gas royalty multi-state class action litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented major energy company in natural gas royalty disputes against the U.S. Department of the Interior.  {{ FIELD }}Advised major beer manufacturer on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues.{{ FIELD }}Defended national retailer in misappropriation of trade secret and conspiracy litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented major technology company in securities and shareholder derivative litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented global pharmaceutical company in a FCPA enforcement action.{{ FIELD }}Extensive pro bono work, including a Special Immigrant Visa application, Violence Against Women Act self-petition for immigration, veteran landlord-tenant dispute, divorce with custody, and United States Supreme Court amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Innocence Project regarding the application of the scientific method in determining the reliability of expert witnesses.{{ FIELD }}Erich represents energy industry clients in high-stakes commercial disputes and torts in the areas of construction and engineering, decommissioning, oil and gas royalties, environmental justice, and personal injury and property damage matters. He also represents mineral lessees and operators in disputes before federal agencies relating to decommissioning and oil and gas royalties and provides pre-litigation counseling on contractual risk allocation and compliance with Department of the Interior regulations. \nErich has experience in large-scale, multiparty litigation, as well as in individual actions. He practices in numerous jurisdictions, representing clients in all aspects of litigation across the country. Erich has represented public and private companies in a broad range of disputes in arbitration and federal and state court relating to breach of contract, trade secrets, securities, and RICO violations and provided litigation risk counseling and strategic advice on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues. He has also represented clients in False Claims Act and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission.\nErich earned his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center and served on the Journal for Poverty Law and Policy. After law school, he served as an Infantry Officer in the United States Army. Erich has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, has published two articles in Infantry Magazine and is an alumnus of the Army’s Strategic Studies Fellowship Program. Partner Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas District of Columbia Texas Represented owners in several construction disputes with general contractors. Represented major energy company in natural gas royalty multi-state class action litigation. Represented major energy company in natural gas royalty disputes against the U.S. Department of the Interior.   Advised major beer manufacturer on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues. Defended national retailer in misappropriation of trade secret and conspiracy litigation. Represented major technology company in securities and shareholder derivative litigation. Represented global pharmaceutical company in a FCPA enforcement action. Extensive pro bono work, including a Special Immigrant Visa application, Violence Against Women Act self-petition for immigration, veteran landlord-tenant dispute, divorce with custody, and United States Supreme Court amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Innocence Project regarding the application of the scientific method in determining the reliability of expert witnesses.","searchable_name":"Erich J. Almonte","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447595,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7295,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCorey Amundson is a first-chair trial lawyer, expert at leading and conducting complex corporate investigations on both sides of the table, and former DOJ bipartisan leader and public servant known for his judgment and problem-solving ability in high-stakes enforcement and crisis matters. As a partner of the Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations practice group, he represents corporations, boards of directors, and senior executives in a broad array of government investigations, internal reviews, white-collar and civil litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis experience spans matters involving alleged corporate financial fraud, bribery and corruption, false claims and statements, obstruction, cyber crime, and other enforcement risks across the financial services, energy, life sciences, accounting, defense, chemical, construction, technology \u0026amp; trade secrets, and public sectors. He regularly advises clients facing scrutiny from DOJ and state Attorneys General, congressional committees, Inspectors General, and domestic and international enforcement authorities.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorey has more than two decades of public service as a career official at DOJ under multiple administrations, both in the field trying cases and leading the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office in the Middle District of Louisiana, and in Washington, D.C. as chief of multiple offices. He has tried over 20 federal jury trials, primarily involving complex corporate\u0026nbsp;fraud and bribery \u0026amp; corruption, along with supervising more than 100 trials in over 20 federal districts throughout the U.S. across a wide range of industries.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Washington, D.C. at Main Justice, Corey served with distinction for over six years in two roles, first as the Director and Chief Counsel of DOJ\u0026rsquo;s internal affairs department, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and then as Chief of DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Public Integrity Section across multiple administrations. He previously served in leadership roles while at the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office in the Middle District of Louisiana for more than fifteen years, including overseeing all civil and criminal litigation for four years as Acting United States Attorney and First Assistant United States Attorney, and leading all criminal matters as Criminal Chief, including as DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Fifth Circuit representative advising on national criminal policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn these capacities he led multiple crisis response efforts and implemented or developed a variety of proactive enforcement initiatives consistent with DOJ priorities, including one of the first healthcare fraud strike forces in the country, the Criminal Division Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, a financial fraud task force focused on data-mining, a lauded multi-agency initiative with the state AG to combat the online sexual exploitation of children, and a violent criminal enterprises strike force targeting gangs and other violent groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe also led, as Executive Director, the National Center for Disaster Fraud, a multi-agency entity responsible for coordinating nationwide disaster fraud enforcement, recovery and policies, many of which still are deployed today to address disaster-related fraud. He was a DOJ instructor for 20 years, teaching federal prosecutors and agents how to conduct investigations and try cases at the National Advocacy Center, the FBI Academy, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and was an Adjunct Law Professor at LSU teaching corporate and white collar crime.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring his years of public service, Corey received numerous awards and recognition for outstanding service, including the Assistant Attorney General Award for Exceptional Service, the EOUSA Director\u0026rsquo;s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Team, the HHS-OIG Integrity Award, the IRS-Criminal Investigations Honorary Special Agent Award, the FBI Exceptional Service Award, as well as numerous commendations from the Attorney General, DEA, DHS, FBI, and Treasury.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"corey-amundson","email":"camundson@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eSupervised financial fraud, false claims, bribery and corruption, and national security investigations and prosecutions involving public and private corporations, including a multinational investment company, a state-owned oil company in Azerbaijan, an online payment processing company, a Turkish construction firm, a domestic footwear manufacturer, a financial institution in Mexico, a Missouri-based healthcare entity, a defense contracting firm, numerous political action committees, and an international bank based in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of three engineers for stealing Dow Chemical trade secrets surrounding a highly regarded chemical manufacturing process and selling secrets to state-affiliated firms in the People\u0026rsquo;s Republic of China, culminating in the lead defendant being convicted following a four-week jury trial and the others pleading guilty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-counsel in defending federal healthcare fraud matter prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office in Boston, in which our team persuaded prosecutors to dismiss a 17-count healthcare fraud indictment against our client, a product manager for a major medical device and healthcare company that had pled guilty and agreed to pay more than $500 million, the largest such fine in history at the time.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-counsel in defending a civil matter filed in the District of Columbia against a major tobacco company, seeking class certification and alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Our team successfully defended the suit by prevailing on class certification after extensive discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a multinational defense and energy firm, for criminal Clean Air Act violations associated with the death of a worker at a chemical manufacturing facility, resulting in a criminal conviction and $12 million in fines and restitution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervised the investigation and prosecution of insider trading associated with the public sale of a Fortune 500 energy and chemical company, resulting in the convictions of a senior corporate executive, among others.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a subsidiary of a multinational medical device and healthcare company for a healthcare fraud scheme involving kickbacks and off-label promotion, resulting in a global resolution involving over $40 million in criminal and civil penalties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervised the creation and implementation of one of the first Medicare Fraud Strike Forces in the country, in partnership with the DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Fraud Section, the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Louisiana AG\u0026rsquo;s Office, resulting in the successful prosecution of more than 80 corporate and individual defendants involving more than $300 million in fraudulent claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an accounting firm president, a government tax auditor, and four prominent business owners for a multi-million-dollar tax fraud and bribery scheme, including the funneling of money to Syria.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an Audit Manager with the Internal Revenue Service for criminal conflict of interest and illegally accessing government databases in connection with undisclosed private tax business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of the state deputy insurance commissioner, four mayors, two police chiefs, and a city council member involving the corrupt passage of state and municipal legislation and multi-million-dollar federal procurement fraud and extortion schemes, resulting in four multi-week jury trials on charges under the RICO Act and the longest corruption sentence in Louisiana history.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":687,"guid":"687.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1114,"guid":"1114.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":699,"guid":"699.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Amundson","nick_name":"Corey","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, The Honorable Sarah Evans Barker, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana","years_held":"1997 - 1999"}],"first_name":"Corey","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":659,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1997-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Exceptional Service Award","detail":"U.S. Department of Justice, 2024 and 2022"},{"title":"Honorary Special Agent Award","detail":"Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations, 2018"},{"title":"Commendation","detail":"U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, 2018"},{"title":"Commendations","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017, 2008, 2004"},{"title":"Commendation - Inspector General, Tax Administration","detail":"U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2016"},{"title":"Director’s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Group","detail":"U.S. Department of Justice, 2013"},{"title":"Commendations - Inspector General","detail":"U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2013 and 2010"},{"title":"Commendation","detail":"U.S. Attorney General, 2013"},{"title":"Extraordinary Efforts Award","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012"},{"title":"Integrity Award","detail":"Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008"},{"title":"Exceptional Service in the Public Interest Award","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/corey-r-amundson-6632ab18b/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCorey Amundson is a first-chair trial lawyer, expert at leading and conducting complex corporate investigations on both sides of the table, and former DOJ bipartisan leader and public servant known for his judgment and problem-solving ability in high-stakes enforcement and crisis matters. As a partner of the Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations practice group, he represents corporations, boards of directors, and senior executives in a broad array of government investigations, internal reviews, white-collar and civil litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis experience spans matters involving alleged corporate financial fraud, bribery and corruption, false claims and statements, obstruction, cyber crime, and other enforcement risks across the financial services, energy, life sciences, accounting, defense, chemical, construction, technology \u0026amp; trade secrets, and public sectors. He regularly advises clients facing scrutiny from DOJ and state Attorneys General, congressional committees, Inspectors General, and domestic and international enforcement authorities.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorey has more than two decades of public service as a career official at DOJ under multiple administrations, both in the field trying cases and leading the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office in the Middle District of Louisiana, and in Washington, D.C. as chief of multiple offices. He has tried over 20 federal jury trials, primarily involving complex corporate\u0026nbsp;fraud and bribery \u0026amp; corruption, along with supervising more than 100 trials in over 20 federal districts throughout the U.S. across a wide range of industries.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Washington, D.C. at Main Justice, Corey served with distinction for over six years in two roles, first as the Director and Chief Counsel of DOJ\u0026rsquo;s internal affairs department, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and then as Chief of DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Public Integrity Section across multiple administrations. He previously served in leadership roles while at the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office in the Middle District of Louisiana for more than fifteen years, including overseeing all civil and criminal litigation for four years as Acting United States Attorney and First Assistant United States Attorney, and leading all criminal matters as Criminal Chief, including as DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Fifth Circuit representative advising on national criminal policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn these capacities he led multiple crisis response efforts and implemented or developed a variety of proactive enforcement initiatives consistent with DOJ priorities, including one of the first healthcare fraud strike forces in the country, the Criminal Division Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, a financial fraud task force focused on data-mining, a lauded multi-agency initiative with the state AG to combat the online sexual exploitation of children, and a violent criminal enterprises strike force targeting gangs and other violent groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe also led, as Executive Director, the National Center for Disaster Fraud, a multi-agency entity responsible for coordinating nationwide disaster fraud enforcement, recovery and policies, many of which still are deployed today to address disaster-related fraud. He was a DOJ instructor for 20 years, teaching federal prosecutors and agents how to conduct investigations and try cases at the National Advocacy Center, the FBI Academy, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and was an Adjunct Law Professor at LSU teaching corporate and white collar crime.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring his years of public service, Corey received numerous awards and recognition for outstanding service, including the Assistant Attorney General Award for Exceptional Service, the EOUSA Director\u0026rsquo;s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Team, the HHS-OIG Integrity Award, the IRS-Criminal Investigations Honorary Special Agent Award, the FBI Exceptional Service Award, as well as numerous commendations from the Attorney General, DEA, DHS, FBI, and Treasury.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSupervised financial fraud, false claims, bribery and corruption, and national security investigations and prosecutions involving public and private corporations, including a multinational investment company, a state-owned oil company in Azerbaijan, an online payment processing company, a Turkish construction firm, a domestic footwear manufacturer, a financial institution in Mexico, a Missouri-based healthcare entity, a defense contracting firm, numerous political action committees, and an international bank based in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of three engineers for stealing Dow Chemical trade secrets surrounding a highly regarded chemical manufacturing process and selling secrets to state-affiliated firms in the People\u0026rsquo;s Republic of China, culminating in the lead defendant being convicted following a four-week jury trial and the others pleading guilty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-counsel in defending federal healthcare fraud matter prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office in Boston, in which our team persuaded prosecutors to dismiss a 17-count healthcare fraud indictment against our client, a product manager for a major medical device and healthcare company that had pled guilty and agreed to pay more than $500 million, the largest such fine in history at the time.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-counsel in defending a civil matter filed in the District of Columbia against a major tobacco company, seeking class certification and alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Our team successfully defended the suit by prevailing on class certification after extensive discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a multinational defense and energy firm, for criminal Clean Air Act violations associated with the death of a worker at a chemical manufacturing facility, resulting in a criminal conviction and $12 million in fines and restitution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervised the investigation and prosecution of insider trading associated with the public sale of a Fortune 500 energy and chemical company, resulting in the convictions of a senior corporate executive, among others.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a subsidiary of a multinational medical device and healthcare company for a healthcare fraud scheme involving kickbacks and off-label promotion, resulting in a global resolution involving over $40 million in criminal and civil penalties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervised the creation and implementation of one of the first Medicare Fraud Strike Forces in the country, in partnership with the DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Fraud Section, the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Louisiana AG\u0026rsquo;s Office, resulting in the successful prosecution of more than 80 corporate and individual defendants involving more than $300 million in fraudulent claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an accounting firm president, a government tax auditor, and four prominent business owners for a multi-million-dollar tax fraud and bribery scheme, including the funneling of money to Syria.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an Audit Manager with the Internal Revenue Service for criminal conflict of interest and illegally accessing government databases in connection with undisclosed private tax business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of the state deputy insurance commissioner, four mayors, two police chiefs, and a city council member involving the corrupt passage of state and municipal legislation and multi-million-dollar federal procurement fraud and extortion schemes, resulting in four multi-week jury trials on charges under the RICO Act and the longest corruption sentence in Louisiana history.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Exceptional Service Award","detail":"U.S. Department of Justice, 2024 and 2022"},{"title":"Honorary Special Agent Award","detail":"Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations, 2018"},{"title":"Commendation","detail":"U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, 2018"},{"title":"Commendations","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017, 2008, 2004"},{"title":"Commendation - Inspector General, Tax Administration","detail":"U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2016"},{"title":"Director’s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Group","detail":"U.S. Department of Justice, 2013"},{"title":"Commendations - Inspector General","detail":"U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2013 and 2010"},{"title":"Commendation","detail":"U.S. Attorney General, 2013"},{"title":"Extraordinary Efforts Award","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012"},{"title":"Integrity Award","detail":"Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008"},{"title":"Exceptional Service in the Public Interest Award","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13326}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-04-17T16:07:14.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-17T16:07:14.000Z","searchable_text":"Amundson{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Exceptional Service Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Department of Justice, 2024 and 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Honorary Special Agent Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendations\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017, 2008, 2004\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendation - Inspector General, Tax Administration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Director’s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Group\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Department of Justice, 2013\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendations - Inspector General\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2013 and 2010\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Attorney General, 2013\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Extraordinary Efforts Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Integrity Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Exceptional Service in the Public Interest Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008\"}{{ FIELD }}Supervised financial fraud, false claims, bribery and corruption, and national security investigations and prosecutions involving public and private corporations, including a multinational investment company, a state-owned oil company in Azerbaijan, an online payment processing company, a Turkish construction firm, a domestic footwear manufacturer, a financial institution in Mexico, a Missouri-based healthcare entity, a defense contracting firm, numerous political action committees, and an international bank based in South America.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of three engineers for stealing Dow Chemical trade secrets surrounding a highly regarded chemical manufacturing process and selling secrets to state-affiliated firms in the People’s Republic of China, culminating in the lead defendant being convicted following a four-week jury trial and the others pleading guilty.{{ FIELD }}Co-counsel in defending federal healthcare fraud matter prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston, in which our team persuaded prosecutors to dismiss a 17-count healthcare fraud indictment against our client, a product manager for a major medical device and healthcare company that had pled guilty and agreed to pay more than $500 million, the largest such fine in history at the time.{{ FIELD }}Co-counsel in defending a civil matter filed in the District of Columbia against a major tobacco company, seeking class certification and alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Our team successfully defended the suit by prevailing on class certification after extensive discovery.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a multinational defense and energy firm, for criminal Clean Air Act violations associated with the death of a worker at a chemical manufacturing facility, resulting in a criminal conviction and $12 million in fines and restitution.{{ FIELD }}Supervised the investigation and prosecution of insider trading associated with the public sale of a Fortune 500 energy and chemical company, resulting in the convictions of a senior corporate executive, among others.{{ FIELD }}Co-counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a subsidiary of a multinational medical device and healthcare company for a healthcare fraud scheme involving kickbacks and off-label promotion, resulting in a global resolution involving over $40 million in criminal and civil penalties.{{ FIELD }}Supervised the creation and implementation of one of the first Medicare Fraud Strike Forces in the country, in partnership with the DOJ’s Fraud Section, the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Louisiana AG’s Office, resulting in the successful prosecution of more than 80 corporate and individual defendants involving more than $300 million in fraudulent claims.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an accounting firm president, a government tax auditor, and four prominent business owners for a multi-million-dollar tax fraud and bribery scheme, including the funneling of money to Syria.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an Audit Manager with the Internal Revenue Service for criminal conflict of interest and illegally accessing government databases in connection with undisclosed private tax business.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of the state deputy insurance commissioner, four mayors, two police chiefs, and a city council member involving the corrupt passage of state and municipal legislation and multi-million-dollar federal procurement fraud and extortion schemes, resulting in four multi-week jury trials on charges under the RICO Act and the longest corruption sentence in Louisiana history.{{ FIELD }}Corey Amundson is a first-chair trial lawyer, expert at leading and conducting complex corporate investigations on both sides of the table, and former DOJ bipartisan leader and public servant known for his judgment and problem-solving ability in high-stakes enforcement and crisis matters. As a partner of the Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations practice group, he represents corporations, boards of directors, and senior executives in a broad array of government investigations, internal reviews, white-collar and civil litigation.\nHis experience spans matters involving alleged corporate financial fraud, bribery and corruption, false claims and statements, obstruction, cyber crime, and other enforcement risks across the financial services, energy, life sciences, accounting, defense, chemical, construction, technology \u0026amp; trade secrets, and public sectors. He regularly advises clients facing scrutiny from DOJ and state Attorneys General, congressional committees, Inspectors General, and domestic and international enforcement authorities. \nCorey has more than two decades of public service as a career official at DOJ under multiple administrations, both in the field trying cases and leading the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Middle District of Louisiana, and in Washington, D.C. as chief of multiple offices. He has tried over 20 federal jury trials, primarily involving complex corporate fraud and bribery \u0026amp; corruption, along with supervising more than 100 trials in over 20 federal districts throughout the U.S. across a wide range of industries.  \nIn Washington, D.C. at Main Justice, Corey served with distinction for over six years in two roles, first as the Director and Chief Counsel of DOJ’s internal affairs department, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and then as Chief of DOJ’s Public Integrity Section across multiple administrations. He previously served in leadership roles while at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Middle District of Louisiana for more than fifteen years, including overseeing all civil and criminal litigation for four years as Acting United States Attorney and First Assistant United States Attorney, and leading all criminal matters as Criminal Chief, including as DOJ’s Fifth Circuit representative advising on national criminal policies.\nIn these capacities he led multiple crisis response efforts and implemented or developed a variety of proactive enforcement initiatives consistent with DOJ priorities, including one of the first healthcare fraud strike forces in the country, the Criminal Division Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, a financial fraud task force focused on data-mining, a lauded multi-agency initiative with the state AG to combat the online sexual exploitation of children, and a violent criminal enterprises strike force targeting gangs and other violent groups.\nHe also led, as Executive Director, the National Center for Disaster Fraud, a multi-agency entity responsible for coordinating nationwide disaster fraud enforcement, recovery and policies, many of which still are deployed today to address disaster-related fraud. He was a DOJ instructor for 20 years, teaching federal prosecutors and agents how to conduct investigations and try cases at the National Advocacy Center, the FBI Academy, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and was an Adjunct Law Professor at LSU teaching corporate and white collar crime.\nDuring his years of public service, Corey received numerous awards and recognition for outstanding service, including the Assistant Attorney General Award for Exceptional Service, the EOUSA Director’s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Team, the HHS-OIG Integrity Award, the IRS-Criminal Investigations Honorary Special Agent Award, the FBI Exceptional Service Award, as well as numerous commendations from the Attorney General, DEA, DHS, FBI, and Treasury. Partner Exceptional Service Award U.S. Department of Justice, 2024 and 2022 Honorary Special Agent Award Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations, 2018 Commendation U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, 2018 Commendations Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017, 2008, 2004 Commendation - Inspector General, Tax Administration U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2016 Director’s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Group U.S. Department of Justice, 2013 Commendations - Inspector General U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2013 and 2010 Commendation U.S. Attorney General, 2013 Extraordinary Efforts Award Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012 Integrity Award Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008 Exceptional Service in the Public Interest Award Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008 Indiana University Indiana University School of Law Emory University Emory University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Supreme Court of Louisiana American Bar Association Law Clerk, The Honorable Sarah Evans Barker, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Supervised financial fraud, false claims, bribery and corruption, and national security investigations and prosecutions involving public and private corporations, including a multinational investment company, a state-owned oil company in Azerbaijan, an online payment processing company, a Turkish construction firm, a domestic footwear manufacturer, a financial institution in Mexico, a Missouri-based healthcare entity, a defense contracting firm, numerous political action committees, and an international bank based in South America. Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of three engineers for stealing Dow Chemical trade secrets surrounding a highly regarded chemical manufacturing process and selling secrets to state-affiliated firms in the People’s Republic of China, culminating in the lead defendant being convicted following a four-week jury trial and the others pleading guilty. Co-counsel in defending federal healthcare fraud matter prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston, in which our team persuaded prosecutors to dismiss a 17-count healthcare fraud indictment against our client, a product manager for a major medical device and healthcare company that had pled guilty and agreed to pay more than $500 million, the largest such fine in history at the time. Co-counsel in defending a civil matter filed in the District of Columbia against a major tobacco company, seeking class certification and alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Our team successfully defended the suit by prevailing on class certification after extensive discovery. Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a multinational defense and energy firm, for criminal Clean Air Act violations associated with the death of a worker at a chemical manufacturing facility, resulting in a criminal conviction and $12 million in fines and restitution. Supervised the investigation and prosecution of insider trading associated with the public sale of a Fortune 500 energy and chemical company, resulting in the convictions of a senior corporate executive, among others. Co-counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a subsidiary of a multinational medical device and healthcare company for a healthcare fraud scheme involving kickbacks and off-label promotion, resulting in a global resolution involving over $40 million in criminal and civil penalties. Supervised the creation and implementation of one of the first Medicare Fraud Strike Forces in the country, in partnership with the DOJ’s Fraud Section, the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Louisiana AG’s Office, resulting in the successful prosecution of more than 80 corporate and individual defendants involving more than $300 million in fraudulent claims. Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an accounting firm president, a government tax auditor, and four prominent business owners for a multi-million-dollar tax fraud and bribery scheme, including the funneling of money to Syria. Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an Audit Manager with the Internal Revenue Service for criminal conflict of interest and illegally accessing government databases in connection with undisclosed private tax business. Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of the state deputy insurance commissioner, four mayors, two police chiefs, and a city council member involving the corrupt passage of state and municipal legislation and multi-million-dollar federal procurement fraud and extortion schemes, resulting in four multi-week jury trials on charges under the RICO Act and the longest corruption sentence in Louisiana history.","searchable_name":"Corey R. Amundson","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":445534,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7306,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNatalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation,\u0026rdquo; ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003elisted in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, selected to the Texas\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;list, and named \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex\u0026mdash;and often high-profile\u0026mdash;business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie\u0026rsquo;s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn an IP case covered by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client\u0026rsquo;s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, the trial court judge stated, \u0026ldquo;Counsel\u0026rsquo;s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie\u0026rsquo;s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor\u0026mdash;someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"natalie-arbaugh","email":"narbaugh@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for \u003cstrong\u003einternational luxury fashion brand owners\u003c/strong\u003e, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms\u0026mdash;through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003esoftware solutions company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client\u0026rsquo;s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor\u0026rsquo;s customers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of \u003cstrong\u003ea global petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading bank consulting and software services company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee\u0026rsquo;s transfer and use of thousands of client\u0026rsquo;s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client\u0026rsquo;s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client\u0026rsquo;s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Dress Infringement. Represented a \u003cstrong\u003ecooler and drink ware manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark Infringement. Successfully defended the \u003cstrong\u003eyellow pages and a marketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQui Tam Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTexas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented \u003cstrong\u003ea whistleblower\u003c/strong\u003e in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFalse Claims Act. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded human services provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Action and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003eedible bouquet client\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003ehotel chain\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003eleading watch manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of \u0026ldquo;Made in America\u0026rdquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Commercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003edisaster recovery and business continuity company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client\u0026rsquo;s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading global semiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecollege\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHarassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal communications company\u003c/strong\u003e against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAge Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGender Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecounty\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003emarketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA Collective Action. Defended a l\u003cstrong\u003eeading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReported Decisions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages\u0026nbsp;and judgment of over US$42M for defendants\u0026rsquo; willful infringement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoach Inc. v. Sassy Couture\u003c/em\u003e, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eINEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP\u003c/em\u003e; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Arbaugh","nick_name":"Natalie","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Justice Deborah Hankinson, Texas Supreme Court","years_held":"2001 - 2002"}],"first_name":"Natalie","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":176,"law_schools":[{"id":1852,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2001-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023–2025"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Trademark Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 "},{"title":"Recognized for Plaintiff","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026"},{"title":"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024"},{"title":"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation","detail":"D Magazine, 2014–2022"},{"title":"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” ","detail":"Texas Monthly, January 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNatalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation,\u0026rdquo; ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003elisted in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, selected to the Texas\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;list, and named \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex\u0026mdash;and often high-profile\u0026mdash;business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie\u0026rsquo;s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn an IP case covered by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client\u0026rsquo;s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, the trial court judge stated, \u0026ldquo;Counsel\u0026rsquo;s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie\u0026rsquo;s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor\u0026mdash;someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for \u003cstrong\u003einternational luxury fashion brand owners\u003c/strong\u003e, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms\u0026mdash;through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003esoftware solutions company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client\u0026rsquo;s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor\u0026rsquo;s customers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of \u003cstrong\u003ea global petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading bank consulting and software services company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee\u0026rsquo;s transfer and use of thousands of client\u0026rsquo;s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client\u0026rsquo;s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client\u0026rsquo;s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Dress Infringement. Represented a \u003cstrong\u003ecooler and drink ware manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark Infringement. Successfully defended the \u003cstrong\u003eyellow pages and a marketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQui Tam Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTexas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented \u003cstrong\u003ea whistleblower\u003c/strong\u003e in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFalse Claims Act. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded human services provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Action and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003eedible bouquet client\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003ehotel chain\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003eleading watch manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of \u0026ldquo;Made in America\u0026rdquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Commercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003edisaster recovery and business continuity company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client\u0026rsquo;s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading global semiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecollege\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHarassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal communications company\u003c/strong\u003e against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAge Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGender Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecounty\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003emarketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA Collective Action. Defended a l\u003cstrong\u003eeading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReported Decisions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages\u0026nbsp;and judgment of over US$42M for defendants\u0026rsquo; willful infringement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoach Inc. v. Sassy Couture\u003c/em\u003e, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eINEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP\u003c/em\u003e; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023–2025"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Trademark Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 "},{"title":"Recognized for Plaintiff","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026"},{"title":"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024"},{"title":"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation","detail":"D Magazine, 2014–2022"},{"title":"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” ","detail":"Texas Monthly, January 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13341}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:57.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:57.000Z","searchable_text":"Arbaugh{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2023–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Trademark Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Plaintiff\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D Magazine, 2014–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Monthly, January 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation{{ FIELD }}Trademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for international luxury fashion brand owners, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms—through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a software solutions company, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client’s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor’s customers.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a global petrochemical company, obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant’s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a leading bank consulting and software services company, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee’s transfer and use of thousands of client’s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client’s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client’s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Trade Dress Infringement. Represented a cooler and drink ware manufacturer in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.{{ FIELD }}Trademark Infringement. Successfully defended the yellow pages and a marketing company against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.{{ FIELD }}Qui Tam Litigation{{ FIELD }}Texas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented a whistleblower in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world’s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.{{ FIELD }}False Claims Act. Defended a publicly traded human services provider in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.{{ FIELD }}Class Action and Collective Action Litigation{{ FIELD }}Representing an edible bouquet client in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.{{ FIELD }}Represented a hotel chain in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading watch manufacturer in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of “Made in America” claims.{{ FIELD }}Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Other Commercial Litigation{{ FIELD }}Regularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a disaster recovery and business continuity company, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Fraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a Fortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client’s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a leading global semiconductor company in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Employment and Collective Action Litigation{{ FIELD }}Reverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a college against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Harassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a global communications company against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Age Discrimination. Successfully defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.{{ FIELD }}Gender Discrimination. Successfully defended a county against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Pregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a marketing company against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}FLSA. Defended a global insurance company against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.{{ FIELD }}FLSA Collective Action. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled.{{ FIELD }}Reported Decisions{{ FIELD }}Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc. Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages and judgment of over US$42M for defendants’ willful infringement){{ FIELD }}Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al., No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims){{ FIELD }}Coach Inc. v. Sassy Couture, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting){{ FIELD }}INEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets){{ FIELD }}Kathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.){{ FIELD }}Natalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of Benchmark Litigation’s “Top 250 Women in Litigation,” ranked by Chambers USA, listed in The Best Lawyers in America®, selected to the Texas Super Lawyers list, and named “Winning Woman” by Texas Lawyer. \nNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex—and often high-profile—business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation. \nNatalie’s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General’s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a “Litigation Department of the Year” finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a “Winning Woman” by Texas Lawyer. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\nIn an IP case covered by Law360, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client’s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys’ fees, the trial court judge stated, “Counsel’s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.”\nThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie’s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor—someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.  Partner Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds Chambers USA, 2023–2025 Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025 Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026 Recognized for Trademark Law The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026 Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026 Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation”  Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026 Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026  Recognized for Plaintiff Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026 Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas”  Super Lawyers, 2017–2024 “Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation D Magazine, 2014–2022 “Top Women Attorneys in Texas”  Texas Monthly, January 2020 Southern Methodist University Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law Texas Member of Trade Secrets Committee, AIPLA, 2015–present Member of Board of Directors, Texas General Counsel Forum, DFW Chapter, 2011–Present Dallas Association of Young Lawyers Lifetime Fellow Law Clerk, Honorable Justice Deborah Hankinson, Texas Supreme Court Trade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation Trademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for international luxury fashion brand owners, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms—through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution. Trade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues. Trade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a software solutions company, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client’s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor’s customers. Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a global petrochemical company, obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant’s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms. Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a leading bank consulting and software services company, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee’s transfer and use of thousands of client’s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client’s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client’s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms. Trade Dress Infringement. Represented a cooler and drink ware manufacturer in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company. Trademark Infringement. Successfully defended the yellow pages and a marketing company against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff. Qui Tam Litigation Texas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented a whistleblower in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world’s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas. False Claims Act. Defended a publicly traded human services provider in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages. Class Action and Collective Action Litigation Representing an edible bouquet client in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Represented a hotel chain in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs. Represented a leading watch manufacturer in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of “Made in America” claims. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms. Other Commercial Litigation Regularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation. Breach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial. Breach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a disaster recovery and business continuity company, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms. Fraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a Fortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client’s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed. Breach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a leading global semiconductor company in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms. Employment and Collective Action Litigation Reverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a college against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client. Harassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a global communications company against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client. Age Discrimination. Successfully defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement. Gender Discrimination. Successfully defended a county against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client. Pregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a marketing company against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client. FLSA. Defended a global insurance company against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement. FLSA Collective Action. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled. Reported Decisions Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc. Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages and judgment of over US$42M for defendants’ willful infringement) Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al., No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims) Coach Inc. v. Sassy Couture, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting) INEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets) Kathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)","searchable_name":"Natalie L. Arbaugh","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":176,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447628,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6382,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eFernand is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Paris office advising on domestic and international acquisition and project financing transactions. His clients include private debt funds, private equity funds and financial institutions. He also represents international corporations with footprints in Europe and the MENA region.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his in-depth knowledge of unitranche, PIK, mezzanine, second-lien, senior and other leveraged debt structures, he regularly advises some of the world\u0026rsquo;s premier development banks on energy and infrastructure financings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFernand is a member of the Paris Bar, the New York Bar and the Beirut Bar.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"fernand-arsanios","email":"farsanios@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented Ardian in the sale of its 40% stake in Argon \u0026amp; Co. to Bridgepoint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Banque Palatine, as agent and security agent, and a syndicate of leading lenders on the \u0026euro;168m financing of PullUp Entertainment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Manutan Holding SAS in connection with a financing made available by BNP Paribas, Banque Populaire Rives de Paris, Cr\u0026eacute;dit Industriel et Commercial, Cr\u0026eacute;dit Lyonnais, and Soci\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; to support the acquisition by its subsidiary, Manutan International, of UK-based West Moorland 220 Limited from Findel Education Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Etix Everywhere Holding France SAS on its unitranche financing made available by Zencap Asset Management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Banque Palatine, as agent and security agent, alongside Soci\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; G\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;rale, BNP Paribas, Arkea Banque, Caisse d\u0026rsquo;Epargne Ile-de-France and Banque Populaire Rives de Paris, on a financing made available to Compagnie Fran\u0026ccedil;aise des Transports R\u0026eacute;gionaux.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented White Peaks Capital in connection with a unitranche financing for Homeland to support multiple acquisitions and a refinancing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Axway Software SA in the financing of its acquisition of core Sopra Banking Software activities from Sopra Steria Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Voltalia on several financings including its 2024 sustainability-linked \u0026euro;294m financing with BNP Paribas, CACIB, Natixis as MLAs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented PGIM on the LBO financing made available to Gallant for purposes of the acquisition of two targets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Messika Group on its financing to support its global expansion strategy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Banque Populaire Rives de Paris and a pool of lenders on a syndicated financing provided to the SVR Group to refinance existing debt and support general corporate purposes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Centre Azur\u0026eacute;en de Canc\u0026eacute;rologie in securing its LBO financing by way of a senior bank debt and a mezzanine debt from Andera Acto.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Andera Partners (Acto) on multiple LBO financings, including the acquisitions of CDS Group and ADF Group, with complex flex equity structuring alongside other co-investors such as Siparex and Soci\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; G\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;rale Capital Partenaires.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented IMDEV Imagerie D\u0026eacute;veloppement on a \u0026euro;100m+ unitranche financing arranged by ICG.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented LBO France in connection with the financing of its minority investment in Mazarine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented NewGen Holding and Montefiore Investment on a unitranche financing from Pricoa Private Capital to refinance the take-private of Generix Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Spring Holding in a \u0026euro;225 million syndicated loan arranged by BNP Paribas and others to finance the take private acquisition of Manutan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Almerys (via Heka Invest) in a \u0026euro;200m+ unitranche facility arranged by Barings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Batibig in connection with a leveraged buyout financed through a syndicated loan arranged by BNP Paribas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented CREI Capital on the project financing of telecom tower deployment in the Philippines and subsequently and the sale of the towers portfolio.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented EBRD on various intra-bank financings to support local environmental and sustainability projects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented UI Investissement and the founders on the LBO financing of Proxiad.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Delsey in its largest trade financing transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented creditors and sponsors over the course of the past 20 years on more than \u0026euro;40bn in financing transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented IFC on a Middle East financing for the construction of an environmentally sustainable plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented EBRD in a series of financings across several jurisdictions in East Europe and East Asia, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- the \u0026euro;100+ million Saran solar plant project (awarded \u0026ldquo;Solar Deal of the Year \u0026ndash; Central Asia\u0026rdquo; by EMEA Finance).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- the construction and operation of two solar farms and one wind park totaling over 150MW in capacity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- the development of a 100MW solar farm.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Permira Credit on the financing of Oakley Capital\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of two real estate digital platforms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sparring Capital on the LBO financing of Pure Trade.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Banque Palatine in the LBO financing of a transport company by Cube Infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented CACIB, Soci\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; G\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;rale and Natixis on the tender offer financing for Club Med.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented CACIB, ING, BNP Paribas and others on the \u0026euro;5.4 billion financing of Rexel SA\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of Hagemeyer.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":29,"guid":"29.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":73,"guid":"73.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Arsanios","nick_name":"Fernand","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Fernand","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognised as Excellent (individual \u0026 team) - Renewable energy law","detail":"Décideurs Leaders League, Energy \u0026 environment 2024"},{"title":"Recognised as Highly Recommended (individual \u0026 team) - Acquisition Financing","detail":"Décideurs Leaders League, Private Equity 2024"},{"title":"Recognised as Excellent (individual \u0026 team) -  Project finance: advising banks or sponsors","detail":"Décideurs Leaders League, Projects \u0026 Infrastructure 2025"},{"title":"Recognised as a Leading Lawyer","detail":"Best Lawyers in France, 2025"},{"title":"Team ranked Tier 3","detail":"Legal 500, France 2025, Banking and finance: transactional work"},{"title":"Ranked Band 5","detail":"Chambers France 2025"},{"title":"Highly recommended in Private Equity Acquisition financing ","detail":"Leaders league, 2022"},{"title":"Recognized as a Leading Lawyer","detail":"Best Lawyers in France, 2023"},{"title":"Recommended","detail":"Legal500 EMEA 2022"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/fernand-arsanios-81b52019/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eFernand is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Paris office advising on domestic and international acquisition and project financing transactions. His clients include private debt funds, private equity funds and financial institutions. He also represents international corporations with footprints in Europe and the MENA region.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his in-depth knowledge of unitranche, PIK, mezzanine, second-lien, senior and other leveraged debt structures, he regularly advises some of the world\u0026rsquo;s premier development banks on energy and infrastructure financings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFernand is a member of the Paris Bar, the New York Bar and the Beirut Bar.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented Ardian in the sale of its 40% stake in Argon \u0026amp; Co. to Bridgepoint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Banque Palatine, as agent and security agent, and a syndicate of leading lenders on the \u0026euro;168m financing of PullUp Entertainment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Manutan Holding SAS in connection with a financing made available by BNP Paribas, Banque Populaire Rives de Paris, Cr\u0026eacute;dit Industriel et Commercial, Cr\u0026eacute;dit Lyonnais, and Soci\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; to support the acquisition by its subsidiary, Manutan International, of UK-based West Moorland 220 Limited from Findel Education Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Etix Everywhere Holding France SAS on its unitranche financing made available by Zencap Asset Management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Banque Palatine, as agent and security agent, alongside Soci\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; G\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;rale, BNP Paribas, Arkea Banque, Caisse d\u0026rsquo;Epargne Ile-de-France and Banque Populaire Rives de Paris, on a financing made available to Compagnie Fran\u0026ccedil;aise des Transports R\u0026eacute;gionaux.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented White Peaks Capital in connection with a unitranche financing for Homeland to support multiple acquisitions and a refinancing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Axway Software SA in the financing of its acquisition of core Sopra Banking Software activities from Sopra Steria Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Voltalia on several financings including its 2024 sustainability-linked \u0026euro;294m financing with BNP Paribas, CACIB, Natixis as MLAs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented PGIM on the LBO financing made available to Gallant for purposes of the acquisition of two targets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Messika Group on its financing to support its global expansion strategy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Banque Populaire Rives de Paris and a pool of lenders on a syndicated financing provided to the SVR Group to refinance existing debt and support general corporate purposes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Centre Azur\u0026eacute;en de Canc\u0026eacute;rologie in securing its LBO financing by way of a senior bank debt and a mezzanine debt from Andera Acto.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Andera Partners (Acto) on multiple LBO financings, including the acquisitions of CDS Group and ADF Group, with complex flex equity structuring alongside other co-investors such as Siparex and Soci\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; G\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;rale Capital Partenaires.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented IMDEV Imagerie D\u0026eacute;veloppement on a \u0026euro;100m+ unitranche financing arranged by ICG.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented LBO France in connection with the financing of its minority investment in Mazarine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented NewGen Holding and Montefiore Investment on a unitranche financing from Pricoa Private Capital to refinance the take-private of Generix Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Spring Holding in a \u0026euro;225 million syndicated loan arranged by BNP Paribas and others to finance the take private acquisition of Manutan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Almerys (via Heka Invest) in a \u0026euro;200m+ unitranche facility arranged by Barings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Batibig in connection with a leveraged buyout financed through a syndicated loan arranged by BNP Paribas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented CREI Capital on the project financing of telecom tower deployment in the Philippines and subsequently and the sale of the towers portfolio.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented EBRD on various intra-bank financings to support local environmental and sustainability projects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented UI Investissement and the founders on the LBO financing of Proxiad.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Delsey in its largest trade financing transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented creditors and sponsors over the course of the past 20 years on more than \u0026euro;40bn in financing transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented IFC on a Middle East financing for the construction of an environmentally sustainable plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented EBRD in a series of financings across several jurisdictions in East Europe and East Asia, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- the \u0026euro;100+ million Saran solar plant project (awarded \u0026ldquo;Solar Deal of the Year \u0026ndash; Central Asia\u0026rdquo; by EMEA Finance).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- the construction and operation of two solar farms and one wind park totaling over 150MW in capacity.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e- the development of a 100MW solar farm.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Permira Credit on the financing of Oakley Capital\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of two real estate digital platforms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Sparring Capital on the LBO financing of Pure Trade.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Banque Palatine in the LBO financing of a transport company by Cube Infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented CACIB, Soci\u0026eacute;t\u0026eacute; G\u0026eacute;n\u0026eacute;rale and Natixis on the tender offer financing for Club Med.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented CACIB, ING, BNP Paribas and others on the \u0026euro;5.4 billion financing of Rexel SA\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of Hagemeyer.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognised as Excellent (individual \u0026 team) - Renewable energy law","detail":"Décideurs Leaders League, Energy \u0026 environment 2024"},{"title":"Recognised as Highly Recommended (individual \u0026 team) - Acquisition Financing","detail":"Décideurs Leaders League, Private Equity 2024"},{"title":"Recognised as Excellent (individual \u0026 team) -  Project finance: advising banks or sponsors","detail":"Décideurs Leaders League, Projects \u0026 Infrastructure 2025"},{"title":"Recognised as a Leading Lawyer","detail":"Best Lawyers in France, 2025"},{"title":"Team ranked Tier 3","detail":"Legal 500, France 2025, Banking and finance: transactional work"},{"title":"Ranked Band 5","detail":"Chambers France 2025"},{"title":"Highly recommended in Private Equity Acquisition financing ","detail":"Leaders league, 2022"},{"title":"Recognized as a Leading Lawyer","detail":"Best Lawyers in France, 2023"},{"title":"Recommended","detail":"Legal500 EMEA 2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12230}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2026-04-17T20:19:06.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-17T20:19:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Arsanios{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognised as Excellent (individual \u0026amp; team) - Renewable energy law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Décideurs Leaders League, Energy \u0026amp; environment 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognised as Highly Recommended (individual \u0026amp; team) - Acquisition Financing\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Décideurs Leaders League, Private Equity 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognised as Excellent (individual \u0026amp; team) -  Project finance: advising banks or sponsors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Décideurs Leaders League, Projects \u0026amp; Infrastructure 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognised as a Leading Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in France, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Team ranked Tier 3\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, France 2025, Banking and finance: transactional work\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Band 5\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers France 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Highly recommended in Private Equity Acquisition financing \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leaders league, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a Leading Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in France, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal500 EMEA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented Ardian in the sale of its 40% stake in Argon \u0026amp; Co. to Bridgepoint.{{ FIELD }}Represented Banque Palatine, as agent and security agent, and a syndicate of leading lenders on the €168m financing of PullUp Entertainment.{{ FIELD }}Represented Manutan Holding SAS in connection with a financing made available by BNP Paribas, Banque Populaire Rives de Paris, Crédit Industriel et Commercial, Crédit Lyonnais, and Société to support the acquisition by its subsidiary, Manutan International, of UK-based West Moorland 220 Limited from Findel Education Group.{{ FIELD }}Represented Etix Everywhere Holding France SAS on its unitranche financing made available by Zencap Asset Management.{{ FIELD }}Represented Banque Palatine, as agent and security agent, alongside Société Générale, BNP Paribas, Arkea Banque, Caisse d’Epargne Ile-de-France and Banque Populaire Rives de Paris, on a financing made available to Compagnie Française des Transports Régionaux.{{ FIELD }}Represented White Peaks Capital in connection with a unitranche financing for Homeland to support multiple acquisitions and a refinancing.{{ FIELD }}Represented Axway Software SA in the financing of its acquisition of core Sopra Banking Software activities from Sopra Steria Group.{{ FIELD }}Represented Voltalia on several financings including its 2024 sustainability-linked €294m financing with BNP Paribas, CACIB, Natixis as MLAs.{{ FIELD }}Represented PGIM on the LBO financing made available to Gallant for purposes of the acquisition of two targets.{{ FIELD }}Represented Messika Group on its financing to support its global expansion strategy.{{ FIELD }}Represented Banque Populaire Rives de Paris and a pool of lenders on a syndicated financing provided to the SVR Group to refinance existing debt and support general corporate purposes.{{ FIELD }}Represented Centre Azuréen de Cancérologie in securing its LBO financing by way of a senior bank debt and a mezzanine debt from Andera Acto.{{ FIELD }}Represented Andera Partners (Acto) on multiple LBO financings, including the acquisitions of CDS Group and ADF Group, with complex flex equity structuring alongside other co-investors such as Siparex and Société Générale Capital Partenaires.{{ FIELD }}Represented IMDEV Imagerie Développement on a €100m+ unitranche financing arranged by ICG.{{ FIELD }}Represented LBO France in connection with the financing of its minority investment in Mazarine.{{ FIELD }}Represented NewGen Holding and Montefiore Investment on a unitranche financing from Pricoa Private Capital to refinance the take-private of Generix Group.{{ FIELD }}Represented Spring Holding in a €225 million syndicated loan arranged by BNP Paribas and others to finance the take private acquisition of Manutan.{{ FIELD }}Represented Almerys (via Heka Invest) in a €200m+ unitranche facility arranged by Barings.{{ FIELD }}Represented Batibig in connection with a leveraged buyout financed through a syndicated loan arranged by BNP Paribas.{{ FIELD }}Represented CREI Capital on the project financing of telecom tower deployment in the Philippines and subsequently and the sale of the towers portfolio.{{ FIELD }}Represented EBRD on various intra-bank financings to support local environmental and sustainability projects.{{ FIELD }}Represented UI Investissement and the founders on the LBO financing of Proxiad.{{ FIELD }}Represented Delsey in its largest trade financing transaction.{{ FIELD }}Represented creditors and sponsors over the course of the past 20 years on more than €40bn in financing transactions.{{ FIELD }}Represented IFC on a Middle East financing for the construction of an environmentally sustainable plant.{{ FIELD }}Represented EBRD in a series of financings across several jurisdictions in East Europe and East Asia, including:\n- the €100+ million Saran solar plant project (awarded “Solar Deal of the Year – Central Asia” by EMEA Finance).\n- the construction and operation of two solar farms and one wind park totaling over 150MW in capacity.\n- the development of a 100MW solar farm.{{ FIELD }}Represented Permira Credit on the financing of Oakley Capital’s acquisition of two real estate digital platforms.{{ FIELD }}Represented Sparring Capital on the LBO financing of Pure Trade.{{ FIELD }}Represented Banque Palatine in the LBO financing of a transport company by Cube Infrastructure.{{ FIELD }}Represented CACIB, Société Générale and Natixis on the tender offer financing for Club Med.{{ FIELD }}Represented CACIB, ING, BNP Paribas and others on the €5.4 billion financing of Rexel SA’s acquisition of Hagemeyer.{{ FIELD }}Fernand is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Paris office advising on domestic and international acquisition and project financing transactions. His clients include private debt funds, private equity funds and financial institutions. He also represents international corporations with footprints in Europe and the MENA region.\nIn addition to his in-depth knowledge of unitranche, PIK, mezzanine, second-lien, senior and other leveraged debt structures, he regularly advises some of the world’s premier development banks on energy and infrastructure financings.\nFernand is a member of the Paris Bar, the New York Bar and the Beirut Bar. Partner Recognised as Excellent (individual \u0026amp; team) - Renewable energy law Décideurs Leaders League, Energy \u0026amp; environment 2024 Recognised as Highly Recommended (individual \u0026amp; team) - Acquisition Financing Décideurs Leaders League, Private Equity 2024 Recognised as Excellent (individual \u0026amp; team) -  Project finance: advising banks or sponsors Décideurs Leaders League, Projects \u0026amp; Infrastructure 2025 Recognised as a Leading Lawyer Best Lawyers in France, 2025 Team ranked Tier 3 Legal 500, France 2025, Banking and finance: transactional work Ranked Band 5 Chambers France 2025 Highly recommended in Private Equity Acquisition financing  Leaders league, 2022 Recognized as a Leading Lawyer Best Lawyers in France, 2023 Recommended Legal500 EMEA 2022 Université Paris Nanterre  Boston University Boston University School of Law Université Saint Joseph, Lebanon  New York Paris Beirut Represented Ardian in the sale of its 40% stake in Argon \u0026amp; Co. to Bridgepoint. Represented Banque Palatine, as agent and security agent, and a syndicate of leading lenders on the €168m financing of PullUp Entertainment. Represented Manutan Holding SAS in connection with a financing made available by BNP Paribas, Banque Populaire Rives de Paris, Crédit Industriel et Commercial, Crédit Lyonnais, and Société to support the acquisition by its subsidiary, Manutan International, of UK-based West Moorland 220 Limited from Findel Education Group. Represented Etix Everywhere Holding France SAS on its unitranche financing made available by Zencap Asset Management. Represented Banque Palatine, as agent and security agent, alongside Société Générale, BNP Paribas, Arkea Banque, Caisse d’Epargne Ile-de-France and Banque Populaire Rives de Paris, on a financing made available to Compagnie Française des Transports Régionaux. Represented White Peaks Capital in connection with a unitranche financing for Homeland to support multiple acquisitions and a refinancing. Represented Axway Software SA in the financing of its acquisition of core Sopra Banking Software activities from Sopra Steria Group. Represented Voltalia on several financings including its 2024 sustainability-linked €294m financing with BNP Paribas, CACIB, Natixis as MLAs. Represented PGIM on the LBO financing made available to Gallant for purposes of the acquisition of two targets. Represented Messika Group on its financing to support its global expansion strategy. Represented Banque Populaire Rives de Paris and a pool of lenders on a syndicated financing provided to the SVR Group to refinance existing debt and support general corporate purposes. Represented Centre Azuréen de Cancérologie in securing its LBO financing by way of a senior bank debt and a mezzanine debt from Andera Acto. Represented Andera Partners (Acto) on multiple LBO financings, including the acquisitions of CDS Group and ADF Group, with complex flex equity structuring alongside other co-investors such as Siparex and Société Générale Capital Partenaires. Represented IMDEV Imagerie Développement on a €100m+ unitranche financing arranged by ICG. Represented LBO France in connection with the financing of its minority investment in Mazarine. Represented NewGen Holding and Montefiore Investment on a unitranche financing from Pricoa Private Capital to refinance the take-private of Generix Group. Represented Spring Holding in a €225 million syndicated loan arranged by BNP Paribas and others to finance the take private acquisition of Manutan. Represented Almerys (via Heka Invest) in a €200m+ unitranche facility arranged by Barings. Represented Batibig in connection with a leveraged buyout financed through a syndicated loan arranged by BNP Paribas. Represented CREI Capital on the project financing of telecom tower deployment in the Philippines and subsequently and the sale of the towers portfolio. Represented EBRD on various intra-bank financings to support local environmental and sustainability projects. Represented UI Investissement and the founders on the LBO financing of Proxiad. Represented Delsey in its largest trade financing transaction. Represented creditors and sponsors over the course of the past 20 years on more than €40bn in financing transactions. Represented IFC on a Middle East financing for the construction of an environmentally sustainable plant. Represented EBRD in a series of financings across several jurisdictions in East Europe and East Asia, including:\n- the €100+ million Saran solar plant project (awarded “Solar Deal of the Year – Central Asia” by EMEA Finance).\n- the construction and operation of two solar farms and one wind park totaling over 150MW in capacity.\n- the development of a 100MW solar farm. Represented Permira Credit on the financing of Oakley Capital’s acquisition of two real estate digital platforms. Represented Sparring Capital on the LBO financing of Pure Trade. Represented Banque Palatine in the LBO financing of a transport company by Cube Infrastructure. Represented CACIB, Société Générale and Natixis on the tender offer financing for Club Med. Represented CACIB, ING, BNP Paribas and others on the €5.4 billion financing of Rexel SA’s acquisition of Hagemeyer.","searchable_name":"Fernand Arsanios","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":447695,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6432,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDamien Bailey is a leading international lawyer on corporate and commercial transactions in the technology, media and telecommunications sector. He advises global telecom and technology companies, governments, and companies across multiple sectors on a wide range of matters including digital infrastructure projects, joint ventures, transformational projects and new technologies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Damien was as partner at a Big 4 accounting firm and co-head of global telecommunications and head of TMT in Asia for two large international law firms.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien is a strategic adviser to clients on their key projects in multiple jurisdictions. This includes advising on the introduction of world first technologies, entry into new markets and geographies, their rollout of new infrastructure projects (such as satellites, subsea cables, data centres and terrestrial networks) and digital transformation projects. He has worked across a wide range of sectors, including telecoms, technology, financial services, energy, sports, media, gaming and government.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien works across a number of jurisdictions in Asia Pacific and the Middle East on both inbound and outbound investments in the telecoms and technology sector, as well as regional and global sourcing and transformational projects in a range of industries.\u0026nbsp; He also provides regulatory advice and navigates regulatory environments where the technology is ahead of the regulations, which often requires engagement with regulators and making submissions on behalf of clients.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien has previously lived in Hong Kong for over 8 years. He is regularly recognised in Chambers, Legal 500 Asia Pacific, Who\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal, Acritas 5 Stars, and Best Lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"damien-bailey","email":"dbailey@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":115,"guid":"115.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1140,"guid":"1140.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1141,"guid":"1141.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1472,"guid":"1472.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bailey","nick_name":"Damien","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Damien","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a leading practitioner - Information Technology Law; Outsourcing Law; Telecommunications Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2024"},{"title":"Damien Bailey offers telecommunications sector expertise which covers the Australian market, Asia and the Middle East ","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2023"},{"title":"Damien Bailey is excellent and very good with client relationships ","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2024"},{"title":"Named a leading lawyer ","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2022"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/damien-bailey-161bb5/?originalSubdomain=au","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDamien Bailey is a leading international lawyer on corporate and commercial transactions in the technology, media and telecommunications sector. He advises global telecom and technology companies, governments, and companies across multiple sectors on a wide range of matters including digital infrastructure projects, joint ventures, transformational projects and new technologies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Damien was as partner at a Big 4 accounting firm and co-head of global telecommunications and head of TMT in Asia for two large international law firms.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien is a strategic adviser to clients on their key projects in multiple jurisdictions. This includes advising on the introduction of world first technologies, entry into new markets and geographies, their rollout of new infrastructure projects (such as satellites, subsea cables, data centres and terrestrial networks) and digital transformation projects. He has worked across a wide range of sectors, including telecoms, technology, financial services, energy, sports, media, gaming and government.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien works across a number of jurisdictions in Asia Pacific and the Middle East on both inbound and outbound investments in the telecoms and technology sector, as well as regional and global sourcing and transformational projects in a range of industries.\u0026nbsp; He also provides regulatory advice and navigates regulatory environments where the technology is ahead of the regulations, which often requires engagement with regulators and making submissions on behalf of clients.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien has previously lived in Hong Kong for over 8 years. He is regularly recognised in Chambers, Legal 500 Asia Pacific, Who\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal, Acritas 5 Stars, and Best Lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a leading practitioner - Information Technology Law; Outsourcing Law; Telecommunications Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2024"},{"title":"Damien Bailey offers telecommunications sector expertise which covers the Australian market, Asia and the Middle East ","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2023"},{"title":"Damien Bailey is excellent and very good with client relationships ","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2024"},{"title":"Named a leading lawyer ","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10018}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2026-04-21T20:13:46.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T20:13:46.000Z","searchable_text":"Bailey{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a leading practitioner - Information Technology Law; Outsourcing Law; Telecommunications Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Damien Bailey offers telecommunications sector expertise which covers the Australian market, Asia and the Middle East \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Damien Bailey is excellent and very good with client relationships \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a leading lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Damien Bailey is a leading international lawyer on corporate and commercial transactions in the technology, media and telecommunications sector. He advises global telecom and technology companies, governments, and companies across multiple sectors on a wide range of matters including digital infrastructure projects, joint ventures, transformational projects and new technologies.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Damien was as partner at a Big 4 accounting firm and co-head of global telecommunications and head of TMT in Asia for two large international law firms.\nDamien is a strategic adviser to clients on their key projects in multiple jurisdictions. This includes advising on the introduction of world first technologies, entry into new markets and geographies, their rollout of new infrastructure projects (such as satellites, subsea cables, data centres and terrestrial networks) and digital transformation projects. He has worked across a wide range of sectors, including telecoms, technology, financial services, energy, sports, media, gaming and government.\nDamien works across a number of jurisdictions in Asia Pacific and the Middle East on both inbound and outbound investments in the telecoms and technology sector, as well as regional and global sourcing and transformational projects in a range of industries.  He also provides regulatory advice and navigates regulatory environments where the technology is ahead of the regulations, which often requires engagement with regulators and making submissions on behalf of clients.\nDamien has previously lived in Hong Kong for over 8 years. He is regularly recognised in Chambers, Legal 500 Asia Pacific, Who’s Who Legal, Acritas 5 Stars, and Best Lawyers. Partner Named a leading practitioner - Information Technology Law; Outsourcing Law; Telecommunications Law Best Lawyers, 2024 Damien Bailey offers telecommunications sector expertise which covers the Australian market, Asia and the Middle East  Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2023 Damien Bailey is excellent and very good with client relationships  Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2024 Named a leading lawyer  Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2022 University of New South Wales  Bond University  Supreme Court of New South Wales Supreme Court of Hong Kong","searchable_name":"Damien Bailey","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":420284,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6836,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDrew Baldinger is an energy transactions lawyer with almost 20 years\u0026rsquo; experience representing clients in private equity, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, project and other development and project financings across the upstream, midstream, downstream, conventional and renewable power, transmission, transitional and other energy sectors.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDrew frequently counsels sponsors and investors on their project agreements and investments in key emerging areas of the energy industry areas including gas-to-liquids, sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), hydrogen, ammonia, carbon capture, transport and sequestration, and renewable power (including solar, wind and battery- and energy storage), including agreements related to offtake, equipment supply, technology licensing, EPC, O\u0026amp;M, interconnection and feedstock. Additionally, Drew advises clients in connection with complex midstream, gas sales, participation and joint operating arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurther, he has a deep background in counseling private equity funds on investments in management teams.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Drew was a partner at another international AmLaw 3 firm, and before that served as U.S. co-chair of the Energy practice at another international AmLaw 50 firm, as well as U.S. vice-chair of its M\u0026amp;A practice.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"drew-baldinger","email":"abaldinger@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrivate Equity M\u0026amp;A and Investments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParasol Renewable Energy LLC (KKR investment) in the sale of Clenera at an enterprise value of $433,000,000 to Enlight Renewable Energy Ltd. Clenera is developing a portfolio of 12GWdc solar generation facilities and 5.5 GWh of energy storage in 20 states\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSpur Energy Partners LLC (owned by KKR and EMG) in its $925,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in New Mexico from Concho Resources, which included the acquisition of material midstream asset\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eKayne Anderson Energy Funds:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ein its $2,400,000,000 (cash and stock) sale of Silver Hill Energy Partners, LLC and Silver Hill E\u0026amp;P II, LLC to oil producer RSP Permian Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTerra Energy Partners LLC (also owned by Warburg Pincus) in the $910,000,000 million acquisition of WPX Energy Rocky Mountain, LLC from WPX Energy, Inc., which included the acquisition of oil and gas properties in Colorado and material midstream assets\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSilver Hill Energy Partners Holdings, LLC in the sale of Silver Hill\u0026rsquo;s midstream assets \u0026mdash; including Outrigger Delaware Operating, LLC, a joint venture to build scalable natural gas gathering, natural gas processing and crude gathering infrastructure in the Delaware Basin\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea portfolio company of two private funds in the sale of solar and battery storage projects for aggregate consideration of approximately $250,000,000, which involved a unique buyer development financing and securitization\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea portfolio company of two private equity funds in the $1,600,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in Texas\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea portfolio company of a private equity fund in the $225,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in North Dakota and Montana\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ea portfolio company of a private equity fund in the $900,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in North Dakota and Montana, which also involved the acquisition of material midstream facilities\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea private equity fund in the $1,250,000,000 acquisition and joint ownership of a partial interest in multiple interstate oil pipelines\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea private equity fund in the acquisition of overriding royalty interests in Ohio and West Virginia valued at approximately $250,000,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea private equity fund in the approximately $400,000,000 sale of multiple natural gas gathering and processing facilities and pipelines in Texas and Oklahoma, which included the negotiation of a debt financing for certain of such facilities and a workout with lenders\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParasol Renewable Energy LLC (KKR investment) in the sale of various solar and battery storage projects to Enlight Renewable Energy Ltd. with consideration up to $103,000,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003etwo private equity funds in connection with the investment in a water technology business and the joint development of produced water purification systems\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea portfolio company of a private equity fund in connection with multiple sales of solar facilities with approximately aggregate 2,100MW across Arizona, Montana, California, Louisiana and Utah\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArc Light, Warburg Pincus, Kayne Anderson Energy Funds, Five Points Energy and other private equity funds (or their portfolio companies) in connection with over 20 acquisitions, swaps, investments or divestitures in oil and gas properties, pipeline assets or energy transition investments across New Mexico, Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and West Virginia and offshore, as well as a portfolio company of two private equity funds in connection with various acquisition bids valued between $700,000,000 and $1,200,000,000 for oil and gas assets in Colorado or Texas\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eKayne Anderson Energy Funds:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ein its $500,000,000 investment (and other advisement) in Canyon Midstream Partners II, LLC and Canyon Midstream Partners I LLC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ein its joint investment with Warburg Pincus for the $910,000,000 acquisition of WPX Energy Rocky Mountain, LLC from WPX Energy, Inc., which included negotiation of fund formation documents and negotiation with limited partners\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ein negotiating seven management team investments with aggregate commitments of over $800,000,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWarburg Pincus in its undisclosed commitment to Ossidiana Energy Holdings LLC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArcLight Capital in its $100,000,000 commitment to Legends II LLC\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStrategic M\u0026amp;A and Investments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea publicly-traded company in connection with multiple acquisitions of oil \u0026amp; gas properties in Texas with an aggregate value of over $300,000,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea private investor in the negotiation of a minority interest in a sustainable aviation fuel refinery with anticipated capital costs of over $3,000,000,000 and the joint ownership and operation thereof\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea large publicly-traded energy company in the $250,000,000 acquisitions of oil and gas properties in Texas from two private equity funds. This transaction involved negotiating multiple overriding royalty interests and material midstream assets\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea large independent energy company in the acquisition of, and the joint venture for the ownership and operation of, natural gas liquids (NGL) pipelines along the Gulf Coast with a value of over $300,000,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCalpine in the $240,000,000 acquisition of Crane Champion Holdco LLC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea large public energy company in its $175,000,000 sale of oil and gas properties in Louisiana to a private equity fund\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with the acquisition of an 80MW solar photovoltaic generation facility in Idaho\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with a joint venture to own, construct or operate solar and battery storage projects throughout the U.S., with over 1.25GW in construction or operation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea foreign company in the joint ownership and sale of its interest in a hydroelectric generation facility in Colombia and the acquisition of a construction company in California\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea major international company in connection with the portfolio sale of nine wind generation facilities located across the U.S. representing over 1,000MW\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with the acquisition of three solar photovoltaic generation facilities in California representing over 120MW\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea major international company in connection with the portfolio sale of 12 solar photovoltaic generation facilities in California, representing approximately 240MW\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea utility company in connection with the acquisition of a 50% interest in a 200MW wind energy generation facility located in Nevada and Idaho and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with various aspects of the development and sale of a 300MW solar project in New Mexico with 150MWh of battery storage\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with the sale of a 68% interest in an approximately 110MW solar thermal energy generation facility located in Nevada and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003etwo utilities in connection with the joint acquisition of a collective 25% interest in a 500kV above-ground transmission line development located in Nevada and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea utility in connection with the acquisition of a 50% interest in an approximately 150MW wind energy generation facility development located in Nevada and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea domestic company in connection with the sale of an approximately 28% interest in an above-ground international transmission line located in California and Mexico and the joint ownership and operation thereof\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ean international developer in connection with the sale of a majority interest in an approximately 150MW wind energy generation facility development in Texas\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMidstream Development\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea foreign company in connection the negotiation/amendment to multiple gathering and gas sales agreements in Texas\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea portfolio company of two private equity funds in the negotiation of a life-of-lease gathering, hydrating, treating and processing agreement valued at over $5,000,000,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ean E\u0026amp;P company in negotiating or advising on 20+ natural gas gathering, treating and processing agreements, natural gas gathering facility construction agreements, natural gas sales agreements and NGL sales agreements\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003emultiple developers in connection with several precedent, natural gas transportation and/or carbon dioxide transportation and natural gas supply arrangements for two gas-to-methanol facilities in Louisiana, as well as carbon sequestration facilities, and multiple ammonia plants and/or generation facilities in Texas, Louisiana and Illinois\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003emultiple portfolio companies of Kayne Anderson Energy Funds and two other private equity firms in connection with water gathering and natural gas gathering, processing and sales agreements in Wyoming, New Mexico, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Montana and North Dakota\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProject Development and Financing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe developer in an approximately $6,000,000,000 offtake agreement (with floor, netback and natural gas pass-through pricing), along with an approximately $1,600,000,000 fully wrapped engineering, procurement and construction agreement for a gas-to-liquids facility in Louisiana, along with associated other offtake agreements, terminal use agreements, gas supply agreements, nitrogen agreements, technology process licensing agreements (carbon dioxide and liquids) and operation and maintenance agreements\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSolarReserve, LLC in connection with construction, operation and equipment supply agreements for the Crescent Dunes concentrated solar power project, which was financed by utilizing a Department of Energy loan guarantee for $737,000,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst Solar in the negotiation of the interconnection, construction, equipment and operations agreements in connection with the $1,460,000,000 financing and construction of the 550 MW Desert Sunlight solar project\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with the negotiation of a solar panel supply agreement for up to approximately $700,000,000 and related prepayment and security arrangements, which also included negotiating supply agreements for inverters, batteries and other equipment supplies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with the restructuring of a solar and battery storage development platform and associated debt and equity ownership due to changes in law that would have impacted the development and sale of the platform\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea utility company in connection with multiple power purchase agreements for the back-to-back resale of the output of several renewable energy generation facilities, including wind, biogas and geothermal, and in reviewing, advising and/or negotiating with regard to multiple RFPs for wind, geothermal and solar facilities\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003emultiple developers in connection with shared facilities arrangements for 15+ wind, solar and battery storage projects throughout the U.S., both at the asset and equity levels\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with a power purchase agreement for the output of an approximately 161MW wind energy generation facility located in Texas\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea utility in connection with a power purchase agreement for the output of an approximately 150MW wind energy generation facility located in Nevada\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea major domestic energy company in the negotiation of a joint venture to develop, construct and license carbon capture technology\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe borrower in the $967,000,000 financing of the 290MW Agua Caliente project located in Arizona\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe borrower in connection with a non-recourse construction bridge loan for a 300MW solar project in New Mexico with 150MWh of battery storage\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe lead arranger in a non-recourse, recapitalization secured by a coal energy generation facility and gas-fired generation facility located in Wyoming\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSome experience handled prior to joining K\u0026amp;S\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3478}]},"expertise":[{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":131,"guid":"131.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1149,"guid":"1149.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baldinger","nick_name":"Drew","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Drew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"with honors","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2005-01-01 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/drew-baldinger-08341127/","seodescription":"Drew Baldinger is a partner of our Corporate Practice Group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDrew Baldinger is an energy transactions lawyer with almost 20 years\u0026rsquo; experience representing clients in private equity, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, project and other development and project financings across the upstream, midstream, downstream, conventional and renewable power, transmission, transitional and other energy sectors.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDrew frequently counsels sponsors and investors on their project agreements and investments in key emerging areas of the energy industry areas including gas-to-liquids, sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), hydrogen, ammonia, carbon capture, transport and sequestration, and renewable power (including solar, wind and battery- and energy storage), including agreements related to offtake, equipment supply, technology licensing, EPC, O\u0026amp;M, interconnection and feedstock. Additionally, Drew advises clients in connection with complex midstream, gas sales, participation and joint operating arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurther, he has a deep background in counseling private equity funds on investments in management teams.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Drew was a partner at another international AmLaw 3 firm, and before that served as U.S. co-chair of the Energy practice at another international AmLaw 50 firm, as well as U.S. vice-chair of its M\u0026amp;A practice.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePrivate Equity M\u0026amp;A and Investments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParasol Renewable Energy LLC (KKR investment) in the sale of Clenera at an enterprise value of $433,000,000 to Enlight Renewable Energy Ltd. Clenera is developing a portfolio of 12GWdc solar generation facilities and 5.5 GWh of energy storage in 20 states\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSpur Energy Partners LLC (owned by KKR and EMG) in its $925,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in New Mexico from Concho Resources, which included the acquisition of material midstream asset\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eKayne Anderson Energy Funds:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ein its $2,400,000,000 (cash and stock) sale of Silver Hill Energy Partners, LLC and Silver Hill E\u0026amp;P II, LLC to oil producer RSP Permian Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTerra Energy Partners LLC (also owned by Warburg Pincus) in the $910,000,000 million acquisition of WPX Energy Rocky Mountain, LLC from WPX Energy, Inc., which included the acquisition of oil and gas properties in Colorado and material midstream assets\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSilver Hill Energy Partners Holdings, LLC in the sale of Silver Hill\u0026rsquo;s midstream assets \u0026mdash; including Outrigger Delaware Operating, LLC, a joint venture to build scalable natural gas gathering, natural gas processing and crude gathering infrastructure in the Delaware Basin\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea portfolio company of two private funds in the sale of solar and battery storage projects for aggregate consideration of approximately $250,000,000, which involved a unique buyer development financing and securitization\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea portfolio company of two private equity funds in the $1,600,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in Texas\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea portfolio company of a private equity fund in the $225,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in North Dakota and Montana\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ea portfolio company of a private equity fund in the $900,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in North Dakota and Montana, which also involved the acquisition of material midstream facilities\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea private equity fund in the $1,250,000,000 acquisition and joint ownership of a partial interest in multiple interstate oil pipelines\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea private equity fund in the acquisition of overriding royalty interests in Ohio and West Virginia valued at approximately $250,000,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea private equity fund in the approximately $400,000,000 sale of multiple natural gas gathering and processing facilities and pipelines in Texas and Oklahoma, which included the negotiation of a debt financing for certain of such facilities and a workout with lenders\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eParasol Renewable Energy LLC (KKR investment) in the sale of various solar and battery storage projects to Enlight Renewable Energy Ltd. with consideration up to $103,000,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003etwo private equity funds in connection with the investment in a water technology business and the joint development of produced water purification systems\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea portfolio company of a private equity fund in connection with multiple sales of solar facilities with approximately aggregate 2,100MW across Arizona, Montana, California, Louisiana and Utah\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArc Light, Warburg Pincus, Kayne Anderson Energy Funds, Five Points Energy and other private equity funds (or their portfolio companies) in connection with over 20 acquisitions, swaps, investments or divestitures in oil and gas properties, pipeline assets or energy transition investments across New Mexico, Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and West Virginia and offshore, as well as a portfolio company of two private equity funds in connection with various acquisition bids valued between $700,000,000 and $1,200,000,000 for oil and gas assets in Colorado or Texas\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eKayne Anderson Energy Funds:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ein its $500,000,000 investment (and other advisement) in Canyon Midstream Partners II, LLC and Canyon Midstream Partners I LLC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ein its joint investment with Warburg Pincus for the $910,000,000 acquisition of WPX Energy Rocky Mountain, LLC from WPX Energy, Inc., which included negotiation of fund formation documents and negotiation with limited partners\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ein negotiating seven management team investments with aggregate commitments of over $800,000,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWarburg Pincus in its undisclosed commitment to Ossidiana Energy Holdings LLC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArcLight Capital in its $100,000,000 commitment to Legends II LLC\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eStrategic M\u0026amp;A and Investments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea publicly-traded company in connection with multiple acquisitions of oil \u0026amp; gas properties in Texas with an aggregate value of over $300,000,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea private investor in the negotiation of a minority interest in a sustainable aviation fuel refinery with anticipated capital costs of over $3,000,000,000 and the joint ownership and operation thereof\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea large publicly-traded energy company in the $250,000,000 acquisitions of oil and gas properties in Texas from two private equity funds. This transaction involved negotiating multiple overriding royalty interests and material midstream assets\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea large independent energy company in the acquisition of, and the joint venture for the ownership and operation of, natural gas liquids (NGL) pipelines along the Gulf Coast with a value of over $300,000,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCalpine in the $240,000,000 acquisition of Crane Champion Holdco LLC\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea large public energy company in its $175,000,000 sale of oil and gas properties in Louisiana to a private equity fund\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with the acquisition of an 80MW solar photovoltaic generation facility in Idaho\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with a joint venture to own, construct or operate solar and battery storage projects throughout the U.S., with over 1.25GW in construction or operation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea foreign company in the joint ownership and sale of its interest in a hydroelectric generation facility in Colombia and the acquisition of a construction company in California\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea major international company in connection with the portfolio sale of nine wind generation facilities located across the U.S. representing over 1,000MW\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with the acquisition of three solar photovoltaic generation facilities in California representing over 120MW\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea major international company in connection with the portfolio sale of 12 solar photovoltaic generation facilities in California, representing approximately 240MW\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea utility company in connection with the acquisition of a 50% interest in a 200MW wind energy generation facility located in Nevada and Idaho and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with various aspects of the development and sale of a 300MW solar project in New Mexico with 150MWh of battery storage\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with the sale of a 68% interest in an approximately 110MW solar thermal energy generation facility located in Nevada and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003etwo utilities in connection with the joint acquisition of a collective 25% interest in a 500kV above-ground transmission line development located in Nevada and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea utility in connection with the acquisition of a 50% interest in an approximately 150MW wind energy generation facility development located in Nevada and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea domestic company in connection with the sale of an approximately 28% interest in an above-ground international transmission line located in California and Mexico and the joint ownership and operation thereof\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ean international developer in connection with the sale of a majority interest in an approximately 150MW wind energy generation facility development in Texas\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMidstream Development\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea foreign company in connection the negotiation/amendment to multiple gathering and gas sales agreements in Texas\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea portfolio company of two private equity funds in the negotiation of a life-of-lease gathering, hydrating, treating and processing agreement valued at over $5,000,000,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ean E\u0026amp;P company in negotiating or advising on 20+ natural gas gathering, treating and processing agreements, natural gas gathering facility construction agreements, natural gas sales agreements and NGL sales agreements\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003emultiple developers in connection with several precedent, natural gas transportation and/or carbon dioxide transportation and natural gas supply arrangements for two gas-to-methanol facilities in Louisiana, as well as carbon sequestration facilities, and multiple ammonia plants and/or generation facilities in Texas, Louisiana and Illinois\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003emultiple portfolio companies of Kayne Anderson Energy Funds and two other private equity firms in connection with water gathering and natural gas gathering, processing and sales agreements in Wyoming, New Mexico, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Montana and North Dakota\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProject Development and Financing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe developer in an approximately $6,000,000,000 offtake agreement (with floor, netback and natural gas pass-through pricing), along with an approximately $1,600,000,000 fully wrapped engineering, procurement and construction agreement for a gas-to-liquids facility in Louisiana, along with associated other offtake agreements, terminal use agreements, gas supply agreements, nitrogen agreements, technology process licensing agreements (carbon dioxide and liquids) and operation and maintenance agreements\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSolarReserve, LLC in connection with construction, operation and equipment supply agreements for the Crescent Dunes concentrated solar power project, which was financed by utilizing a Department of Energy loan guarantee for $737,000,000\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFirst Solar in the negotiation of the interconnection, construction, equipment and operations agreements in connection with the $1,460,000,000 financing and construction of the 550 MW Desert Sunlight solar project\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with the negotiation of a solar panel supply agreement for up to approximately $700,000,000 and related prepayment and security arrangements, which also included negotiating supply agreements for inverters, batteries and other equipment supplies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with the restructuring of a solar and battery storage development platform and associated debt and equity ownership due to changes in law that would have impacted the development and sale of the platform\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea utility company in connection with multiple power purchase agreements for the back-to-back resale of the output of several renewable energy generation facilities, including wind, biogas and geothermal, and in reviewing, advising and/or negotiating with regard to multiple RFPs for wind, geothermal and solar facilities\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003emultiple developers in connection with shared facilities arrangements for 15+ wind, solar and battery storage projects throughout the U.S., both at the asset and equity levels\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea developer in connection with a power purchase agreement for the output of an approximately 161MW wind energy generation facility located in Texas\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea utility in connection with a power purchase agreement for the output of an approximately 150MW wind energy generation facility located in Nevada\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ea major domestic energy company in the negotiation of a joint venture to develop, construct and license carbon capture technology\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe borrower in the $967,000,000 financing of the 290MW Agua Caliente project located in Arizona\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe borrower in connection with a non-recourse construction bridge loan for a 300MW solar project in New Mexico with 150MWh of battery storage\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe lead arranger in a non-recourse, recapitalization secured by a coal energy generation facility and gas-fired generation facility located in Wyoming\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSome experience handled prior to joining K\u0026amp;S\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2025-04-15T02:28:06.000Z","updated_at":"2025-04-15T02:28:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Baldinger{{ FIELD }}Private Equity M\u0026amp;A and Investments\nParasol Renewable Energy LLC (KKR investment) in the sale of Clenera at an enterprise value of $433,000,000 to Enlight Renewable Energy Ltd. Clenera is developing a portfolio of 12GWdc solar generation facilities and 5.5 GWh of energy storage in 20 states{{ FIELD }}Spur Energy Partners LLC (owned by KKR and EMG) in its $925,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in New Mexico from Concho Resources, which included the acquisition of material midstream asset{{ FIELD }}Kayne Anderson Energy Funds:\nin its $2,400,000,000 (cash and stock) sale of Silver Hill Energy Partners, LLC and Silver Hill E\u0026amp;P II, LLC to oil producer RSP Permian Inc.{{ FIELD }}Terra Energy Partners LLC (also owned by Warburg Pincus) in the $910,000,000 million acquisition of WPX Energy Rocky Mountain, LLC from WPX Energy, Inc., which included the acquisition of oil and gas properties in Colorado and material midstream assets\nSilver Hill Energy Partners Holdings, LLC in the sale of Silver Hill’s midstream assets — including Outrigger Delaware Operating, LLC, a joint venture to build scalable natural gas gathering, natural gas processing and crude gathering infrastructure in the Delaware Basin\na portfolio company of two private funds in the sale of solar and battery storage projects for aggregate consideration of approximately $250,000,000, which involved a unique buyer development financing and securitization\na portfolio company of two private equity funds in the $1,600,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in Texas\na portfolio company of a private equity fund in the $225,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in North Dakota and Montana{{ FIELD }}a portfolio company of a private equity fund in the $900,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in North Dakota and Montana, which also involved the acquisition of material midstream facilities\na private equity fund in the $1,250,000,000 acquisition and joint ownership of a partial interest in multiple interstate oil pipelines\na private equity fund in the acquisition of overriding royalty interests in Ohio and West Virginia valued at approximately $250,000,000\na private equity fund in the approximately $400,000,000 sale of multiple natural gas gathering and processing facilities and pipelines in Texas and Oklahoma, which included the negotiation of a debt financing for certain of such facilities and a workout with lenders\nParasol Renewable Energy LLC (KKR investment) in the sale of various solar and battery storage projects to Enlight Renewable Energy Ltd. with consideration up to $103,000,000\ntwo private equity funds in connection with the investment in a water technology business and the joint development of produced water purification systems\na portfolio company of a private equity fund in connection with multiple sales of solar facilities with approximately aggregate 2,100MW across Arizona, Montana, California, Louisiana and Utah\nArc Light, Warburg Pincus, Kayne Anderson Energy Funds, Five Points Energy and other private equity funds (or their portfolio companies) in connection with over 20 acquisitions, swaps, investments or divestitures in oil and gas properties, pipeline assets or energy transition investments across New Mexico, Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and West Virginia and offshore, as well as a portfolio company of two private equity funds in connection with various acquisition bids valued between $700,000,000 and $1,200,000,000 for oil and gas assets in Colorado or Texas{{ FIELD }}Kayne Anderson Energy Funds:\nin its $500,000,000 investment (and other advisement) in Canyon Midstream Partners II, LLC and Canyon Midstream Partners I LLC\nin its joint investment with Warburg Pincus for the $910,000,000 acquisition of WPX Energy Rocky Mountain, LLC from WPX Energy, Inc., which included negotiation of fund formation documents and negotiation with limited partners\nin negotiating seven management team investments with aggregate commitments of over $800,000,000\nWarburg Pincus in its undisclosed commitment to Ossidiana Energy Holdings LLC\nArcLight Capital in its $100,000,000 commitment to Legends II LLC{{ FIELD }}Strategic M\u0026amp;A and Investments\na publicly-traded company in connection with multiple acquisitions of oil \u0026amp; gas properties in Texas with an aggregate value of over $300,000,000\na private investor in the negotiation of a minority interest in a sustainable aviation fuel refinery with anticipated capital costs of over $3,000,000,000 and the joint ownership and operation thereof\na large publicly-traded energy company in the $250,000,000 acquisitions of oil and gas properties in Texas from two private equity funds. This transaction involved negotiating multiple overriding royalty interests and material midstream assets\na large independent energy company in the acquisition of, and the joint venture for the ownership and operation of, natural gas liquids (NGL) pipelines along the Gulf Coast with a value of over $300,000,000\nCalpine in the $240,000,000 acquisition of Crane Champion Holdco LLC\na large public energy company in its $175,000,000 sale of oil and gas properties in Louisiana to a private equity fund\na developer in connection with the acquisition of an 80MW solar photovoltaic generation facility in Idaho\na developer in connection with a joint venture to own, construct or operate solar and battery storage projects throughout the U.S., with over 1.25GW in construction or operation\na foreign company in the joint ownership and sale of its interest in a hydroelectric generation facility in Colombia and the acquisition of a construction company in California\na major international company in connection with the portfolio sale of nine wind generation facilities located across the U.S. representing over 1,000MW\na developer in connection with the acquisition of three solar photovoltaic generation facilities in California representing over 120MW\na major international company in connection with the portfolio sale of 12 solar photovoltaic generation facilities in California, representing approximately 240MW\na utility company in connection with the acquisition of a 50% interest in a 200MW wind energy generation facility located in Nevada and Idaho and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\na developer in connection with various aspects of the development and sale of a 300MW solar project in New Mexico with 150MWh of battery storage\na developer in connection with the sale of a 68% interest in an approximately 110MW solar thermal energy generation facility located in Nevada and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\ntwo utilities in connection with the joint acquisition of a collective 25% interest in a 500kV above-ground transmission line development located in Nevada and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\na utility in connection with the acquisition of a 50% interest in an approximately 150MW wind energy generation facility development located in Nevada and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\na domestic company in connection with the sale of an approximately 28% interest in an above-ground international transmission line located in California and Mexico and the joint ownership and operation thereof\nan international developer in connection with the sale of a majority interest in an approximately 150MW wind energy generation facility development in Texas{{ FIELD }}Midstream Development\na foreign company in connection the negotiation/amendment to multiple gathering and gas sales agreements in Texas\na portfolio company of two private equity funds in the negotiation of a life-of-lease gathering, hydrating, treating and processing agreement valued at over $5,000,000,000\nan E\u0026amp;P company in negotiating or advising on 20+ natural gas gathering, treating and processing agreements, natural gas gathering facility construction agreements, natural gas sales agreements and NGL sales agreements\nmultiple developers in connection with several precedent, natural gas transportation and/or carbon dioxide transportation and natural gas supply arrangements for two gas-to-methanol facilities in Louisiana, as well as carbon sequestration facilities, and multiple ammonia plants and/or generation facilities in Texas, Louisiana and Illinois\nmultiple portfolio companies of Kayne Anderson Energy Funds and two other private equity firms in connection with water gathering and natural gas gathering, processing and sales agreements in Wyoming, New Mexico, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Montana and North Dakota{{ FIELD }}Project Development and Financing\nthe developer in an approximately $6,000,000,000 offtake agreement (with floor, netback and natural gas pass-through pricing), along with an approximately $1,600,000,000 fully wrapped engineering, procurement and construction agreement for a gas-to-liquids facility in Louisiana, along with associated other offtake agreements, terminal use agreements, gas supply agreements, nitrogen agreements, technology process licensing agreements (carbon dioxide and liquids) and operation and maintenance agreements\nSolarReserve, LLC in connection with construction, operation and equipment supply agreements for the Crescent Dunes concentrated solar power project, which was financed by utilizing a Department of Energy loan guarantee for $737,000,000\nFirst Solar in the negotiation of the interconnection, construction, equipment and operations agreements in connection with the $1,460,000,000 financing and construction of the 550 MW Desert Sunlight solar project\na developer in connection with the negotiation of a solar panel supply agreement for up to approximately $700,000,000 and related prepayment and security arrangements, which also included negotiating supply agreements for inverters, batteries and other equipment supplies\na developer in connection with the restructuring of a solar and battery storage development platform and associated debt and equity ownership due to changes in law that would have impacted the development and sale of the platform\na utility company in connection with multiple power purchase agreements for the back-to-back resale of the output of several renewable energy generation facilities, including wind, biogas and geothermal, and in reviewing, advising and/or negotiating with regard to multiple RFPs for wind, geothermal and solar facilities\nmultiple developers in connection with shared facilities arrangements for 15+ wind, solar and battery storage projects throughout the U.S., both at the asset and equity levels\na developer in connection with a power purchase agreement for the output of an approximately 161MW wind energy generation facility located in Texas\na utility in connection with a power purchase agreement for the output of an approximately 150MW wind energy generation facility located in Nevada\na major domestic energy company in the negotiation of a joint venture to develop, construct and license carbon capture technology\nthe borrower in the $967,000,000 financing of the 290MW Agua Caliente project located in Arizona\nthe borrower in connection with a non-recourse construction bridge loan for a 300MW solar project in New Mexico with 150MWh of battery storage\nthe lead arranger in a non-recourse, recapitalization secured by a coal energy generation facility and gas-fired generation facility located in Wyoming\nSome experience handled prior to joining K\u0026amp;S{{ FIELD }}Drew Baldinger is an energy transactions lawyer with almost 20 years’ experience representing clients in private equity, mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, project and other development and project financings across the upstream, midstream, downstream, conventional and renewable power, transmission, transitional and other energy sectors.\nDrew frequently counsels sponsors and investors on their project agreements and investments in key emerging areas of the energy industry areas including gas-to-liquids, sustainable aviation fuels (SAF), hydrogen, ammonia, carbon capture, transport and sequestration, and renewable power (including solar, wind and battery- and energy storage), including agreements related to offtake, equipment supply, technology licensing, EPC, O\u0026amp;M, interconnection and feedstock. Additionally, Drew advises clients in connection with complex midstream, gas sales, participation and joint operating arrangements.\nFurther, he has a deep background in counseling private equity funds on investments in management teams.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Drew was a partner at another international AmLaw 3 firm, and before that served as U.S. co-chair of the Energy practice at another international AmLaw 50 firm, as well as U.S. vice-chair of its M\u0026amp;A practice. Drew Baldinger lawyer Partner The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Texas Private Equity M\u0026amp;A and Investments\nParasol Renewable Energy LLC (KKR investment) in the sale of Clenera at an enterprise value of $433,000,000 to Enlight Renewable Energy Ltd. Clenera is developing a portfolio of 12GWdc solar generation facilities and 5.5 GWh of energy storage in 20 states Spur Energy Partners LLC (owned by KKR and EMG) in its $925,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in New Mexico from Concho Resources, which included the acquisition of material midstream asset Kayne Anderson Energy Funds:\nin its $2,400,000,000 (cash and stock) sale of Silver Hill Energy Partners, LLC and Silver Hill E\u0026amp;P II, LLC to oil producer RSP Permian Inc. Terra Energy Partners LLC (also owned by Warburg Pincus) in the $910,000,000 million acquisition of WPX Energy Rocky Mountain, LLC from WPX Energy, Inc., which included the acquisition of oil and gas properties in Colorado and material midstream assets\nSilver Hill Energy Partners Holdings, LLC in the sale of Silver Hill’s midstream assets — including Outrigger Delaware Operating, LLC, a joint venture to build scalable natural gas gathering, natural gas processing and crude gathering infrastructure in the Delaware Basin\na portfolio company of two private funds in the sale of solar and battery storage projects for aggregate consideration of approximately $250,000,000, which involved a unique buyer development financing and securitization\na portfolio company of two private equity funds in the $1,600,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in Texas\na portfolio company of a private equity fund in the $225,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in North Dakota and Montana a portfolio company of a private equity fund in the $900,000,000 acquisition of oil and gas properties in North Dakota and Montana, which also involved the acquisition of material midstream facilities\na private equity fund in the $1,250,000,000 acquisition and joint ownership of a partial interest in multiple interstate oil pipelines\na private equity fund in the acquisition of overriding royalty interests in Ohio and West Virginia valued at approximately $250,000,000\na private equity fund in the approximately $400,000,000 sale of multiple natural gas gathering and processing facilities and pipelines in Texas and Oklahoma, which included the negotiation of a debt financing for certain of such facilities and a workout with lenders\nParasol Renewable Energy LLC (KKR investment) in the sale of various solar and battery storage projects to Enlight Renewable Energy Ltd. with consideration up to $103,000,000\ntwo private equity funds in connection with the investment in a water technology business and the joint development of produced water purification systems\na portfolio company of a private equity fund in connection with multiple sales of solar facilities with approximately aggregate 2,100MW across Arizona, Montana, California, Louisiana and Utah\nArc Light, Warburg Pincus, Kayne Anderson Energy Funds, Five Points Energy and other private equity funds (or their portfolio companies) in connection with over 20 acquisitions, swaps, investments or divestitures in oil and gas properties, pipeline assets or energy transition investments across New Mexico, Texas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Pennsylvania and West Virginia and offshore, as well as a portfolio company of two private equity funds in connection with various acquisition bids valued between $700,000,000 and $1,200,000,000 for oil and gas assets in Colorado or Texas Kayne Anderson Energy Funds:\nin its $500,000,000 investment (and other advisement) in Canyon Midstream Partners II, LLC and Canyon Midstream Partners I LLC\nin its joint investment with Warburg Pincus for the $910,000,000 acquisition of WPX Energy Rocky Mountain, LLC from WPX Energy, Inc., which included negotiation of fund formation documents and negotiation with limited partners\nin negotiating seven management team investments with aggregate commitments of over $800,000,000\nWarburg Pincus in its undisclosed commitment to Ossidiana Energy Holdings LLC\nArcLight Capital in its $100,000,000 commitment to Legends II LLC Strategic M\u0026amp;A and Investments\na publicly-traded company in connection with multiple acquisitions of oil \u0026amp; gas properties in Texas with an aggregate value of over $300,000,000\na private investor in the negotiation of a minority interest in a sustainable aviation fuel refinery with anticipated capital costs of over $3,000,000,000 and the joint ownership and operation thereof\na large publicly-traded energy company in the $250,000,000 acquisitions of oil and gas properties in Texas from two private equity funds. This transaction involved negotiating multiple overriding royalty interests and material midstream assets\na large independent energy company in the acquisition of, and the joint venture for the ownership and operation of, natural gas liquids (NGL) pipelines along the Gulf Coast with a value of over $300,000,000\nCalpine in the $240,000,000 acquisition of Crane Champion Holdco LLC\na large public energy company in its $175,000,000 sale of oil and gas properties in Louisiana to a private equity fund\na developer in connection with the acquisition of an 80MW solar photovoltaic generation facility in Idaho\na developer in connection with a joint venture to own, construct or operate solar and battery storage projects throughout the U.S., with over 1.25GW in construction or operation\na foreign company in the joint ownership and sale of its interest in a hydroelectric generation facility in Colombia and the acquisition of a construction company in California\na major international company in connection with the portfolio sale of nine wind generation facilities located across the U.S. representing over 1,000MW\na developer in connection with the acquisition of three solar photovoltaic generation facilities in California representing over 120MW\na major international company in connection with the portfolio sale of 12 solar photovoltaic generation facilities in California, representing approximately 240MW\na utility company in connection with the acquisition of a 50% interest in a 200MW wind energy generation facility located in Nevada and Idaho and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\na developer in connection with various aspects of the development and sale of a 300MW solar project in New Mexico with 150MWh of battery storage\na developer in connection with the sale of a 68% interest in an approximately 110MW solar thermal energy generation facility located in Nevada and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\ntwo utilities in connection with the joint acquisition of a collective 25% interest in a 500kV above-ground transmission line development located in Nevada and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\na utility in connection with the acquisition of a 50% interest in an approximately 150MW wind energy generation facility development located in Nevada and the joint ownership, development and operation thereof\na domestic company in connection with the sale of an approximately 28% interest in an above-ground international transmission line located in California and Mexico and the joint ownership and operation thereof\nan international developer in connection with the sale of a majority interest in an approximately 150MW wind energy generation facility development in Texas Midstream Development\na foreign company in connection the negotiation/amendment to multiple gathering and gas sales agreements in Texas\na portfolio company of two private equity funds in the negotiation of a life-of-lease gathering, hydrating, treating and processing agreement valued at over $5,000,000,000\nan E\u0026amp;P company in negotiating or advising on 20+ natural gas gathering, treating and processing agreements, natural gas gathering facility construction agreements, natural gas sales agreements and NGL sales agreements\nmultiple developers in connection with several precedent, natural gas transportation and/or carbon dioxide transportation and natural gas supply arrangements for two gas-to-methanol facilities in Louisiana, as well as carbon sequestration facilities, and multiple ammonia plants and/or generation facilities in Texas, Louisiana and Illinois\nmultiple portfolio companies of Kayne Anderson Energy Funds and two other private equity firms in connection with water gathering and natural gas gathering, processing and sales agreements in Wyoming, New Mexico, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Montana and North Dakota Project Development and Financing\nthe developer in an approximately $6,000,000,000 offtake agreement (with floor, netback and natural gas pass-through pricing), along with an approximately $1,600,000,000 fully wrapped engineering, procurement and construction agreement for a gas-to-liquids facility in Louisiana, along with associated other offtake agreements, terminal use agreements, gas supply agreements, nitrogen agreements, technology process licensing agreements (carbon dioxide and liquids) and operation and maintenance agreements\nSolarReserve, LLC in connection with construction, operation and equipment supply agreements for the Crescent Dunes concentrated solar power project, which was financed by utilizing a Department of Energy loan guarantee for $737,000,000\nFirst Solar in the negotiation of the interconnection, construction, equipment and operations agreements in connection with the $1,460,000,000 financing and construction of the 550 MW Desert Sunlight solar project\na developer in connection with the negotiation of a solar panel supply agreement for up to approximately $700,000,000 and related prepayment and security arrangements, which also included negotiating supply agreements for inverters, batteries and other equipment supplies\na developer in connection with the restructuring of a solar and battery storage development platform and associated debt and equity ownership due to changes in law that would have impacted the development and sale of the platform\na utility company in connection with multiple power purchase agreements for the back-to-back resale of the output of several renewable energy generation facilities, including wind, biogas and geothermal, and in reviewing, advising and/or negotiating with regard to multiple RFPs for wind, geothermal and solar facilities\nmultiple developers in connection with shared facilities arrangements for 15+ wind, solar and battery storage projects throughout the U.S., both at the asset and equity levels\na developer in connection with a power purchase agreement for the output of an approximately 161MW wind energy generation facility located in Texas\na utility in connection with a power purchase agreement for the output of an approximately 150MW wind energy generation facility located in Nevada\na major domestic energy company in the negotiation of a joint venture to develop, construct and license carbon capture technology\nthe borrower in the $967,000,000 financing of the 290MW Agua Caliente project located in Arizona\nthe borrower in connection with a non-recourse construction bridge loan for a 300MW solar project in New Mexico with 150MWh of battery storage\nthe lead arranger in a non-recourse, recapitalization secured by a coal energy generation facility and gas-fired generation facility located in Wyoming\nSome experience handled prior to joining K\u0026amp;S","searchable_name":"Drew Baldinger","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":437134,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"david-balser","email":"dbalser@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":18}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1157,"guid":"1157.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Balser","nick_name":"David","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","years_held":"1987-1989"}],"first_name":"David","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11778}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-11T18:21:37.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-11T18:21:37.000Z","searchable_text":"Balser{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is top in class action litigation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"U.S. “Litigation Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Class Actions{{ FIELD }}Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.{{ FIELD }}Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.{{ FIELD }}Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.{{ FIELD }}Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.{{ FIELD }}Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.{{ FIELD }}Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.{{ FIELD }}Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.{{ FIELD }}Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.{{ FIELD }}Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes{{ FIELD }}Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets{{ FIELD }}Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.{{ FIELD }}Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.{{ FIELD }}Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.{{ FIELD }}Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project.{{ FIELD }}Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.{{ FIELD }}Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.”{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor.{{ FIELD }}Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.{{ FIELD }}David Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients’ most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation. \nRanked by Chambers USA as a “Star Individual” for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\n\n “He is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best.”\n“He has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation.”\n“He can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive.”\n“He is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met.”\n“He's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.”\n\nDavid’s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as Distinguished Leader by the Daily Report in 2022, which praised his “proven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.” He has also been named a “Litigation Star” by Benchmark Litigation and honored as a BTI Client Service All-Star. David’s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges. \nDavid leads the firm’s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\n  David L Balser Partner Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT “His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.”  DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022 \"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\"  Chambers USA 2023 “He is top in class action litigation\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.” CHAMBERS USA 2023 Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection) THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022 “Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation Best Lawyers in America U.S. “Litigation Star”  Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present 2018 BTI Client Service All-Star BTI, 2018 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School Georgia Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Class Actions Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products. Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services. Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit. Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit. Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court. Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality. Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial. Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees. Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company. Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website. Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act. Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment. Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds. Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance. Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island. Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action. Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019. Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project. Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia. Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.” Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment. Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims. Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor. Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.","searchable_name":"David L. Balser","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":436688,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3236,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation. \u0026nbsp;He regularly works with board\u0026nbsp;committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, among others, and has been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLawdragon.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;He is rated AV\u0026reg; Preeminent\u0026trade; by Martindale-Hubbel.\u0026nbsp; Client and peer reviews in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;say Paul\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.\u0026nbsp; Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he \u0026lsquo;is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u0026rsquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Securities Reporter.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"paul-bessette","email":"pbessette@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-512-940-6250","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSignificant Matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital Turbine, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSolarWinds Corp\u003c/em\u003e.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds\u0026rsquo;s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as \u0026ldquo;the largest and most sophisticated\u0026rdquo; cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhunware, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware\u0026rsquo;s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShattuck Labs\u003c/em\u003e: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re PolatityTE:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss\u0026mdash;the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE\u0026rsquo;s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolent Health, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed \u0026ldquo;rocket docket\u0026rdquo; timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdeptus Health, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFXCM, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank\u0026rsquo;s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM\u0026rsquo;s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hanger, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created \u0026ldquo;cookie jar\u0026rdquo; reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate \u0026ldquo;tone at the top.\u0026rdquo; In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003een banc,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court\u0026rsquo;s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants\u0026rsquo; state of mind. 768 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeiman v. Bulmahn, et al\u003c/em\u003e.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP\u0026rsquo;s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re SemCrude L.P.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMiyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost\u0026rsquo;s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company\u0026rsquo;s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a \u0026sect;10(b) securities-fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":132}]},"expertise":[{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bessette","nick_name":"Paul","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Paul","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America","detail":"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024"},{"title":"\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\"","detail":"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense","detail":"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide"},{"title":"\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1"},{"title":"Recognized by Best Lawyer","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023"},{"title":"\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026 responsiveness.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2021"},{"title":"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.","detail":"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2"},{"title":"\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”","detail":"U.S. News \u0026 World Report, 2015"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025"},{"title":"One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\"","detail":"Lawdragon, 2008"},{"title":"One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\"","detail":"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011"},{"title":"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers ","detail":"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation","detail":"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation. \u0026nbsp;He regularly works with board\u0026nbsp;committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, among others, and has been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLawdragon.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;He is rated AV\u0026reg; Preeminent\u0026trade; by Martindale-Hubbel.\u0026nbsp; Client and peer reviews in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;say Paul\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.\u0026nbsp; Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he \u0026lsquo;is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u0026rsquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Securities Reporter.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSignificant Matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital Turbine, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSolarWinds Corp\u003c/em\u003e.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds\u0026rsquo;s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as \u0026ldquo;the largest and most sophisticated\u0026rdquo; cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhunware, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware\u0026rsquo;s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShattuck Labs\u003c/em\u003e: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re PolatityTE:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss\u0026mdash;the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE\u0026rsquo;s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolent Health, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed \u0026ldquo;rocket docket\u0026rdquo; timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdeptus Health, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFXCM, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank\u0026rsquo;s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM\u0026rsquo;s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hanger, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created \u0026ldquo;cookie jar\u0026rdquo; reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate \u0026ldquo;tone at the top.\u0026rdquo; In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003een banc,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court\u0026rsquo;s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants\u0026rsquo; state of mind. 768 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeiman v. Bulmahn, et al\u003c/em\u003e.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP\u0026rsquo;s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re SemCrude L.P.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMiyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost\u0026rsquo;s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company\u0026rsquo;s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a \u0026sect;10(b) securities-fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America","detail":"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024"},{"title":"\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\"","detail":"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense","detail":"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide"},{"title":"\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1"},{"title":"Recognized by Best Lawyer","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023"},{"title":"\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026 responsiveness.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2021"},{"title":"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.","detail":"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2"},{"title":"\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”","detail":"U.S. News \u0026 World Report, 2015"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025"},{"title":"One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\"","detail":"Lawdragon, 2008"},{"title":"One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\"","detail":"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011"},{"title":"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers ","detail":"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation","detail":"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4186}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-04T21:52:53.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-04T21:52:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Bessette{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\\\" \\\"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Best Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026amp; responsiveness.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026amp;Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\\\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Securities Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"One of \\\"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2008\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"One of \\\"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Securities Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010\"}{{ FIELD }}Significant Matters{{ FIELD }}Digital Turbine, Inc.: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.{{ FIELD }}SolarWinds Corp.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds’ December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds’s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated” cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds’ former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.{{ FIELD }}Phunware, Inc.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware’s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware’s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.{{ FIELD }}Shattuck Labs: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply{{ FIELD }}In re PolatityTE: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss—the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE’s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.{{ FIELD }}Evolent Health, Inc.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed “rocket docket” timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.{{ FIELD }}Adeptus Health, Inc.: We defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus’s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus’s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.{{ FIELD }}FXCM, Inc.: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank’s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM’s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App’x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).{{ FIELD }}In re Hanger, Inc.: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created “cookie jar” reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate “tone at the top.” In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs’ allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants’ state of mind. 768 Fed. App’x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).{{ FIELD }}Neiman v. Bulmahn, et al.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP’s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company’s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).{{ FIELD }}In re SemCrude L.P.: Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).{{ FIELD }}Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.: Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost’s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff’s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Bell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.: Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company’s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).{{ FIELD }}In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation: Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Greenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a §10(b) securities-fraud claim.{{ FIELD }}Paul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm’s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.  For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation.  He regularly works with board committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues. \nPaul is ranked by Chambers, Best Lawyers in America, and Legal 500, among others, and has been recognized by Super Lawyers and Lawdragon.  He is rated AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbel.  Client and peer reviews in Chambers say Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.  Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he ‘is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”’  “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.”\nPaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including ABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter and The Securities Reporter. Paul R. Bessette Partner Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America Litigation Counsel of America, 2024 Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America Leading Lawyers of America, 2024 \"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\" Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024 Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide \"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\" Chambers USA 2023, Band 1 Recognized by Best Lawyer The Best Lawyers in America - 2023 \"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026amp; responsiveness.\" Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023 \"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\" Chambers, 2021 Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026amp;Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions. Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2 Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions. Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2 \"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\" Chambers USA 2018, Band 2 Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.” Chambers USA, 2016 “Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors” Chambers USA, 2016 Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.” Chambers USA, 2016 “Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.” U.S. News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015 Recognized for Securities Litigation  The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025 One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\" Lawdragon, 2008 One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\" Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011 Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers  Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019 Recognized for Securities Litigation Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010 The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Baylor University Baylor 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 Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh 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 Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California New York Texas Significant Matters Digital Turbine, Inc.: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024. SolarWinds Corp.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds’ December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds’s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated” cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds’ former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement. Phunware, Inc.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware’s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware’s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim. Shattuck Labs: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply In re PolatityTE: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss—the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE’s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss. Evolent Health, Inc.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed “rocket docket” timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session. Adeptus Health, Inc.: We defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus’s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus’s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well. FXCM, Inc.: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank’s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM’s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App’x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019). In re Hanger, Inc.: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created “cookie jar” reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate “tone at the top.” In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs’ allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants’ state of mind. 768 Fed. App’x 175 (5th Cir. 2019). Neiman v. Bulmahn, et al.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP’s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company’s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017). In re SemCrude L.P.: Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015). Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.: Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost’s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff’s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013). Bell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.: Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company’s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005). In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation: Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Greenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a §10(b) securities-fraud claim.","searchable_name":"Paul R. Bessette","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":445617,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7308,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael Bittner is an intellectual property trial lawyer, with an emphasis on patent litigation. He is recognized for being \u0026ldquo;superb at working up cases and delivering them in the right key for district court, Federal Circuit, and PTAB judges\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003e(IAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, 2020). Michael has extensive experience across a wide array of technologies and has also been recognized for his patent litigation work by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e The Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation (plaintiffs and defendants), including performing pre-filing investigations, handling complex discovery, preparing for and presenting at \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings, working with fact and expert witnesses, preparing and presenting the case for dispositive motions and trial, and through appeal. He represents clients in a wide variety of technologies, including telecommunications, networking, financial services, and data management. Michael also focuses on cases adjudicating whether royalties for standard essential patent portfolios comply with FRAND/RAND obligations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael has been recognized in the area of Intellectual Property: Texas in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e (2022\u0026ndash;2025) and as a \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Up and Coming Practitioner\u0026rdquo; (2019, 2021). He is listed as a \u0026ldquo;Key Lawyer\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e in the area of Patents: Litigation (2021, 2025), recognized in the \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e (2019\u0026ndash;2025), named to \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation US\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;40 \u0026amp; Under List\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property (2017\u0026ndash;2020), and named as a \u0026ldquo;Rising Star\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property Litigation for \u003cem\u003eTexas Super Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e (2015\u0026ndash;2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael also has extensive experience representing clients in other intellectual property disputes, including trademark, trade dress, and trade secret litigation. He has represented both Fortune 500 and small-to-medium sized business in disputes ranging from fixed fee brand enforcement actions and multimillion-dollar \u0026ldquo;bet the business\u0026rdquo; cases.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"michael-bittner","email":"mbittner@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC\u003c/em\u003e (N.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCaptivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (D. Neb.) \u0026ndash; Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEricsson, et al. v. LG, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG\u0026rsquo;s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e (E.D.Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eeDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees based on an exceptional case finding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bittner","nick_name":"Michael","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable David J. Folsom, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","years_held":"2008 - 2009"}],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"with honors","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2008-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation – Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Litigation – Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026 Patent Litigation","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“40 \u0026 Under List” in Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020"},{"title":"Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021–2025"},{"title":"“Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2019–2021"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025"},{"title":"Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025"},{"title":"Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 "},{"title":"“Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015–2018"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bittner-2a796295/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael Bittner is an intellectual property trial lawyer, with an emphasis on patent litigation. He is recognized for being \u0026ldquo;superb at working up cases and delivering them in the right key for district court, Federal Circuit, and PTAB judges\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003e(IAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, 2020). Michael has extensive experience across a wide array of technologies and has also been recognized for his patent litigation work by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e The Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation (plaintiffs and defendants), including performing pre-filing investigations, handling complex discovery, preparing for and presenting at \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings, working with fact and expert witnesses, preparing and presenting the case for dispositive motions and trial, and through appeal. He represents clients in a wide variety of technologies, including telecommunications, networking, financial services, and data management. Michael also focuses on cases adjudicating whether royalties for standard essential patent portfolios comply with FRAND/RAND obligations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael has been recognized in the area of Intellectual Property: Texas in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e (2022\u0026ndash;2025) and as a \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Up and Coming Practitioner\u0026rdquo; (2019, 2021). He is listed as a \u0026ldquo;Key Lawyer\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e in the area of Patents: Litigation (2021, 2025), recognized in the \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e (2019\u0026ndash;2025), named to \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation US\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;40 \u0026amp; Under List\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property (2017\u0026ndash;2020), and named as a \u0026ldquo;Rising Star\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property Litigation for \u003cem\u003eTexas Super Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e (2015\u0026ndash;2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael also has extensive experience representing clients in other intellectual property disputes, including trademark, trade dress, and trade secret litigation. He has represented both Fortune 500 and small-to-medium sized business in disputes ranging from fixed fee brand enforcement actions and multimillion-dollar \u0026ldquo;bet the business\u0026rdquo; cases.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC\u003c/em\u003e (N.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCaptivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (D. Neb.) \u0026ndash; Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEricsson, et al. v. LG, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG\u0026rsquo;s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e (E.D.Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eeDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees based on an exceptional case finding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation – Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Litigation – Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026 Patent Litigation","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“40 \u0026 Under List” in Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020"},{"title":"Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021–2025"},{"title":"“Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2019–2021"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025"},{"title":"Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025"},{"title":"Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 "},{"title":"“Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015–2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13352}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-05T19:50:22.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-05T19:50:22.000Z","searchable_text":"Bittner{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation – Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation – Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026amp; Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2022–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Future Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“40 \u0026amp; Under List” in Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2021–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2019–2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2015–2018\"}{{ FIELD }}SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC (N.D. Tex.) – Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal.{{ FIELD }}Captivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al. (D. Neb.) – Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting.{{ FIELD }}Ericsson, et al. v. LG, et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG’s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology.{{ FIELD }}Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al (E.D.Tex.) – Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial.{{ FIELD }}YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al. (W.D. Tex.) – Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice and an award of attorneys’ fees based on an exceptional case finding.{{ FIELD }}Clear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice.{{ FIELD }}GeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants (E.D. Tex.) – Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Michael Bittner is an intellectual property trial lawyer, with an emphasis on patent litigation. He is recognized for being “superb at working up cases and delivering them in the right key for district court, Federal Circuit, and PTAB judges” (IAM Patent 1000, 2020). Michael has extensive experience across a wide array of technologies and has also been recognized for his patent litigation work by Chambers USA and The Legal 500 US.\nMichael is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation (plaintiffs and defendants), including performing pre-filing investigations, handling complex discovery, preparing for and presenting at Markman hearings, working with fact and expert witnesses, preparing and presenting the case for dispositive motions and trial, and through appeal. He represents clients in a wide variety of technologies, including telecommunications, networking, financial services, and data management. Michael also focuses on cases adjudicating whether royalties for standard essential patent portfolios comply with FRAND/RAND obligations.\nMichael has been recognized in the area of Intellectual Property: Texas in Chambers USA (2022–2025) and as a Chambers USA “Up and Coming Practitioner” (2019, 2021). He is listed as a “Key Lawyer” in The Legal 500 US in the area of Patents: Litigation (2021, 2025), recognized in the IAM Patent 1000 (2019–2025), named to Benchmark Litigation US’s “40 \u0026amp; Under List” in Intellectual Property (2017–2020), and named as a “Rising Star” in Intellectual Property Litigation for Texas Super Lawyers (2015–2020).\nMichael also has extensive experience representing clients in other intellectual property disputes, including trademark, trade dress, and trade secret litigation. He has represented both Fortune 500 and small-to-medium sized business in disputes ranging from fixed fee brand enforcement actions and multimillion-dollar “bet the business” cases. Partner Litigation – Intellectual Property The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026 Litigation – Patent The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026 “500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026amp; Patent Litigation Lawdragon, 2022–2026 “Future Star” Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026 “40 \u0026amp; Under List” in Intellectual Property Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020 Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas Chambers USA, 2021–2025 “Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas Chambers USA, 2019–2021 “Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025 Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach” IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection” IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025  “Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas Super Lawyers, 2015–2018 University of Texas  The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Texas Law Clerk, Honorable David J. Folsom, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC (N.D. Tex.) – Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal. Captivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al. (D. Neb.) – Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting. Ericsson, et al. v. LG, et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG’s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology. Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al (E.D.Tex.) – Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial. YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al. (W.D. Tex.) – Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms. eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice and an award of attorneys’ fees based on an exceptional case finding. Clear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice. GeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants (E.D. Tex.) – Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.","searchable_name":"Michael A. Bittner","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}]}}