{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"105","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"id":447974,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6621,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMalek Al Rifai is a real estate partner in the Corporate, Finance and Investments Group based in the Dubai office. Malek has a diverse multidisciplinary practice focused on owners and operators in the real estate industry. He has represented developers, REITs, commercial and investment banks, private equity fund sponsors, family offices and institutional investors in a variety of real estate and corporate transactions and regulatory matters across the GCC.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMalek\u0026rsquo;s transactional experience includes direct and indirect real estate acquisitions across all types of property (including hospitality, industrial, educational and healthcare assets), development transactions, hotel acquisition and management transactions, capital market and financing transactions involving real estate, representation of institutional investors and real estate funds in connection with the formation of real estate joint ventures, and turnaround of distressed off-plan projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMalek is recognized in both \u003cem\u003eChambers Global Guide\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eLegal 500 EMEA\u003c/em\u003e. Clients describe him as a \u0026ldquo;standout lawyer\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;thinks outside the box\u0026rdquo; and is \u0026ldquo;business minded, very responsive and very knowledgeable\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMalek received his LLB from Saint Joseph University. He also holds an Executive Master of Business Administration from Bayes Business School (City, University of London).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMalek is fluent in Arabic, English and French.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"malek-al-rifai","email":"malrifai@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReal Estate Private Credit\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn Asia-based private credit platform, with respect to a secured term construction facility to a UAE-based real estate developer of luxury properties, in connection with the construction of a portfolio of its luxury villa projects in Dubai.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNomura Special Investments Singapore Pte. Ltd., on a cross border, structured real estate financing in Dubai, for a leading luxury real estate development in the UAE.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCerberus\u0026nbsp;in connection with a USD loan made to a UAE property developer secured against receivables from completed projects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNomura Singapore Limited, as lead arranger and lender, together with TOR Asia Credit Opportunity Master Fund III LP, as co-lender, in connection with the development financing of an ultra-luxury residential development and beach resort in Dubai. The transaction was structured as a $100m mezzanine private credit facility which was primarily intended to finance the equity recapitalization of the borrower\u0026rsquo;s affiliates.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcquisitions and Dispositions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNBK Capital Partners Real Estate Fund and Janus Henderson Emerging Markets Private Investments on the sale of the real estate leased to Hartland International School in Dubai to Elevate, a portfolio company backed by Rava Partners in collaboration with Alta Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSweid \u0026amp; Sweid, a leading real estate private equity and development firm, on its acquisition of Aurora Tower, a prominent office building located in the heart of Dubai Media City.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBureau Lamar SPV, an affiliate of Lamar Development, in connection with the purchase from Shamal Estates LLC of a strategic plot of land in Business Bay for development purposes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSICO Capital Company, the manager of Flow MENA Residential Real Estate Fund 1, in connection with the purchase and operation of a portfolio of c. 687 residential units in Saudi Arabia. The transaction marks the first significant international expansion of the co-living community startup backed by Adam Neumann, the co-founder of WeWork.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAffiliates of Driven Properties, in connection with the purchase of the iconic Emaar Square Building No. 3 in Downtown Dubai. The building was the former HQ of Emaar Properties and comprises almost 230,000 sq ft of leasable area. The acquisition stands as the largest real estate deal in Downtown Dubai in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePeninsula Real Estate Management Limited in connection with its AED 555 million purchase of 17 income generating warehouse assets in Al Markaz industrial development in Abu Dhabi.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eApollo Global Management in connection with its US$ 500 million strategic equity stake in Adar Investment Properties (AIP), a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi-listed Aldar Properties PJSC and the region\u0026rsquo;s largest institutional-class real estate platform with assets across retail, residential, commercial, and logistics segments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Kuwaiti Shareholding Company K.S.C. (closed), in connection with a Sharia compliant sale and leaseback of a workers\u0026rsquo; accommodation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReal Estate Aspects of Structured Finance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArcapita on a flagship forward-funding investment and partnership with ASMO (a joint venture between Aramco and DHL Supply Chain) to develop a large-scale logistics and warehousing facility at King Salman Energy Park (SPARK) in Saudi Arabia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eApollo Global Management and its consortium of institutional investors in connection with its US$2.7 billion acquisition of a 49% stake in Abu Dhabi Property Leasing Holding Company RSC Ltd from Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC). This structured finance transaction allowed ADNOC to maintain full ownership and control over its real estate portfolio while leveraging the rental income streams from the same (valued at US$ 5.5 billion) pursuant to a 24-year Master Lease Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDevelopment Work\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eApollo Global Management in connection with its US$ 500 million real estate structured finance investment in the landbank of Aldar Properties PJSC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMuraba Properties LLC in connection with their ultra luxury Muraba Veil off-plan development in Dubai, including title structuring advice and preparation of bespoke off plan sales and strata documents.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA leading developer in Dubai in connection with various hospitality projects in the UAE, including assistance in the drafting of the standard sale and purchase agreements, fractional ownership and rental guarantee documentation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA leading developer in Ras Al Khaimah, in connection with the drafting of its standard sale and purchase agreements with sub-developers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProperty Funds and Listed Companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmaar Development PJSC, the development arm of Emaar Group, in connection with its US$1.5 billion initial public offering of ordinary shares and listing on the DFM.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAbu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) in connection with the real estate restructuring exercise required as part of the readiness phase of its US$ 851 million initial public offering.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeasing and Management\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA Saudi family office in connection with the appointment of an international hotel operator for three hotels in Riyadh and Khobar.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA school operator in connection with a build-to-suit lease of a school in Dubai.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Saudi institutional investor in connection with a built-to-suit transaction with a leading operator relating to an orthopedic healthcare facility in Jeddah.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA multinational bank in connection with the leasing of various assets comprising its portfolio in the GCC\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePacha Group in the negotiation of hospitality management services with Five Hotel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Real Estate Investment Company in connection with its proposed initial public offering of shares (primary offering) on ADX.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA private owner in connection with the lease of its hotel in Dubai.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSoftbank in connection with its lease of offices in ICD Brookfield.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDogus Group, in relation to the lease of various commercial and retail premises in the UAE.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDistressed Assets and Special Situations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHayfin Capital Management, a hedge fund, in connection with its financing of Imperial Avenue project in Downtown Dubai under development by Shapoorji Pallonji International Property Developers, the development arm of Shapoorji Pallonji.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHospitality\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePalladium Group, as operator, in connection with the hotel and branded residences project known as The Al Marjan Island Hotel and Residences in the Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah. Tasks included the preparation and negotiation of the full range of branded residences and off-plan sales and strata documents.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIHHR Hospitality Ananda Private Limited in connection with its appointment as the manager of a luxury wellness resort in Triple Bay, Amaala, Saudi Arabia.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3762}]},"expertise":[{"id":36,"guid":"36.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":78,"guid":"78.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":73,"guid":"73.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":82,"guid":"82.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Al Rifai","nick_name":"Malek","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Malek","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Malek impressed us with his ability to combine sharp legal analysis with a practical, business-oriented approach.","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA 2026"},{"title":"\"Malek is particularly active on matters relating to mixed-use development projects...\"","detail":"Chambers Global 2026"},{"title":"“Malek is an outstanding professional with solid expertise in real estate.”","detail":"Chambers Global 2026"},{"title":"“He combines a great deal of experience and knowledge with a highly commercial approach.”","detail":" Chambers Global 2026"},{"title":"“Malek Al Rifai is incredibly sharp and always a few steps ahead.”","detail":"Chambers Global 2026"},{"title":"“Malek is an excellent lawyer and very knowledgeable. He has both the expertise and the experience.”","detail":"Chambers Global 2026"},{"title":"Rising Star Partner (Project Development and Real Estate), UAE","detail":"IFLR1000 EMEA 2025"},{"title":"“I am always dealing with Malek Al Rifai – he is very responsive and very knowledgeable, thinks outside of the box, can co-ordinate the team and always comes up with an answer or solution” ","detail":"Chambers Global 2023"},{"title":"“Malek Al Rifai is an absolute force in real estate, he is very smart and responsive. He is always aware of the larger commercial picture and focused on solutions to difficult issues. There is never a moment of doubt in Malek’s ability to provide a superior work product”","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA 2024"},{"title":"Malek Al Rifai is an exceptionally skilled lawyer. He is a sharp negotiator who understands the regional aspects but also the civil law concerns, which is a big help\"","detail":"Chambers Global 2025"},{"title":"\"Impressive, consistently providing clear and practical advice with a sharp focus on detail\".","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA 2025"},{"title":"Recommended Lawyer – Real Estate, United Arab Emirates","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA 2025"},{"title":"Up and Coming Partner","detail":"Chambers Global 2023, 2024, 2025"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/malekalrifai/","seodescription":"Malek Al Rifai is a lawyer of our Real Estate \u0026 Funds Practice Group. Read more.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMalek Al Rifai is a real estate partner in the Corporate, Finance and Investments Group based in the Dubai office. Malek has a diverse multidisciplinary practice focused on owners and operators in the real estate industry. He has represented developers, REITs, commercial and investment banks, private equity fund sponsors, family offices and institutional investors in a variety of real estate and corporate transactions and regulatory matters across the GCC.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMalek\u0026rsquo;s transactional experience includes direct and indirect real estate acquisitions across all types of property (including hospitality, industrial, educational and healthcare assets), development transactions, hotel acquisition and management transactions, capital market and financing transactions involving real estate, representation of institutional investors and real estate funds in connection with the formation of real estate joint ventures, and turnaround of distressed off-plan projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMalek is recognized in both \u003cem\u003eChambers Global Guide\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eLegal 500 EMEA\u003c/em\u003e. Clients describe him as a \u0026ldquo;standout lawyer\u0026rdquo; who \u0026ldquo;thinks outside the box\u0026rdquo; and is \u0026ldquo;business minded, very responsive and very knowledgeable\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMalek received his LLB from Saint Joseph University. He also holds an Executive Master of Business Administration from Bayes Business School (City, University of London).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMalek is fluent in Arabic, English and French.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReal Estate Private Credit\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn Asia-based private credit platform, with respect to a secured term construction facility to a UAE-based real estate developer of luxury properties, in connection with the construction of a portfolio of its luxury villa projects in Dubai.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNomura Special Investments Singapore Pte. Ltd., on a cross border, structured real estate financing in Dubai, for a leading luxury real estate development in the UAE.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCerberus\u0026nbsp;in connection with a USD loan made to a UAE property developer secured against receivables from completed projects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNomura Singapore Limited, as lead arranger and lender, together with TOR Asia Credit Opportunity Master Fund III LP, as co-lender, in connection with the development financing of an ultra-luxury residential development and beach resort in Dubai. The transaction was structured as a $100m mezzanine private credit facility which was primarily intended to finance the equity recapitalization of the borrower\u0026rsquo;s affiliates.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAcquisitions and Dispositions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNBK Capital Partners Real Estate Fund and Janus Henderson Emerging Markets Private Investments on the sale of the real estate leased to Hartland International School in Dubai to Elevate, a portfolio company backed by Rava Partners in collaboration with Alta Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSweid \u0026amp; Sweid, a leading real estate private equity and development firm, on its acquisition of Aurora Tower, a prominent office building located in the heart of Dubai Media City.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBureau Lamar SPV, an affiliate of Lamar Development, in connection with the purchase from Shamal Estates LLC of a strategic plot of land in Business Bay for development purposes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSICO Capital Company, the manager of Flow MENA Residential Real Estate Fund 1, in connection with the purchase and operation of a portfolio of c. 687 residential units in Saudi Arabia. The transaction marks the first significant international expansion of the co-living community startup backed by Adam Neumann, the co-founder of WeWork.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAffiliates of Driven Properties, in connection with the purchase of the iconic Emaar Square Building No. 3 in Downtown Dubai. The building was the former HQ of Emaar Properties and comprises almost 230,000 sq ft of leasable area. The acquisition stands as the largest real estate deal in Downtown Dubai in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePeninsula Real Estate Management Limited in connection with its AED 555 million purchase of 17 income generating warehouse assets in Al Markaz industrial development in Abu Dhabi.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eApollo Global Management in connection with its US$ 500 million strategic equity stake in Adar Investment Properties (AIP), a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi-listed Aldar Properties PJSC and the region\u0026rsquo;s largest institutional-class real estate platform with assets across retail, residential, commercial, and logistics segments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Kuwaiti Shareholding Company K.S.C. (closed), in connection with a Sharia compliant sale and leaseback of a workers\u0026rsquo; accommodation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReal Estate Aspects of Structured Finance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArcapita on a flagship forward-funding investment and partnership with ASMO (a joint venture between Aramco and DHL Supply Chain) to develop a large-scale logistics and warehousing facility at King Salman Energy Park (SPARK) in Saudi Arabia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eApollo Global Management and its consortium of institutional investors in connection with its US$2.7 billion acquisition of a 49% stake in Abu Dhabi Property Leasing Holding Company RSC Ltd from Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC). This structured finance transaction allowed ADNOC to maintain full ownership and control over its real estate portfolio while leveraging the rental income streams from the same (valued at US$ 5.5 billion) pursuant to a 24-year Master Lease Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDevelopment Work\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eApollo Global Management in connection with its US$ 500 million real estate structured finance investment in the landbank of Aldar Properties PJSC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMuraba Properties LLC in connection with their ultra luxury Muraba Veil off-plan development in Dubai, including title structuring advice and preparation of bespoke off plan sales and strata documents.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA leading developer in Dubai in connection with various hospitality projects in the UAE, including assistance in the drafting of the standard sale and purchase agreements, fractional ownership and rental guarantee documentation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA leading developer in Ras Al Khaimah, in connection with the drafting of its standard sale and purchase agreements with sub-developers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eProperty Funds and Listed Companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEmaar Development PJSC, the development arm of Emaar Group, in connection with its US$1.5 billion initial public offering of ordinary shares and listing on the DFM.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAbu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) in connection with the real estate restructuring exercise required as part of the readiness phase of its US$ 851 million initial public offering.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeasing and Management\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA Saudi family office in connection with the appointment of an international hotel operator for three hotels in Riyadh and Khobar.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA school operator in connection with a build-to-suit lease of a school in Dubai.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Saudi institutional investor in connection with a built-to-suit transaction with a leading operator relating to an orthopedic healthcare facility in Jeddah.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA multinational bank in connection with the leasing of various assets comprising its portfolio in the GCC\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePacha Group in the negotiation of hospitality management services with Five Hotel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Real Estate Investment Company in connection with its proposed initial public offering of shares (primary offering) on ADX.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA private owner in connection with the lease of its hotel in Dubai.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSoftbank in connection with its lease of offices in ICD Brookfield.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDogus Group, in relation to the lease of various commercial and retail premises in the UAE.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eDistressed Assets and Special Situations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHayfin Capital Management, a hedge fund, in connection with its financing of Imperial Avenue project in Downtown Dubai under development by Shapoorji Pallonji International Property Developers, the development arm of Shapoorji Pallonji.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHospitality\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePalladium Group, as operator, in connection with the hotel and branded residences project known as The Al Marjan Island Hotel and Residences in the Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah. Tasks included the preparation and negotiation of the full range of branded residences and off-plan sales and strata documents.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIHHR Hospitality Ananda Private Limited in connection with its appointment as the manager of a luxury wellness resort in Triple Bay, Amaala, Saudi Arabia.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Malek impressed us with his ability to combine sharp legal analysis with a practical, business-oriented approach.","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA 2026"},{"title":"\"Malek is particularly active on matters relating to mixed-use development projects...\"","detail":"Chambers Global 2026"},{"title":"“Malek is an outstanding professional with solid expertise in real estate.”","detail":"Chambers Global 2026"},{"title":"“He combines a great deal of experience and knowledge with a highly commercial approach.”","detail":" Chambers Global 2026"},{"title":"“Malek Al Rifai is incredibly sharp and always a few steps ahead.”","detail":"Chambers Global 2026"},{"title":"“Malek is an excellent lawyer and very knowledgeable. He has both the expertise and the experience.”","detail":"Chambers Global 2026"},{"title":"Rising Star Partner (Project Development and Real Estate), UAE","detail":"IFLR1000 EMEA 2025"},{"title":"“I am always dealing with Malek Al Rifai – he is very responsive and very knowledgeable, thinks outside of the box, can co-ordinate the team and always comes up with an answer or solution” ","detail":"Chambers Global 2023"},{"title":"“Malek Al Rifai is an absolute force in real estate, he is very smart and responsive. He is always aware of the larger commercial picture and focused on solutions to difficult issues. There is never a moment of doubt in Malek’s ability to provide a superior work product”","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA 2024"},{"title":"Malek Al Rifai is an exceptionally skilled lawyer. He is a sharp negotiator who understands the regional aspects but also the civil law concerns, which is a big help\"","detail":"Chambers Global 2025"},{"title":"\"Impressive, consistently providing clear and practical advice with a sharp focus on detail\".","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA 2025"},{"title":"Recommended Lawyer – Real Estate, United Arab Emirates","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA 2025"},{"title":"Up and Coming Partner","detail":"Chambers Global 2023, 2024, 2025"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11276}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2026-05-01T18:24:26.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-01T18:24:26.000Z","searchable_text":"Al Rifai{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Malek impressed us with his ability to combine sharp legal analysis with a practical, business-oriented approach.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 EMEA 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Malek is particularly active on matters relating to mixed-use development projects...\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Malek is an outstanding professional with solid expertise in real estate.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He combines a great deal of experience and knowledge with a highly commercial approach.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\" Chambers Global 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Malek Al Rifai is incredibly sharp and always a few steps ahead.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Malek is an excellent lawyer and very knowledgeable. He has both the expertise and the experience.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star Partner (Project Development and Real Estate), UAE\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IFLR1000 EMEA 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“I am always dealing with Malek Al Rifai – he is very responsive and very knowledgeable, thinks outside of the box, can co-ordinate the team and always comes up with an answer or solution” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Malek Al Rifai is an absolute force in real estate, he is very smart and responsive. He is always aware of the larger commercial picture and focused on solutions to difficult issues. There is never a moment of doubt in Malek’s ability to provide a superior work product”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 EMEA 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Malek Al Rifai is an exceptionally skilled lawyer. He is a sharp negotiator who understands the regional aspects but also the civil law concerns, which is a big help\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Impressive, consistently providing clear and practical advice with a sharp focus on detail\\\".\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 EMEA 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended Lawyer – Real Estate, United Arab Emirates\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 EMEA 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Up and Coming Partner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global 2023, 2024, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}Real Estate Private Credit\nAn Asia-based private credit platform, with respect to a secured term construction facility to a UAE-based real estate developer of luxury properties, in connection with the construction of a portfolio of its luxury villa projects in Dubai.{{ FIELD }}Nomura Special Investments Singapore Pte. Ltd., on a cross border, structured real estate financing in Dubai, for a leading luxury real estate development in the UAE.{{ FIELD }}Cerberus in connection with a USD loan made to a UAE property developer secured against receivables from completed projects.{{ FIELD }}Nomura Singapore Limited, as lead arranger and lender, together with TOR Asia Credit Opportunity Master Fund III LP, as co-lender, in connection with the development financing of an ultra-luxury residential development and beach resort in Dubai. The transaction was structured as a $100m mezzanine private credit facility which was primarily intended to finance the equity recapitalization of the borrower’s affiliates.{{ FIELD }}Acquisitions and Dispositions\nNBK Capital Partners Real Estate Fund and Janus Henderson Emerging Markets Private Investments on the sale of the real estate leased to Hartland International School in Dubai to Elevate, a portfolio company backed by Rava Partners in collaboration with Alta Capital.{{ FIELD }}Sweid \u0026amp; Sweid, a leading real estate private equity and development firm, on its acquisition of Aurora Tower, a prominent office building located in the heart of Dubai Media City.{{ FIELD }}Bureau Lamar SPV, an affiliate of Lamar Development, in connection with the purchase from Shamal Estates LLC of a strategic plot of land in Business Bay for development purposes.{{ FIELD }}SICO Capital Company, the manager of Flow MENA Residential Real Estate Fund 1, in connection with the purchase and operation of a portfolio of c. 687 residential units in Saudi Arabia. The transaction marks the first significant international expansion of the co-living community startup backed by Adam Neumann, the co-founder of WeWork.{{ FIELD }}Affiliates of Driven Properties, in connection with the purchase of the iconic Emaar Square Building No. 3 in Downtown Dubai. The building was the former HQ of Emaar Properties and comprises almost 230,000 sq ft of leasable area. The acquisition stands as the largest real estate deal in Downtown Dubai in 2024.{{ FIELD }}Peninsula Real Estate Management Limited in connection with its AED 555 million purchase of 17 income generating warehouse assets in Al Markaz industrial development in Abu Dhabi.{{ FIELD }}Apollo Global Management in connection with its US$ 500 million strategic equity stake in Adar Investment Properties (AIP), a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi-listed Aldar Properties PJSC and the region’s largest institutional-class real estate platform with assets across retail, residential, commercial, and logistics segments.{{ FIELD }}A Kuwaiti Shareholding Company K.S.C. (closed), in connection with a Sharia compliant sale and leaseback of a workers’ accommodation.{{ FIELD }}Real Estate Aspects of Structured Finance\nArcapita on a flagship forward-funding investment and partnership with ASMO (a joint venture between Aramco and DHL Supply Chain) to develop a large-scale logistics and warehousing facility at King Salman Energy Park (SPARK) in Saudi Arabia.{{ FIELD }}Apollo Global Management and its consortium of institutional investors in connection with its US$2.7 billion acquisition of a 49% stake in Abu Dhabi Property Leasing Holding Company RSC Ltd from Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC). This structured finance transaction allowed ADNOC to maintain full ownership and control over its real estate portfolio while leveraging the rental income streams from the same (valued at US$ 5.5 billion) pursuant to a 24-year Master Lease Agreement.{{ FIELD }}Development Work\nApollo Global Management in connection with its US$ 500 million real estate structured finance investment in the landbank of Aldar Properties PJSC.{{ FIELD }}Muraba Properties LLC in connection with their ultra luxury Muraba Veil off-plan development in Dubai, including title structuring advice and preparation of bespoke off plan sales and strata documents.{{ FIELD }}A leading developer in Dubai in connection with various hospitality projects in the UAE, including assistance in the drafting of the standard sale and purchase agreements, fractional ownership and rental guarantee documentation.{{ FIELD }}A leading developer in Ras Al Khaimah, in connection with the drafting of its standard sale and purchase agreements with sub-developers.{{ FIELD }}Property Funds and Listed Companies\nEmaar Development PJSC, the development arm of Emaar Group, in connection with its US$1.5 billion initial public offering of ordinary shares and listing on the DFM.{{ FIELD }}Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) in connection with the real estate restructuring exercise required as part of the readiness phase of its US$ 851 million initial public offering.{{ FIELD }}Leasing and Management\nA Saudi family office in connection with the appointment of an international hotel operator for three hotels in Riyadh and Khobar.{{ FIELD }}A school operator in connection with a build-to-suit lease of a school in Dubai.{{ FIELD }}A Saudi institutional investor in connection with a built-to-suit transaction with a leading operator relating to an orthopedic healthcare facility in Jeddah.{{ FIELD }}A multinational bank in connection with the leasing of various assets comprising its portfolio in the GCC{{ FIELD }}Pacha Group in the negotiation of hospitality management services with Five Hotel.{{ FIELD }}A Real Estate Investment Company in connection with its proposed initial public offering of shares (primary offering) on ADX.{{ FIELD }}A private owner in connection with the lease of its hotel in Dubai.{{ FIELD }}Softbank in connection with its lease of offices in ICD Brookfield.{{ FIELD }}Dogus Group, in relation to the lease of various commercial and retail premises in the UAE.{{ FIELD }}Distressed Assets and Special Situations\nHayfin Capital Management, a hedge fund, in connection with its financing of Imperial Avenue project in Downtown Dubai under development by Shapoorji Pallonji International Property Developers, the development arm of Shapoorji Pallonji.{{ FIELD }}Hospitality\nPalladium Group, as operator, in connection with the hotel and branded residences project known as The Al Marjan Island Hotel and Residences in the Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah. Tasks included the preparation and negotiation of the full range of branded residences and off-plan sales and strata documents.{{ FIELD }}IHHR Hospitality Ananda Private Limited in connection with its appointment as the manager of a luxury wellness resort in Triple Bay, Amaala, Saudi Arabia.{{ FIELD }}Malek Al Rifai is a real estate partner in the Corporate, Finance and Investments Group based in the Dubai office. Malek has a diverse multidisciplinary practice focused on owners and operators in the real estate industry. He has represented developers, REITs, commercial and investment banks, private equity fund sponsors, family offices and institutional investors in a variety of real estate and corporate transactions and regulatory matters across the GCC.\nMalek’s transactional experience includes direct and indirect real estate acquisitions across all types of property (including hospitality, industrial, educational and healthcare assets), development transactions, hotel acquisition and management transactions, capital market and financing transactions involving real estate, representation of institutional investors and real estate funds in connection with the formation of real estate joint ventures, and turnaround of distressed off-plan projects.\nMalek is recognized in both Chambers Global Guide and Legal 500 EMEA. Clients describe him as a “standout lawyer” who “thinks outside the box” and is “business minded, very responsive and very knowledgeable”.\nMalek received his LLB from Saint Joseph University. He also holds an Executive Master of Business Administration from Bayes Business School (City, University of London).\nMalek is fluent in Arabic, English and French. Malek Al Rifai lawyer Partner Malek impressed us with his ability to combine sharp legal analysis with a practical, business-oriented approach. Legal 500 EMEA 2026 \"Malek is particularly active on matters relating to mixed-use development projects...\" Chambers Global 2026 “Malek is an outstanding professional with solid expertise in real estate.” Chambers Global 2026 “He combines a great deal of experience and knowledge with a highly commercial approach.”  Chambers Global 2026 “Malek Al Rifai is incredibly sharp and always a few steps ahead.” Chambers Global 2026 “Malek is an excellent lawyer and very knowledgeable. He has both the expertise and the experience.” Chambers Global 2026 Rising Star Partner (Project Development and Real Estate), UAE IFLR1000 EMEA 2025 “I am always dealing with Malek Al Rifai – he is very responsive and very knowledgeable, thinks outside of the box, can co-ordinate the team and always comes up with an answer or solution”  Chambers Global 2023 “Malek Al Rifai is an absolute force in real estate, he is very smart and responsive. He is always aware of the larger commercial picture and focused on solutions to difficult issues. There is never a moment of doubt in Malek’s ability to provide a superior work product” Legal 500 EMEA 2024 Malek Al Rifai is an exceptionally skilled lawyer. He is a sharp negotiator who understands the regional aspects but also the civil law concerns, which is a big help\" Chambers Global 2025 \"Impressive, consistently providing clear and practical advice with a sharp focus on detail\". Legal 500 EMEA 2025 Recommended Lawyer – Real Estate, United Arab Emirates Legal 500 EMEA 2025 Up and Coming Partner Chambers Global 2023, 2024, 2025 Bayes Business School, City University of London  Faculty of Law, Saint Joseph University  Beirut Beirut Bar Association, 2008 Real Estate Private Credit\nAn Asia-based private credit platform, with respect to a secured term construction facility to a UAE-based real estate developer of luxury properties, in connection with the construction of a portfolio of its luxury villa projects in Dubai. Nomura Special Investments Singapore Pte. Ltd., on a cross border, structured real estate financing in Dubai, for a leading luxury real estate development in the UAE. Cerberus in connection with a USD loan made to a UAE property developer secured against receivables from completed projects. Nomura Singapore Limited, as lead arranger and lender, together with TOR Asia Credit Opportunity Master Fund III LP, as co-lender, in connection with the development financing of an ultra-luxury residential development and beach resort in Dubai. The transaction was structured as a $100m mezzanine private credit facility which was primarily intended to finance the equity recapitalization of the borrower’s affiliates. Acquisitions and Dispositions\nNBK Capital Partners Real Estate Fund and Janus Henderson Emerging Markets Private Investments on the sale of the real estate leased to Hartland International School in Dubai to Elevate, a portfolio company backed by Rava Partners in collaboration with Alta Capital. Sweid \u0026amp; Sweid, a leading real estate private equity and development firm, on its acquisition of Aurora Tower, a prominent office building located in the heart of Dubai Media City. Bureau Lamar SPV, an affiliate of Lamar Development, in connection with the purchase from Shamal Estates LLC of a strategic plot of land in Business Bay for development purposes. SICO Capital Company, the manager of Flow MENA Residential Real Estate Fund 1, in connection with the purchase and operation of a portfolio of c. 687 residential units in Saudi Arabia. The transaction marks the first significant international expansion of the co-living community startup backed by Adam Neumann, the co-founder of WeWork. Affiliates of Driven Properties, in connection with the purchase of the iconic Emaar Square Building No. 3 in Downtown Dubai. The building was the former HQ of Emaar Properties and comprises almost 230,000 sq ft of leasable area. The acquisition stands as the largest real estate deal in Downtown Dubai in 2024. Peninsula Real Estate Management Limited in connection with its AED 555 million purchase of 17 income generating warehouse assets in Al Markaz industrial development in Abu Dhabi. Apollo Global Management in connection with its US$ 500 million strategic equity stake in Adar Investment Properties (AIP), a subsidiary of Abu Dhabi-listed Aldar Properties PJSC and the region’s largest institutional-class real estate platform with assets across retail, residential, commercial, and logistics segments. A Kuwaiti Shareholding Company K.S.C. (closed), in connection with a Sharia compliant sale and leaseback of a workers’ accommodation. Real Estate Aspects of Structured Finance\nArcapita on a flagship forward-funding investment and partnership with ASMO (a joint venture between Aramco and DHL Supply Chain) to develop a large-scale logistics and warehousing facility at King Salman Energy Park (SPARK) in Saudi Arabia. Apollo Global Management and its consortium of institutional investors in connection with its US$2.7 billion acquisition of a 49% stake in Abu Dhabi Property Leasing Holding Company RSC Ltd from Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC). This structured finance transaction allowed ADNOC to maintain full ownership and control over its real estate portfolio while leveraging the rental income streams from the same (valued at US$ 5.5 billion) pursuant to a 24-year Master Lease Agreement. Development Work\nApollo Global Management in connection with its US$ 500 million real estate structured finance investment in the landbank of Aldar Properties PJSC. Muraba Properties LLC in connection with their ultra luxury Muraba Veil off-plan development in Dubai, including title structuring advice and preparation of bespoke off plan sales and strata documents. A leading developer in Dubai in connection with various hospitality projects in the UAE, including assistance in the drafting of the standard sale and purchase agreements, fractional ownership and rental guarantee documentation. A leading developer in Ras Al Khaimah, in connection with the drafting of its standard sale and purchase agreements with sub-developers. Property Funds and Listed Companies\nEmaar Development PJSC, the development arm of Emaar Group, in connection with its US$1.5 billion initial public offering of ordinary shares and listing on the DFM. Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) in connection with the real estate restructuring exercise required as part of the readiness phase of its US$ 851 million initial public offering. Leasing and Management\nA Saudi family office in connection with the appointment of an international hotel operator for three hotels in Riyadh and Khobar. A school operator in connection with a build-to-suit lease of a school in Dubai. A Saudi institutional investor in connection with a built-to-suit transaction with a leading operator relating to an orthopedic healthcare facility in Jeddah. A multinational bank in connection with the leasing of various assets comprising its portfolio in the GCC Pacha Group in the negotiation of hospitality management services with Five Hotel. A Real Estate Investment Company in connection with its proposed initial public offering of shares (primary offering) on ADX. A private owner in connection with the lease of its hotel in Dubai. Softbank in connection with its lease of offices in ICD Brookfield. Dogus Group, in relation to the lease of various commercial and retail premises in the UAE. Distressed Assets and Special Situations\nHayfin Capital Management, a hedge fund, in connection with its financing of Imperial Avenue project in Downtown Dubai under development by Shapoorji Pallonji International Property Developers, the development arm of Shapoorji Pallonji. Hospitality\nPalladium Group, as operator, in connection with the hotel and branded residences project known as The Al Marjan Island Hotel and Residences in the Emirate of Ras Al Khaimah. Tasks included the preparation and negotiation of the full range of branded residences and off-plan sales and strata documents. IHHR Hospitality Ananda Private Limited in connection with its appointment as the manager of a luxury wellness resort in Triple Bay, Amaala, Saudi Arabia.","searchable_name":"Malek Al Rifai","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":442365,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBruce Baber focuses his practice\u0026nbsp;in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e. He has also been listed in multiple editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Trademark Professionals\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Trademark Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, numerous\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;lists and other leading industry publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e","slug":"bruce-baber","email":"bbaber@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-917-749-1247","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":17}]},"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":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baber","nick_name":"Bruce","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Bruce","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"W.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucebaber/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBruce Baber focuses his practice\u0026nbsp;in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e. He has also been listed in multiple editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Trademark Professionals\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Trademark Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, numerous\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;lists and other leading industry publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:34.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:34.000Z","searchable_text":"Baber{{ FIELD }}Bruce Baber focuses his practice in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.\nBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\nBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\nFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by Chambers USA. He has also been listed in multiple editions of The Best Lawyers in America, The Legal 500, The World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World’s Leading Trademark Professionals, The International Who’s Who of Trademark Lawyers, numerous Super Lawyer lists and other leading industry publications.\nA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\n \nAdmitted only in Georgia. Bruce W Baber Partner Princeton University  Duke University Duke University School of Law Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Best Lawyers In America.","searchable_name":"Bruce W. Baber","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":445229,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":639,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRay represents private equity and hedge funds, and counsels corporations, in merger and acquisition transactions, financings and related matters.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Baltz is a senior partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Corporate, Finance and Investment Group and the former head of the Global Corporate Department.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Baltz has extensive experience representing private equity and hedge funds in a wide variety of matters. Mr. Baltz has handled private equity buyouts totaling over $30\u0026nbsp;billion in the past several years.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Baltz is an adept business lawyer who is especially skilled at structuring private equity acquisitions and investments involving middle-market companies and executing leveraged buyouts on behalf of institutional buy-side clients.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Baltz also is a member of the Southeast chapter of the Business Executives for National Security (BENS), and a former member of the Boards of Directors of Big Brothers Big Sisters and Buckhead Baseball.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey Clients:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArcapita\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAssured Investment Management\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrookfield Asset Management\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEagle Merchant Partners\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLevel 5 Capital Partners\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNorthlane Capital Partners\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePower Sustainable Lios\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRed Dog Equity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoark Capital\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSlate Asset Management\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource Capital\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"raymond-baltz","email":"rbaltz@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 23, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Power Sustainable Lios on its acquisition of Crofters Food.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 12, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Slate Asset Management on its acquisition of Cold-Link Logistics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 10, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of MBA Mission USA.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 26, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of Reach Cambridge.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 24, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisitions of EnviroSmart Sumter Solidification and High Pressure Investments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 5, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Guidewell Education.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 2, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Red Dog Equity on its sale of Superio USA Waste to GFL Environmental.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 9, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Empower Community Care to NexPhase Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 1, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of C\u0026amp;K Paving Contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 1, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of The Difference Card to Stone Point Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFebruary 27, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Strategic Claim Consultants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJanuary 16, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Plus Delta Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 12, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Stellar Public Adjusting Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 11, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Sam the Concrete Man.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 5, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of KidKraft in a Chapter 11 process.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 1, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of BrandMuscle Holdings to Truelink Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 27, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of VMG Health to Incline Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFebruary 28, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AYA Medical Spa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 27, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Rotomaster to MidOcean Partners and Cloyes Gear \u0026amp; Products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 26, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Waste Harmonics to TPG and Keter Environmental Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 30, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Cardone Industries to First Brands Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 30, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita and Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services on their acquisition of Integrity Appraisal Management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 28, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northland Capital Partners and VMG Health on their acquisition of the assets of BSM Financial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 28, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Impact Home Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 31, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AmeriSpec and Furniture Medic from Roark Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 21, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Eskola Roofing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 12, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of assets from Driven Brands.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 1, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Atlantic Pipe Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 29, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Enviro-Master International Franchise.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 24, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products in its completion of a continuation fund involving Timber Bay Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 31, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 24, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Caliber Car Wash to Percheon Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 21, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Recreational Group to Sentinel Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 15, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Impact Auto.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 24, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Illinois.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 17, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAugust 19, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Utah.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 19, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of One Plus Systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 30, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Stratus Unlimited to Vestar Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 1, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of The Difference Card.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 30, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Red Dog Equity on its acquisition of PureMagic Carwash.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 29, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Empower Community Care.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJanuary 28, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of Yardistry Limited.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 24, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on is sale of Lone Star Overnight to WeDo Logistics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 11, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Code Ninjas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 17, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of VMG Health.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 30, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on the sale of Planet Fitness studio franchises to American Securities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 26, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Waste Harmonics, a leading provider of waste and recycling management solutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 19, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Infrastructure Group and Public Sector Pension Investment on their sale of Wind Energy Transmission Texas to Axiom Infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 27, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital on its sale of Corepower Yoga studio franchises to TSG Consumer Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 4, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Chicken Salad Chick to Brentwood Associates.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAugust 30, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Icon Investment Holdings, a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 8, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with the sale of AdaptHealth Holdings to DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. (NASDAQ: DFBH), a special purpose acquisition company sponsored by Deerfield Management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 19, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness studio franchises from affiliates of Michigan OT Partnership.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 11, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Principal Credit (\"BPC\") on a transaction which resulted in BPC acquiring 85% of the limited partnership interests of Cardone Industries, a leading aftermarket auto parts manufacturer of new and remanufactured auto parts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 15, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Science Care to Levine Leichtman Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFebruary 27, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with its investment in common equity and subordinated debt of AdaptHealth Holdings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJanuary 28, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Coastal Sign and Wayfinding, Inc., a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":42}]},"expertise":[{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":27,"guid":"27.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":26,"guid":"26.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1141,"guid":"1141.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1192,"guid":"1192.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":123,"guid":"123.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":124,"guid":"124.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1220,"guid":"1220.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baltz","nick_name":"Ray","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Raymond","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"Jr.","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRay represents private equity and hedge funds, and counsels corporations, in merger and acquisition transactions, financings and related matters.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Baltz is a senior partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Corporate, Finance and Investment Group and the former head of the Global Corporate Department.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Baltz has extensive experience representing private equity and hedge funds in a wide variety of matters. Mr. Baltz has handled private equity buyouts totaling over $30\u0026nbsp;billion in the past several years.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Baltz is an adept business lawyer who is especially skilled at structuring private equity acquisitions and investments involving middle-market companies and executing leveraged buyouts on behalf of institutional buy-side clients.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Baltz also is a member of the Southeast chapter of the Business Executives for National Security (BENS), and a former member of the Boards of Directors of Big Brothers Big Sisters and Buckhead Baseball.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKey Clients:\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eArcapita\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAssured Investment Management\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrookfield Asset Management\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEagle Merchant Partners\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLevel 5 Capital Partners\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNorthlane Capital Partners\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePower Sustainable Lios\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRed Dog Equity\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoark Capital\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSlate Asset Management\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSource Capital\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 23, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Power Sustainable Lios on its acquisition of Crofters Food.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 12, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Slate Asset Management on its acquisition of Cold-Link Logistics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 10, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of MBA Mission USA.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 26, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of Reach Cambridge.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 24, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisitions of EnviroSmart Sumter Solidification and High Pressure Investments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 5, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Guidewell Education.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 2, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Red Dog Equity on its sale of Superio USA Waste to GFL Environmental.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 9, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Empower Community Care to NexPhase Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 1, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of C\u0026amp;K Paving Contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 1, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of The Difference Card to Stone Point Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFebruary 27, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Strategic Claim Consultants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJanuary 16, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Plus Delta Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 12, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Stellar Public Adjusting Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 11, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Sam the Concrete Man.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 5, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of KidKraft in a Chapter 11 process.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 1, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of BrandMuscle Holdings to Truelink Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 27, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of VMG Health to Incline Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFebruary 28, 2024\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AYA Medical Spa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 27, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Rotomaster to MidOcean Partners and Cloyes Gear \u0026amp; Products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 26, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Waste Harmonics to TPG and Keter Environmental Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 30, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Cardone Industries to First Brands Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 30, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita and Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services on their acquisition of Integrity Appraisal Management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 28, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northland Capital Partners and VMG Health on their acquisition of the assets of BSM Financial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 28, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Impact Home Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 31, 2023\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AmeriSpec and Furniture Medic from Roark Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOctober 21, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Eskola Roofing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 12, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of assets from Driven Brands.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 1, 2025\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Atlantic Pipe Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 29, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Enviro-Master International Franchise.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 24, 2022\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products in its completion of a continuation fund involving Timber Bay Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 31, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 24, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Caliber Car Wash to Percheon Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 21, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Recreational Group to Sentinel Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 15, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Impact Auto.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 24, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Illinois.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSeptember 17, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAugust 19, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Utah.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 19, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of One Plus Systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 30, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Stratus Unlimited to Vestar Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 1, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of The Difference Card.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 30, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Red Dog Equity on its acquisition of PureMagic Carwash.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 29, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Empower Community Care.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJanuary 28, 2021\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of Yardistry Limited.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 24, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on is sale of Lone Star Overnight to WeDo Logistics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 11, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Code Ninjas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 17, 2020\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of VMG Health.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 30, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on the sale of Planet Fitness studio franchises to American Securities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 26, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Waste Harmonics, a leading provider of waste and recycling management solutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDecember 19, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Infrastructure Group and Public Sector Pension Investment on their sale of Wind Energy Transmission Texas to Axiom Infrastructure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 27, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital on its sale of Corepower Yoga studio franchises to TSG Consumer Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNovember 4, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Chicken Salad Chick to Brentwood Associates.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAugust 30, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Icon Investment Holdings, a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJuly 8, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with the sale of AdaptHealth Holdings to DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. (NASDAQ: DFBH), a special purpose acquisition company sponsored by Deerfield Management.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJune 19, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness studio franchises from affiliates of Michigan OT Partnership.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eApril 11, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Brookfield Principal Credit (\"BPC\") on a transaction which resulted in BPC acquiring 85% of the limited partnership interests of Cardone Industries, a leading aftermarket auto parts manufacturer of new and remanufactured auto parts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMarch 15, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Science Care to Levine Leichtman Capital Partners.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFebruary 27, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with its investment in common equity and subordinated debt of AdaptHealth Holdings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJanuary 28, 2019\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Coastal Sign and Wayfinding, Inc., a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11849}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2026-01-23T16:43:44.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-23T16:43:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Baltz{{ FIELD }}December 23, 2025\nAdvised Power Sustainable Lios on its acquisition of Crofters Food.{{ FIELD }}December 12, 2025\nAdvised Slate Asset Management on its acquisition of Cold-Link Logistics.{{ FIELD }}October 10, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of MBA Mission USA.{{ FIELD }}September 26, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of Reach Cambridge.{{ FIELD }}September 24, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisitions of EnviroSmart Sumter Solidification and High Pressure Investments.{{ FIELD }}September 5, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Guidewell Education.{{ FIELD }}September 2, 2025\nAdvised Red Dog Equity on its sale of Superio USA Waste to GFL Environmental.{{ FIELD }}July 9, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Empower Community Care to NexPhase Capital.{{ FIELD }}July 1, 2025\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of C\u0026amp;K Paving Contractors.{{ FIELD }}July 1, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of The Difference Card to Stone Point Capital.{{ FIELD }}February 27, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Strategic Claim Consultants.{{ FIELD }}January 16, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Plus Delta Partners.{{ FIELD }}November 12, 2024\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Stellar Public Adjusting Services.{{ FIELD }}October 11, 2024\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Sam the Concrete Man.{{ FIELD }}July 5, 2024\nAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of KidKraft in a Chapter 11 process.{{ FIELD }}July 1, 2024\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of BrandMuscle Holdings to Truelink Capital Partners.{{ FIELD }}April 27, 2024\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of VMG Health to Incline Partners.{{ FIELD }}February 28, 2024\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AYA Medical Spa.{{ FIELD }}October 27, 2023\nAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Rotomaster to MidOcean Partners and Cloyes Gear \u0026amp; Products.{{ FIELD }}September 26, 2023\nAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Waste Harmonics to TPG and Keter Environmental Services.{{ FIELD }}June 30, 2023\nAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Cardone Industries to First Brands Group.{{ FIELD }}June 30, 2023\nAdvised Arcapita and Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services on their acquisition of Integrity Appraisal Management.{{ FIELD }}April 28, 2023\nAdvised Northland Capital Partners and VMG Health on their acquisition of the assets of BSM Financial.{{ FIELD }}April 28, 2023\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Impact Home Services.{{ FIELD }}March 31, 2023\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AmeriSpec and Furniture Medic from Roark Capital.{{ FIELD }}October 21, 2022\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Eskola Roofing.{{ FIELD }}September 12, 2022\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of assets from Driven Brands.{{ FIELD }}December 1, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Atlantic Pipe Services.{{ FIELD }}March 29, 2022\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Enviro-Master International Franchise.{{ FIELD }}March 24, 2022\nAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products in its completion of a continuation fund involving Timber Bay Partners.{{ FIELD }}December 31, 2021\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services.{{ FIELD }}December 24, 2021\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Caliber Car Wash to Percheon Capital.{{ FIELD }}December 21, 2021\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Recreational Group to Sentinel Capital Partners.{{ FIELD }}December 15, 2021\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Impact Auto.{{ FIELD }}September 24, 2021\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Illinois.{{ FIELD }}September 17, 2021\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Missouri.{{ FIELD }}August 19, 2021\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Utah.{{ FIELD }}July 19, 2021\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of One Plus Systems.{{ FIELD }}June 30, 2021\nAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Stratus Unlimited to Vestar Capital Partners.{{ FIELD }}June 1, 2021\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of The Difference Card.{{ FIELD }}April 30, 2021\nAdvised Red Dog Equity on its acquisition of PureMagic Carwash.{{ FIELD }}March 29, 2021\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Empower Community Care.{{ FIELD }}January 28, 2021\nAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of Yardistry Limited.{{ FIELD }}November 24, 2020\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on is sale of Lone Star Overnight to WeDo Logistics.{{ FIELD }}June 11, 2020\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Code Ninjas.{{ FIELD }}March 17, 2020\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of VMG Health.{{ FIELD }}December 30, 2019\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on the sale of Planet Fitness studio franchises to American Securities.{{ FIELD }}December 26, 2019\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Waste Harmonics, a leading provider of waste and recycling management solutions.{{ FIELD }}December 19, 2019\nAdvised Brookfield Infrastructure Group and Public Sector Pension Investment on their sale of Wind Energy Transmission Texas to Axiom Infrastructure.{{ FIELD }}November 27, 2019\nAdvised Level 5 Capital on its sale of Corepower Yoga studio franchises to TSG Consumer Partners.{{ FIELD }}November 4, 2019\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Chicken Salad Chick to Brentwood Associates.{{ FIELD }}August 30, 2019\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Icon Investment Holdings, a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage.{{ FIELD }}July 8, 2019\nAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with the sale of AdaptHealth Holdings to DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. (NASDAQ: DFBH), a special purpose acquisition company sponsored by Deerfield Management.{{ FIELD }}June 19, 2019\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness studio franchises from affiliates of Michigan OT Partnership.{{ FIELD }}April 11, 2019\nAdvised Brookfield Principal Credit (\"BPC\") on a transaction which resulted in BPC acquiring 85% of the limited partnership interests of Cardone Industries, a leading aftermarket auto parts manufacturer of new and remanufactured auto parts.{{ FIELD }}March 15, 2019\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Science Care to Levine Leichtman Capital Partners.{{ FIELD }}February 27, 2019\nAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with its investment in common equity and subordinated debt of AdaptHealth Holdings.{{ FIELD }}January 28, 2019\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Coastal Sign and Wayfinding, Inc., a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage.{{ FIELD }}Ray represents private equity and hedge funds, and counsels corporations, in merger and acquisition transactions, financings and related matters. \nMr. Baltz is a senior partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Corporate, Finance and Investment Group and the former head of the Global Corporate Department.  Mr. Baltz has extensive experience representing private equity and hedge funds in a wide variety of matters. Mr. Baltz has handled private equity buyouts totaling over $30 billion in the past several years.  Mr. Baltz is an adept business lawyer who is especially skilled at structuring private equity acquisitions and investments involving middle-market companies and executing leveraged buyouts on behalf of institutional buy-side clients.  Mr. Baltz also is a member of the Southeast chapter of the Business Executives for National Security (BENS), and a former member of the Boards of Directors of Big Brothers Big Sisters and Buckhead Baseball.  \nKey Clients:\nArcapita\nAssured Investment Management\nBrookfield Asset Management\nEagle Merchant Partners\nLevel 5 Capital Partners\nNorthlane Capital Partners\nPower Sustainable Lios\nRed Dog Equity\nRoark Capital\nSlate Asset Management\nSource Capital\n  Raymond E Baltz Partner Eastern Nazarene College  Boston University Boston University School of Law Boston College Boston College Law School Georgia State Bar of Georgia December 23, 2025\nAdvised Power Sustainable Lios on its acquisition of Crofters Food. December 12, 2025\nAdvised Slate Asset Management on its acquisition of Cold-Link Logistics. October 10, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of MBA Mission USA. September 26, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners and Guidewell Education on their acquisition of Reach Cambridge. September 24, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisitions of EnviroSmart Sumter Solidification and High Pressure Investments. September 5, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Guidewell Education. September 2, 2025\nAdvised Red Dog Equity on its sale of Superio USA Waste to GFL Environmental. July 9, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Empower Community Care to NexPhase Capital. July 1, 2025\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of C\u0026amp;K Paving Contractors. July 1, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of The Difference Card to Stone Point Capital. February 27, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Strategic Claim Consultants. January 16, 2025\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Plus Delta Partners. November 12, 2024\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Stellar Public Adjusting Services. October 11, 2024\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Sam the Concrete Man. July 5, 2024\nAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of KidKraft in a Chapter 11 process. July 1, 2024\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of BrandMuscle Holdings to Truelink Capital Partners. April 27, 2024\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of VMG Health to Incline Partners. February 28, 2024\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AYA Medical Spa. October 27, 2023\nAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Rotomaster to MidOcean Partners and Cloyes Gear \u0026amp; Products. September 26, 2023\nAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Waste Harmonics to TPG and Keter Environmental Services. June 30, 2023\nAdvised Brookfield Capital Partners on its sale of Cardone Industries to First Brands Group. June 30, 2023\nAdvised Arcapita and Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services on their acquisition of Integrity Appraisal Management. April 28, 2023\nAdvised Northland Capital Partners and VMG Health on their acquisition of the assets of BSM Financial. April 28, 2023\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Impact Home Services. March 31, 2023\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of AmeriSpec and Furniture Medic from Roark Capital. October 21, 2022\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Eskola Roofing. September 12, 2022\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of assets from Driven Brands. December 1, 2025\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Atlantic Pipe Services. March 29, 2022\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its acquisition of Enviro-Master International Franchise. March 24, 2022\nAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products in its completion of a continuation fund involving Timber Bay Partners. December 31, 2021\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Nationwide Property \u0026amp; Appraisal Services. December 24, 2021\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Caliber Car Wash to Percheon Capital. December 21, 2021\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Recreational Group to Sentinel Capital Partners. December 15, 2021\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Impact Auto. September 24, 2021\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Illinois. September 17, 2021\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Missouri. August 19, 2021\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness franchises in Utah. July 19, 2021\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of One Plus Systems. June 30, 2021\nAdvised Arcapita on its sale of Stratus Unlimited to Vestar Capital Partners. June 1, 2021\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of The Difference Card. April 30, 2021\nAdvised Red Dog Equity on its acquisition of PureMagic Carwash. March 29, 2021\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of Empower Community Care. January 28, 2021\nAdvised Source Capital and Backyard Products on their acquisition of Yardistry Limited. November 24, 2020\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on is sale of Lone Star Overnight to WeDo Logistics. June 11, 2020\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its investment in Code Ninjas. March 17, 2020\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its acquisition of VMG Health. December 30, 2019\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on the sale of Planet Fitness studio franchises to American Securities. December 26, 2019\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Waste Harmonics, a leading provider of waste and recycling management solutions. December 19, 2019\nAdvised Brookfield Infrastructure Group and Public Sector Pension Investment on their sale of Wind Energy Transmission Texas to Axiom Infrastructure. November 27, 2019\nAdvised Level 5 Capital on its sale of Corepower Yoga studio franchises to TSG Consumer Partners. November 4, 2019\nAdvised Eagle Merchant Partners on its sale of Chicken Salad Chick to Brentwood Associates. August 30, 2019\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Icon Investment Holdings, a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage. July 8, 2019\nAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with the sale of AdaptHealth Holdings to DFB Healthcare Acquisitions Corp. (NASDAQ: DFBH), a special purpose acquisition company sponsored by Deerfield Management. June 19, 2019\nAdvised Level 5 Capital Partners on its acquisition of Orangetheory Fitness studio franchises from affiliates of Michigan OT Partnership. April 11, 2019\nAdvised Brookfield Principal Credit (\"BPC\") on a transaction which resulted in BPC acquiring 85% of the limited partnership interests of Cardone Industries, a leading aftermarket auto parts manufacturer of new and remanufactured auto parts. March 15, 2019\nAdvised Northlane Capital Partners on its sale of Science Care to Levine Leichtman Capital Partners. February 27, 2019\nAdvised BlueMountain Capital Management in connection with its investment in common equity and subordinated debt of AdaptHealth Holdings. January 28, 2019\nAdvised Arcapita on its acquisition of Coastal Sign and Wayfinding, Inc., a manufacturer, servicer and installer of commercial signage.","searchable_name":"Raymond E. Baltz, Jr. (Ray)","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":443887,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6347,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKeri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri is ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;and was recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of four MVP\u0026rsquo;s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"keri-borders","email":"kborders@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e--- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Borders","nick_name":"Keri","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Judge Robert J. Timlin, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"1998 - 1998"}],"first_name":"Keri","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"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":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026 Beverages: Regulatory \u0026 Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023"},{"title":"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)","detail":"2020"},{"title":"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Attorneys","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021"},{"title":"Named Women of Influence","detail":"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021"},{"title":"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner","detail":"Diversity Law Journal"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/keri-borders-36814112/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKeri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri is ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;and was recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of four MVP\u0026rsquo;s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e--- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026 Beverages: Regulatory \u0026 Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023"},{"title":"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)","detail":"2020"},{"title":"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Attorneys","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021"},{"title":"Named Women of Influence","detail":"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021"},{"title":"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner","detail":"Diversity Law Journal"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9734}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:07.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:07.000Z","searchable_text":"Borders{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Next Generation Partner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026amp; Beverages: Regulatory \u0026amp; Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Women of Influence\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Diversity Law Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products.{{ FIELD }}Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.{{ FIELD }}Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.{{ FIELD }}Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.{{ FIELD }}Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., --- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.{{ FIELD }}Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.{{ FIELD }}Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.{{ FIELD }}Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.{{ FIELD }}Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’”{{ FIELD }}Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.{{ FIELD }}Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.{{ FIELD }}Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.{{ FIELD }}In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue.{{ FIELD }}Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products.{{ FIELD }}Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.{{ FIELD }}Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements.{{ FIELD }}Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products.{{ FIELD }}Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.{{ FIELD }}Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.{{ FIELD }}Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.{{ FIELD }}Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy.{{ FIELD }}Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.{{ FIELD }}Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).{{ FIELD }}Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.{{ FIELD }}Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.”{{ FIELD }}In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.{{ FIELD }}Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).{{ FIELD }}Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.{{ FIELD }}Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.{{ FIELD }}Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”{{ FIELD }}Keri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.\nKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\nKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\nKeri is ranked in Chambers USA, Legal 500, and was recognized by Law360 as one of four MVP’s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020. Partner Next Generation Partner Legal 500, 2023 Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026amp; Beverages: Regulatory \u0026amp; Litigation Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023 Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability) 2020 Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021 Named Women of Influence Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021 2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner Diversity Law Journal University of California  University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri 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 Member, American Bar Association Board of Governors, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Los Angeles Chapter Member, Food and Drug Law Institute Member, Consumer Brands Association Law Clerk, Judge Robert J. Timlin, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products. Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement. Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted. Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil. Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., --- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022). Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims. Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022). Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product. Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product. Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses. Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’” Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed. Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case. Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client. In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue. Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products. Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements. Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements. Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products. Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted. Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products. Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice. Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy. Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013). Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception. Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.). Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four. Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.” In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013). Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement. Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay). Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend. Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”","searchable_name":"Keri Borders","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":442988,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2849,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJohn Carroll is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Antitrust \u0026amp; Competition Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office. For over two decades, John\u0026rsquo;s practice has focused on civil and criminal antitrust matters, including mergers \u0026amp; acquisitions, strategic counseling and compliance, and global cartel investigations. He represents clients before the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, and international and state antitrust enforcement authorities. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to private practice, John was in the Mergers I Division of the Federal Trade Commission\u0026rsquo;s Bureau of Competition for several years. While with the FTC, he investigated, challenged, and negotiated settlements in a number of potentially anti-competitive business combinations in the aerospace, technology, consumer products, defense, healthcare, and pharmaceutical industries. He received an Award for Meritorious Service for work on merger litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn has been recognized by leading publications such as \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e and has held leadership positions in the American Bar Association and American Health Lawyer Association. He frequently speaks and writes on antitrust issues across industries.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"john-carroll","email":"jdcarroll@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHealthcare \u0026amp; Life Sciences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eServed as lead antitrust counsel for health systems on dozens of transactions that cleared federal and state antitrust reviews.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed antitrust efforts for VillageMD in achieving antitrust clearance for its\u0026nbsp;$8.9 billion acquisition of Summit Health.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented clinically and financially integrated provider networks in nonpublic government investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising private equity firms, health systems, and physician groups on a variety of antitrust issues, including potential transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising pharmaceutical and medical device companies on all aspects of competitor collaborations, including mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsumer Products \u0026amp; Entertainment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents clients in the food \u0026amp; beverage, luxury, technology, retail, and fashion industries on antitrust issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvises entertainment and media companies on antitrust aspects of transactions and commercial activities, such as pricing and distribution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Energizer Holdings, Inc. on antitrust aspects of it $2 billion acquisition of Spectrum Brands.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Carmike Cinemas in the Department of Justice investigation of their sale to AMC theatres, creating the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest movie theatre chain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a Fortune 500 public company in the energy industry on antitrust aspects of a joint venture with a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a number of energy companies on a range of antitrust issues related to infrastructure projects, teaming arrangements, and other collaborations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented leading gasoline retailer on achieving FTC clearance for its strategic transaction without enforcement action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDevised and implemented antitrust compliance strategies for coalitions of energy industry competitors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eManufacturing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading chemical and building products companies in transactions and defended them in government investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented WestRock Company on antitrust aspects of its $4.9 billion acquisition of KapStone Paper Packaging.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Cartel Investigations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended multinational companies in criminal investigations alleging antitrust conspiracies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an executive of international auto parts company in connection with a cartel investigation in that industry.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1147,"guid":"1147.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":687,"guid":"687.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":826,"guid":"826.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Carroll","nick_name":"John","clerkships":[],"first_name":"John","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Top Author","detail":"JD Supra Readers’ Choice Awards, 2025"},{"title":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Recommended Lawyers – Antitrust","detail":"Legal 500, 2022-2025"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer – Antitrust","detail":"Legal 500, 2020"},{"title":"Rising Star – Antitrust","detail":"Washington Super Lawyers, 2016"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-carroll-1384a022/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJohn Carroll is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Antitrust \u0026amp; Competition Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office. For over two decades, John\u0026rsquo;s practice has focused on civil and criminal antitrust matters, including mergers \u0026amp; acquisitions, strategic counseling and compliance, and global cartel investigations. He represents clients before the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, and international and state antitrust enforcement authorities. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to private practice, John was in the Mergers I Division of the Federal Trade Commission\u0026rsquo;s Bureau of Competition for several years. While with the FTC, he investigated, challenged, and negotiated settlements in a number of potentially anti-competitive business combinations in the aerospace, technology, consumer products, defense, healthcare, and pharmaceutical industries. He received an Award for Meritorious Service for work on merger litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn has been recognized by leading publications such as \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e and has held leadership positions in the American Bar Association and American Health Lawyer Association. He frequently speaks and writes on antitrust issues across industries.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHealthcare \u0026amp; Life Sciences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eServed as lead antitrust counsel for health systems on dozens of transactions that cleared federal and state antitrust reviews.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed antitrust efforts for VillageMD in achieving antitrust clearance for its\u0026nbsp;$8.9 billion acquisition of Summit Health.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented clinically and financially integrated provider networks in nonpublic government investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising private equity firms, health systems, and physician groups on a variety of antitrust issues, including potential transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising pharmaceutical and medical device companies on all aspects of competitor collaborations, including mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConsumer Products \u0026amp; Entertainment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents clients in the food \u0026amp; beverage, luxury, technology, retail, and fashion industries on antitrust issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvises entertainment and media companies on antitrust aspects of transactions and commercial activities, such as pricing and distribution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Energizer Holdings, Inc. on antitrust aspects of it $2 billion acquisition of Spectrum Brands.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Carmike Cinemas in the Department of Justice investigation of their sale to AMC theatres, creating the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest movie theatre chain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a Fortune 500 public company in the energy industry on antitrust aspects of a joint venture with a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a number of energy companies on a range of antitrust issues related to infrastructure projects, teaming arrangements, and other collaborations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented leading gasoline retailer on achieving FTC clearance for its strategic transaction without enforcement action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDevised and implemented antitrust compliance strategies for coalitions of energy industry competitors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eManufacturing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading chemical and building products companies in transactions and defended them in government investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented WestRock Company on antitrust aspects of its $4.9 billion acquisition of KapStone Paper Packaging.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Cartel Investigations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended multinational companies in criminal investigations alleging antitrust conspiracies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an executive of international auto parts company in connection with a cartel investigation in that industry.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Top Author","detail":"JD Supra Readers’ Choice Awards, 2025"},{"title":"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Recommended Lawyers – Antitrust","detail":"Legal 500, 2022-2025"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer – Antitrust","detail":"Legal 500, 2020"},{"title":"Rising Star – Antitrust","detail":"Washington Super Lawyers, 2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13154}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-17T21:52:05.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-17T21:52:05.000Z","searchable_text":"Carroll{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Author\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JD Supra Readers’ Choice Awards, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2023-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended Lawyers – Antitrust\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2022-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyer – Antitrust\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star – Antitrust\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washington Super Lawyers, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}Healthcare \u0026amp; Life Sciences\nServed as lead antitrust counsel for health systems on dozens of transactions that cleared federal and state antitrust reviews.{{ FIELD }}Led antitrust efforts for VillageMD in achieving antitrust clearance for its $8.9 billion acquisition of Summit Health.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented clinically and financially integrated provider networks in nonpublic government investigations.{{ FIELD }}Advising private equity firms, health systems, and physician groups on a variety of antitrust issues, including potential transactions.{{ FIELD }}Advising pharmaceutical and medical device companies on all aspects of competitor collaborations, including mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures.{{ FIELD }}Consumer Products \u0026amp; Entertainment\nRepresents clients in the food \u0026amp; beverage, luxury, technology, retail, and fashion industries on antitrust issues.{{ FIELD }}Advises entertainment and media companies on antitrust aspects of transactions and commercial activities, such as pricing and distribution.{{ FIELD }}Represented Energizer Holdings, Inc. on antitrust aspects of it $2 billion acquisition of Spectrum Brands.{{ FIELD }}Represented Carmike Cinemas in the Department of Justice investigation of their sale to AMC theatres, creating the nation’s largest movie theatre chain.{{ FIELD }}Energy\nRepresenting a Fortune 500 public company in the energy industry on antitrust aspects of a joint venture with a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Advising a number of energy companies on a range of antitrust issues related to infrastructure projects, teaming arrangements, and other collaborations.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented leading gasoline retailer on achieving FTC clearance for its strategic transaction without enforcement action.{{ FIELD }}Devised and implemented antitrust compliance strategies for coalitions of energy industry competitors.{{ FIELD }}Manufacturing\nRepresented leading chemical and building products companies in transactions and defended them in government investigations.{{ FIELD }}Represented WestRock Company on antitrust aspects of its $4.9 billion acquisition of KapStone Paper Packaging.{{ FIELD }}Global Cartel Investigations\nDefended multinational companies in criminal investigations alleging antitrust conspiracies.{{ FIELD }}Represented an executive of international auto parts company in connection with a cartel investigation in that industry.{{ FIELD }}John Carroll is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Antitrust \u0026amp; Competition Practice Group in the Washington, D.C. office. For over two decades, John’s practice has focused on civil and criminal antitrust matters, including mergers \u0026amp; acquisitions, strategic counseling and compliance, and global cartel investigations. He represents clients before the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, and international and state antitrust enforcement authorities. \nPrior to private practice, John was in the Mergers I Division of the Federal Trade Commission’s Bureau of Competition for several years. While with the FTC, he investigated, challenged, and negotiated settlements in a number of potentially anti-competitive business combinations in the aerospace, technology, consumer products, defense, healthcare, and pharmaceutical industries. He received an Award for Meritorious Service for work on merger litigation.\nJohn has been recognized by leading publications such as Legal 500 and Best Lawyers and has held leadership positions in the American Bar Association and American Health Lawyer Association. He frequently speaks and writes on antitrust issues across industries. Partner Top Author JD Supra Readers’ Choice Awards, 2025 Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch Best Lawyers, 2023-2024 Recommended Lawyers – Antitrust Legal 500, 2022-2025 Leading Lawyer – Antitrust Legal 500, 2020 Rising Star – Antitrust Washington Super Lawyers, 2016 University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School George Washington University George Washington University Law School Supreme Court of the United States District of Columbia Maryland ABA Antitrust Section, Vice-Chair of the Media \u0026amp; Technologies Committee (2021-2022, 2022-2023) Healthcare \u0026amp; Life Sciences\nServed as lead antitrust counsel for health systems on dozens of transactions that cleared federal and state antitrust reviews. Led antitrust efforts for VillageMD in achieving antitrust clearance for its $8.9 billion acquisition of Summit Health. Successfully represented clinically and financially integrated provider networks in nonpublic government investigations. Advising private equity firms, health systems, and physician groups on a variety of antitrust issues, including potential transactions. Advising pharmaceutical and medical device companies on all aspects of competitor collaborations, including mergers, acquisitions, and joint ventures. Consumer Products \u0026amp; Entertainment\nRepresents clients in the food \u0026amp; beverage, luxury, technology, retail, and fashion industries on antitrust issues. Advises entertainment and media companies on antitrust aspects of transactions and commercial activities, such as pricing and distribution. Represented Energizer Holdings, Inc. on antitrust aspects of it $2 billion acquisition of Spectrum Brands. Represented Carmike Cinemas in the Department of Justice investigation of their sale to AMC theatres, creating the nation’s largest movie theatre chain. Energy\nRepresenting a Fortune 500 public company in the energy industry on antitrust aspects of a joint venture with a competitor. Advising a number of energy companies on a range of antitrust issues related to infrastructure projects, teaming arrangements, and other collaborations. Successfully represented leading gasoline retailer on achieving FTC clearance for its strategic transaction without enforcement action. Devised and implemented antitrust compliance strategies for coalitions of energy industry competitors. Manufacturing\nRepresented leading chemical and building products companies in transactions and defended them in government investigations. Represented WestRock Company on antitrust aspects of its $4.9 billion acquisition of KapStone Paper Packaging. Global Cartel Investigations\nDefended multinational companies in criminal investigations alleging antitrust conspiracies. Represented an executive of international auto parts company in connection with a cartel investigation in that industry.","searchable_name":"John Carroll","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444013,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7224,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWith 15 years of experience, Amadou\u0026rsquo;s practice focusses on patent and trade secret litigation matters for innovative technology companies. Amadou\u0026rsquo;s clients span numerous industries in the technology sector including data analytics, AI, cloud computing, cryptocurrency, search engine, web accessibility, wireless networking, finance, consumer products, and apparel. Amadou\u0026rsquo;s clients span the full spectrum of the corporate lifecycle from Fortune 100 companies to C-suite executives to individual founders and startups. Amadou is acutely aware of the unique needs of clients at different stages of their corporate trajectory and tailors his approach to each matter with this in mind.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmadou\u0026rsquo;s experience spans all stages of litigation, arbitration, and mediation through trial and other contested proceeding. He has extensive experience in numerous jurisdictions across the country including federal district courts, the International Trade Commission, the PTAB, and various arbitration tribunals. Amadou leverages his deep experience across numerous jurisdictions to develop holistic approaches for clients involved in complex multi-faceted litigations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor startup and earlier stage clients, Amadou serves as a strategic advisor on key intellectual property issues like freedom to operate, brand protection, patent portfolio development, trade secret protection, and licensing matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmadou also counsels clients on a range of strategic IP dispute issues related to risk avoidance, mergers and acquisitions and other transactional matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmadou routinely presents continuing legal education programs to clients on a broad array of issues related to IP, equity and inclusion in the legal profession and welcomes the opportunity to interface with clients through this programming. He is committed to civic engagement and has over a decade of experience serving on non-profit boards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn recognition of his dedication to client service, the National Law Journal recognized Amadou as a Rising Star in 2024. In 2024, Amadou was also recognized by the Legal 500 US as recommended Lawyer for his work in Patent Litigation: Full Coverage. Super Lawyers has recognized Amadou as a Rising Star and Top-Rated Intellectual Property Litigator each year since 2017.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"amadou-diaw","email":"adiaw@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePRCM Advisers LLC, et al. v. Two Harbors Investment Corp., \u003c/em\u003eCase No. 20-cv-5649 (S.D.N.Y.) Representing Two Harbors Investment Corporation in a multi-faceted dispute involving claims for trade secret misappropriation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAudioEye, Inc. v. accessiBe Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. 6:20-cv-997 (W.D. Tex.) Represented accessiBe in patent infringement litigation related to web accessibility technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Computing Devices Utilizing Indexed Search Systems and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, case number 337-TA-1389 represented the complainant X1 Discovery in a patent infringement litigation related to the use of certain index-based search technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope Holding Company, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., Case No. 2:21-cv-310 (E.D. Tex.) Represented CommScope in patent infringement litigation related to certain signal impulse noise control and modulation technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeb 2.0 Technologies LLC v. Zendesk Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. 1:23-cv-00105 (D. Del.) Represented Zendesk in a patent infringement litigation related to cybersecurity techniques used in connection with online document collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeb 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. 37signals LLC., d/b/a Basecamp\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. 1:23-cv-230 (N.D. Ill.) Represented Basecamp in a patent infringement litigation related to cybersecurity techniques used in connection with online document collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEasyweb Innovations LLC v. Bitpay Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. 1:24-cv-8582 (S.D.N.Y.) Represented BitPay in patent infringement litigation related to two-factor authentication technology.\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":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Diaw","nick_name":"Amadou","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Amadou","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2410,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2009-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"Kilkenny","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Rising Star in DC","detail":"National Law Journal, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized Amadou as a recommended Lawyer for his work in Patent Litigation: Full Coverage ","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2024"},{"title":"Rising Star and Top-Rated Intellectual Property Attorney in DC","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017-Present"},{"title":"Outstanding Achievement Award","detail":"Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/akd44/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWith 15 years of experience, Amadou\u0026rsquo;s practice focusses on patent and trade secret litigation matters for innovative technology companies. Amadou\u0026rsquo;s clients span numerous industries in the technology sector including data analytics, AI, cloud computing, cryptocurrency, search engine, web accessibility, wireless networking, finance, consumer products, and apparel. Amadou\u0026rsquo;s clients span the full spectrum of the corporate lifecycle from Fortune 100 companies to C-suite executives to individual founders and startups. Amadou is acutely aware of the unique needs of clients at different stages of their corporate trajectory and tailors his approach to each matter with this in mind.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmadou\u0026rsquo;s experience spans all stages of litigation, arbitration, and mediation through trial and other contested proceeding. He has extensive experience in numerous jurisdictions across the country including federal district courts, the International Trade Commission, the PTAB, and various arbitration tribunals. Amadou leverages his deep experience across numerous jurisdictions to develop holistic approaches for clients involved in complex multi-faceted litigations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor startup and earlier stage clients, Amadou serves as a strategic advisor on key intellectual property issues like freedom to operate, brand protection, patent portfolio development, trade secret protection, and licensing matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmadou also counsels clients on a range of strategic IP dispute issues related to risk avoidance, mergers and acquisitions and other transactional matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmadou routinely presents continuing legal education programs to clients on a broad array of issues related to IP, equity and inclusion in the legal profession and welcomes the opportunity to interface with clients through this programming. He is committed to civic engagement and has over a decade of experience serving on non-profit boards.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn recognition of his dedication to client service, the National Law Journal recognized Amadou as a Rising Star in 2024. In 2024, Amadou was also recognized by the Legal 500 US as recommended Lawyer for his work in Patent Litigation: Full Coverage. Super Lawyers has recognized Amadou as a Rising Star and Top-Rated Intellectual Property Litigator each year since 2017.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePRCM Advisers LLC, et al. v. Two Harbors Investment Corp., \u003c/em\u003eCase No. 20-cv-5649 (S.D.N.Y.) Representing Two Harbors Investment Corporation in a multi-faceted dispute involving claims for trade secret misappropriation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAudioEye, Inc. v. accessiBe Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. 6:20-cv-997 (W.D. Tex.) Represented accessiBe in patent infringement litigation related to web accessibility technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Computing Devices Utilizing Indexed Search Systems and Components Thereof\u003c/em\u003e, case number 337-TA-1389 represented the complainant X1 Discovery in a patent infringement litigation related to the use of certain index-based search technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope Holding Company, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., Case No. 2:21-cv-310 (E.D. Tex.) Represented CommScope in patent infringement litigation related to certain signal impulse noise control and modulation technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeb 2.0 Technologies LLC v. Zendesk Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. 1:23-cv-00105 (D. Del.) Represented Zendesk in a patent infringement litigation related to cybersecurity techniques used in connection with online document collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeb 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. 37signals LLC., d/b/a Basecamp\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. 1:23-cv-230 (N.D. Ill.) Represented Basecamp in a patent infringement litigation related to cybersecurity techniques used in connection with online document collaboration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEasyweb Innovations LLC v. Bitpay Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, Case No. 1:24-cv-8582 (S.D.N.Y.) Represented BitPay in patent infringement litigation related to two-factor authentication technology.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Rising Star in DC","detail":"National Law Journal, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized Amadou as a recommended Lawyer for his work in Patent Litigation: Full Coverage ","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2024"},{"title":"Rising Star and Top-Rated Intellectual Property Attorney in DC","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017-Present"},{"title":"Outstanding Achievement Award","detail":"Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12964}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:42.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:42.000Z","searchable_text":"Diaw{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star in DC\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized Amadou as a recommended Lawyer for his work in Patent Litigation: Full Coverage \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star and Top-Rated Intellectual Property Attorney in DC\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2017-Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Outstanding Achievement Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs\"}{{ FIELD }}PRCM Advisers LLC, et al. v. Two Harbors Investment Corp., Case No. 20-cv-5649 (S.D.N.Y.) Representing Two Harbors Investment Corporation in a multi-faceted dispute involving claims for trade secret misappropriation.{{ FIELD }}AudioEye, Inc. v. accessiBe Ltd., Case No. 6:20-cv-997 (W.D. Tex.) Represented accessiBe in patent infringement litigation related to web accessibility technology.{{ FIELD }}In the Matter of Certain Computing Devices Utilizing Indexed Search Systems and Components Thereof, case number 337-TA-1389 represented the complainant X1 Discovery in a patent infringement litigation related to the use of certain index-based search technology.{{ FIELD }}TQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope Holding Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-310 (E.D. Tex.) Represented CommScope in patent infringement litigation related to certain signal impulse noise control and modulation technology.{{ FIELD }}Web 2.0 Technologies LLC v. Zendesk Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00105 (D. Del.) Represented Zendesk in a patent infringement litigation related to cybersecurity techniques used in connection with online document collaboration.{{ FIELD }}Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. 37signals LLC., d/b/a Basecamp, Case No. 1:23-cv-230 (N.D. Ill.) Represented Basecamp in a patent infringement litigation related to cybersecurity techniques used in connection with online document collaboration.{{ FIELD }}Easyweb Innovations LLC v. Bitpay Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-8582 (S.D.N.Y.) Represented BitPay in patent infringement litigation related to two-factor authentication technology.{{ FIELD }}With 15 years of experience, Amadou’s practice focusses on patent and trade secret litigation matters for innovative technology companies. Amadou’s clients span numerous industries in the technology sector including data analytics, AI, cloud computing, cryptocurrency, search engine, web accessibility, wireless networking, finance, consumer products, and apparel. Amadou’s clients span the full spectrum of the corporate lifecycle from Fortune 100 companies to C-suite executives to individual founders and startups. Amadou is acutely aware of the unique needs of clients at different stages of their corporate trajectory and tailors his approach to each matter with this in mind. \nAmadou’s experience spans all stages of litigation, arbitration, and mediation through trial and other contested proceeding. He has extensive experience in numerous jurisdictions across the country including federal district courts, the International Trade Commission, the PTAB, and various arbitration tribunals. Amadou leverages his deep experience across numerous jurisdictions to develop holistic approaches for clients involved in complex multi-faceted litigations.\nFor startup and earlier stage clients, Amadou serves as a strategic advisor on key intellectual property issues like freedom to operate, brand protection, patent portfolio development, trade secret protection, and licensing matters.\nAmadou also counsels clients on a range of strategic IP dispute issues related to risk avoidance, mergers and acquisitions and other transactional matters.\nAmadou routinely presents continuing legal education programs to clients on a broad array of issues related to IP, equity and inclusion in the legal profession and welcomes the opportunity to interface with clients through this programming. He is committed to civic engagement and has over a decade of experience serving on non-profit boards.\nIn recognition of his dedication to client service, the National Law Journal recognized Amadou as a Rising Star in 2024. In 2024, Amadou was also recognized by the Legal 500 US as recommended Lawyer for his work in Patent Litigation: Full Coverage. Super Lawyers has recognized Amadou as a Rising Star and Top-Rated Intellectual Property Litigator each year since 2017. Partner Rising Star in DC National Law Journal, 2024 Recognized Amadou as a recommended Lawyer for his work in Patent Litigation: Full Coverage  Legal 500 US, 2024 Rising Star and Top-Rated Intellectual Property Attorney in DC Super Lawyers, 2017-Present Outstanding Achievement Award Washington Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs Georgetown University  University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law Maryland State Bar Association National Bar Association Washington D.C. Bar Association Intellectual Property Owners Association Board of Strength in Numbers DC, Board Member Georgetown University’s Hoya Hoop Club, Secretary of the Board of Directors Hoyas Unlimited, At-Large Board Member University of Virginia School of Law Foundation, Class Agent PRCM Advisers LLC, et al. v. Two Harbors Investment Corp., Case No. 20-cv-5649 (S.D.N.Y.) Representing Two Harbors Investment Corporation in a multi-faceted dispute involving claims for trade secret misappropriation. AudioEye, Inc. v. accessiBe Ltd., Case No. 6:20-cv-997 (W.D. Tex.) Represented accessiBe in patent infringement litigation related to web accessibility technology. In the Matter of Certain Computing Devices Utilizing Indexed Search Systems and Components Thereof, case number 337-TA-1389 represented the complainant X1 Discovery in a patent infringement litigation related to the use of certain index-based search technology. TQ Delta, LLC v. CommScope Holding Company, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-310 (E.D. Tex.) Represented CommScope in patent infringement litigation related to certain signal impulse noise control and modulation technology. Web 2.0 Technologies LLC v. Zendesk Inc., Case No. 1:23-cv-00105 (D. Del.) Represented Zendesk in a patent infringement litigation related to cybersecurity techniques used in connection with online document collaboration. Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC v. 37signals LLC., d/b/a Basecamp, Case No. 1:23-cv-230 (N.D. Ill.) Represented Basecamp in a patent infringement litigation related to cybersecurity techniques used in connection with online document collaboration. Easyweb Innovations LLC v. Bitpay Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-8582 (S.D.N.Y.) Represented BitPay in patent infringement litigation related to two-factor authentication technology.","searchable_name":"Amadou Kilkenny Diaw","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":442835,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5899,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMr. Downing is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Corporate, Finance and Investments practice, advising employers on a broad range of executive compensation and employee benefit matters. Mr. Downing advises employers on how to design, implement and maintain their executive compensation and employee benefit programs on a global basis.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Downing\u0026rsquo;s expertise includes executive compensation programs, retirement programs, health and welfare programs, fringe benefit programs and their related governance considerations. Mr. Downing has experience counseling clients on public and private company executive compensation matters, including the governance, securities, employment and tax law considerations involved in offering omnibus, multi-jurisdictional equity compensation programs.\u0026nbsp; [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Downing advises employers on the executive compensation and employee benefits considerations in mergers and acquisitions and public listings, as well as post-transaction integration and implementation of executive compensation and employee benefit programs.\u0026nbsp; Because Mr. Downing has expertise covering the full scope of executive compensation and employee benefit programs on a global basis, he serves as a single point of contact for such matters, delivering efficiency and value to multi-national employers.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jake-downing","email":"jdowning@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eMr. Downing advised a multi-national employer on the design, implementation and management of a global equity program, including 27 country specific addenda, securities registrations and disclosures and tax implications.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMr. Downing advised an employer on resolving regulatory disputes for a multi-jurisdictional pension scheme.\u0026nbsp; The advice covered multiple, country specific regulators and included coordinating the interests of the employer with the interests of the scheme\u0026rsquo;s trustees.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":28,"guid":"28.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":27,"guid":"27.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":37,"guid":"37.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Downing","nick_name":"Jake","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jake","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":1135,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna Cum Laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2006-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Partner, Employee benefits, executive compensation and retirement plans: design","detail":"Legal 500, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMr. Downing is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Corporate, Finance and Investments practice, advising employers on a broad range of executive compensation and employee benefit matters. Mr. Downing advises employers on how to design, implement and maintain their executive compensation and employee benefit programs on a global basis.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Downing\u0026rsquo;s expertise includes executive compensation programs, retirement programs, health and welfare programs, fringe benefit programs and their related governance considerations. Mr. Downing has experience counseling clients on public and private company executive compensation matters, including the governance, securities, employment and tax law considerations involved in offering omnibus, multi-jurisdictional equity compensation programs.\u0026nbsp; [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Downing advises employers on the executive compensation and employee benefits considerations in mergers and acquisitions and public listings, as well as post-transaction integration and implementation of executive compensation and employee benefit programs.\u0026nbsp; Because Mr. Downing has expertise covering the full scope of executive compensation and employee benefit programs on a global basis, he serves as a single point of contact for such matters, delivering efficiency and value to multi-national employers.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eMr. Downing advised a multi-national employer on the design, implementation and management of a global equity program, including 27 country specific addenda, securities registrations and disclosures and tax implications.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMr. Downing advised an employer on resolving regulatory disputes for a multi-jurisdictional pension scheme.\u0026nbsp; The advice covered multiple, country specific regulators and included coordinating the interests of the employer with the interests of the scheme\u0026rsquo;s trustees.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Partner, Employee benefits, executive compensation and retirement plans: design","detail":"Legal 500, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8488}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:24.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:58:24.000Z","searchable_text":"Downing{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Next Generation Partner, Employee benefits, executive compensation and retirement plans: design\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Mr. Downing advised a multi-national employer on the design, implementation and management of a global equity program, including 27 country specific addenda, securities registrations and disclosures and tax implications.{{ FIELD }}Mr. Downing advised an employer on resolving regulatory disputes for a multi-jurisdictional pension scheme.  The advice covered multiple, country specific regulators and included coordinating the interests of the employer with the interests of the scheme’s trustees.{{ FIELD }}Mr. Downing is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Corporate, Finance and Investments practice, advising employers on a broad range of executive compensation and employee benefit matters. Mr. Downing advises employers on how to design, implement and maintain their executive compensation and employee benefit programs on a global basis.  Mr. Downing’s expertise includes executive compensation programs, retirement programs, health and welfare programs, fringe benefit programs and their related governance considerations. Mr. Downing has experience counseling clients on public and private company executive compensation matters, including the governance, securities, employment and tax law considerations involved in offering omnibus, multi-jurisdictional equity compensation programs.  \nMr. Downing advises employers on the executive compensation and employee benefits considerations in mergers and acquisitions and public listings, as well as post-transaction integration and implementation of executive compensation and employee benefit programs.  Because Mr. Downing has expertise covering the full scope of executive compensation and employee benefit programs on a global basis, he serves as a single point of contact for such matters, delivering efficiency and value to multi-national employers. Partner Next Generation Partner, Employee benefits, executive compensation and retirement plans: design Legal 500, 2020 University of Minnesota  Loyola University Chicago Loyola University Chicago School of Law Illinois American Bar Association Loyola University Chicago School of Law Alumni Association; University of Minnesota Alumni Association (Chicago Chapter) Mr. Downing advised a multi-national employer on the design, implementation and management of a global equity program, including 27 country specific addenda, securities registrations and disclosures and tax implications. Mr. Downing advised an employer on resolving regulatory disputes for a multi-jurisdictional pension scheme.  The advice covered multiple, country specific regulators and included coordinating the interests of the employer with the interests of the scheme’s trustees.","searchable_name":"Jake Downing","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":444242,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5858,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLuke is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Global Human Capital and Compliance practice. Luke specializes in international employment law and understands the unique challenges of managing a global workforce. Multinational corporations need solutions to workforce matters in each country in which they operate. Legal frameworks\u0026mdash;both the risks and opportunities\u0026mdash;are broad and varied. Luke works collaboratively with clients to navigate these frameworks and deliver successful outcomes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLuke supports organisations to manage their cross-border workforces globally and has a regional focus in the Asia-Pacific. He works daily with various Asia-Pacific countries, and understands the particular challenges faced by clients seeking to navigate cross-border matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLuke advises clients in relation to day-to-day matters faced by global employers, together with multijurisdictional projects such as compliance reviews, cross border mergers and acquisitions and outsourcings, privacy and data protection, investigations, restructures and reductions in force and employee integration issues. Clients regularly comment that Luke always ensures that their needs across the Asia-Pacific region, whether on a single jurisdiction or multijurisdiction basis, can be met quickly and effectively.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"luke-edwards","email":"laedwards@kslaw.com","phone":"+61 419 233 041","matters":["\u003cp\u003eActed for a multinational company in relation to their acquisition of a business across 11 countries in the Asia Pacific, together with all employment aspects of the post-acquisition integration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed for a multinational company in relation to its launch in various jurisdictions in the Asia Pacific, including the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised a US-based multinational in relation to a global restructure impacting employees in 10 countries.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted clients with various tribunal and labor authority claims across the region, including in Singapore, the Philippines, and Taiwan.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":28,"guid":"28.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Edwards","nick_name":"Luke","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Luke","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2782,"meta":{"degree":"QLTT","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2008-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":2,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers: Employee Benefits, Australia","detail":"2022 - 2024"},{"title":"Recommended Attorney, Australia - Labor and Employment","detail":"The Legal 500 (Legalese Ltd.) (2018-2019)"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/luke-edwards-97a37669/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLuke is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Global Human Capital and Compliance practice. Luke specializes in international employment law and understands the unique challenges of managing a global workforce. Multinational corporations need solutions to workforce matters in each country in which they operate. Legal frameworks\u0026mdash;both the risks and opportunities\u0026mdash;are broad and varied. Luke works collaboratively with clients to navigate these frameworks and deliver successful outcomes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLuke supports organisations to manage their cross-border workforces globally and has a regional focus in the Asia-Pacific. He works daily with various Asia-Pacific countries, and understands the particular challenges faced by clients seeking to navigate cross-border matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLuke advises clients in relation to day-to-day matters faced by global employers, together with multijurisdictional projects such as compliance reviews, cross border mergers and acquisitions and outsourcings, privacy and data protection, investigations, restructures and reductions in force and employee integration issues. Clients regularly comment that Luke always ensures that their needs across the Asia-Pacific region, whether on a single jurisdiction or multijurisdiction basis, can be met quickly and effectively.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eActed for a multinational company in relation to their acquisition of a business across 11 countries in the Asia Pacific, together with all employment aspects of the post-acquisition integration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed for a multinational company in relation to its launch in various jurisdictions in the Asia Pacific, including the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised a US-based multinational in relation to a global restructure impacting employees in 10 countries.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted clients with various tribunal and labor authority claims across the region, including in Singapore, the Philippines, and Taiwan.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers: Employee Benefits, Australia","detail":"2022 - 2024"},{"title":"Recommended Attorney, Australia - Labor and Employment","detail":"The Legal 500 (Legalese Ltd.) (2018-2019)"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8211}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2025-12-12T21:57:58.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-12T21:57:58.000Z","searchable_text":"Edwards{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers: Employee Benefits, Australia\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2022 - 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended Attorney, Australia - Labor and Employment\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 (Legalese Ltd.) (2018-2019)\"}{{ FIELD }}Acted for a multinational company in relation to their acquisition of a business across 11 countries in the Asia Pacific, together with all employment aspects of the post-acquisition integration.{{ FIELD }}Acted for a multinational company in relation to its launch in various jurisdictions in the Asia Pacific, including the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam.{{ FIELD }}Advised a US-based multinational in relation to a global restructure impacting employees in 10 countries.{{ FIELD }}Assisted clients with various tribunal and labor authority claims across the region, including in Singapore, the Philippines, and Taiwan.{{ FIELD }}Luke is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Global Human Capital and Compliance practice. Luke specializes in international employment law and understands the unique challenges of managing a global workforce. Multinational corporations need solutions to workforce matters in each country in which they operate. Legal frameworks—both the risks and opportunities—are broad and varied. Luke works collaboratively with clients to navigate these frameworks and deliver successful outcomes.\nLuke supports organisations to manage their cross-border workforces globally and has a regional focus in the Asia-Pacific. He works daily with various Asia-Pacific countries, and understands the particular challenges faced by clients seeking to navigate cross-border matters.\nLuke advises clients in relation to day-to-day matters faced by global employers, together with multijurisdictional projects such as compliance reviews, cross border mergers and acquisitions and outsourcings, privacy and data protection, investigations, restructures and reductions in force and employee integration issues. Clients regularly comment that Luke always ensures that their needs across the Asia-Pacific region, whether on a single jurisdiction or multijurisdiction basis, can be met quickly and effectively. Partner Best Lawyers: Employee Benefits, Australia 2022 - 2024 Recommended Attorney, Australia - Labor and Employment The Legal 500 (Legalese Ltd.) (2018-2019) University of Sydney, Australia  University of Sydney, Australia  BPP Law School BPP Law School London England and Wales New South Wales The Law Society of New South Wales Acted for a multinational company in relation to their acquisition of a business across 11 countries in the Asia Pacific, together with all employment aspects of the post-acquisition integration. Acted for a multinational company in relation to its launch in various jurisdictions in the Asia Pacific, including the Philippines, Indonesia, and Vietnam. Advised a US-based multinational in relation to a global restructure impacting employees in 10 countries. Assisted clients with various tribunal and labor authority claims across the region, including in Singapore, the Philippines, and Taiwan.","searchable_name":"Luke A. Edwards","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":446385,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1848,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAmy Frey focuses on all types of cross-border disputes, including investment treaty and commercial arbitration, as well as public international law and human rights law. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Amy\u0026rsquo;s experience ranges from representing corporates and investors from all over the world with claims against foreign states arising from bilateral investment treaties and the Energy Charter Treaty to contract and licensing disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmy counsels clients in arbitration under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, the International Chamber of Commerce, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and the UN Commission on International Trade Law. She also advises clients on foreign investment structuring and planning, on domestic litigation proceedings involving challenges to and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and on EU disputes involving state aid and intra-EU arbitration. She has represented clients in claims against Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Italy, Kazakhstan, Romania, Spain and Venezuela. Amy is also experienced in handling requests for interim, injunctive relief and in ICSID annulment proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent matters have concerned complex tax and tariff disputes, including the application of customs duties on imports, changes to corporate income tax regimes, taxes on the export of oil and gas, transport pricing, and so-called \u0026ldquo;windfall profits\u0026rdquo; taxes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Amy takes on public interest law and pro bono projects, particularly involving human rights law, with matters covering domestic violence, child abuse, asylum, juvenile delinquent status and human trafficking. She has long been committed to seeking justice and assistance for refugees.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"amy-frey","email":"afrey@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMoldovan nationals and their corporate entities\u003c/strong\u003e in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute against Kazakhstan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSwedish nationals and their food and beverage companies\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICSID arbitration against an Eastern European state for breach of a BIT, which included challenges to European Union law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e against Ecuador in a treaty dispute involving purported windfall profits taxes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented more than a dozen \u003cstrong\u003eEuropean-based renewable energy investors\u003c/strong\u003e with claims under the Energy Charter Treaty in disputes against Bulgaria, Italy and Spain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch company\u003c/strong\u003e in a BIT dispute against Algeria regarding unilateral modifications to agreed tax provisions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea water concessionaire\u003c/strong\u003e in ICSID annulment proceedings in which Argentina challenged the award rendered in our client's favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended \u003cstrong\u003eLuxembourg and French renewable energy investors\u003c/strong\u003e from ICSID annulment proceedings initiated by Spain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute with a South American state involving denial of justice by the local court system.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean energy company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador for the unilateral modification of the participation formula in an oil and gas contract, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eUAE investors\u003c/strong\u003e in bilateral investment treaty disputes involving land development contracts and licenses against the Arab Republic of Egypt, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. gas compression company\u003c/strong\u003e in a bilateral investment treaty dispute against Venezuela in relation to unilateral amendments to a contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Indian company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICC arbitration proceeding involving intellectual property disputes and breaches of licensing agreements in China, India and worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean African telecom company\u003c/strong\u003e in relation to attempts of a state to expropriate and/or dissolve its operations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003erenewable energy investors\u003c/strong\u003e on potential Energy Charter Treaty disputes against Romania and Portugal.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Frey","nick_name":"Amy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Amy","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAmy Frey focuses on all types of cross-border disputes, including investment treaty and commercial arbitration, as well as public international law and human rights law. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Amy\u0026rsquo;s experience ranges from representing corporates and investors from all over the world with claims against foreign states arising from bilateral investment treaties and the Energy Charter Treaty to contract and licensing disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmy counsels clients in arbitration under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, the International Chamber of Commerce, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and the UN Commission on International Trade Law. She also advises clients on foreign investment structuring and planning, on domestic litigation proceedings involving challenges to and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and on EU disputes involving state aid and intra-EU arbitration. She has represented clients in claims against Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Italy, Kazakhstan, Romania, Spain and Venezuela. Amy is also experienced in handling requests for interim, injunctive relief and in ICSID annulment proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecent matters have concerned complex tax and tariff disputes, including the application of customs duties on imports, changes to corporate income tax regimes, taxes on the export of oil and gas, transport pricing, and so-called \u0026ldquo;windfall profits\u0026rdquo; taxes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Amy takes on public interest law and pro bono projects, particularly involving human rights law, with matters covering domestic violence, child abuse, asylum, juvenile delinquent status and human trafficking. She has long been committed to seeking justice and assistance for refugees.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMoldovan nationals and their corporate entities\u003c/strong\u003e in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute against Kazakhstan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSwedish nationals and their food and beverage companies\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICSID arbitration against an Eastern European state for breach of a BIT, which included challenges to European Union law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e against Ecuador in a treaty dispute involving purported windfall profits taxes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented more than a dozen \u003cstrong\u003eEuropean-based renewable energy investors\u003c/strong\u003e with claims under the Energy Charter Treaty in disputes against Bulgaria, Italy and Spain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch company\u003c/strong\u003e in a BIT dispute against Algeria regarding unilateral modifications to agreed tax provisions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea water concessionaire\u003c/strong\u003e in ICSID annulment proceedings in which Argentina challenged the award rendered in our client's favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended \u003cstrong\u003eLuxembourg and French renewable energy investors\u003c/strong\u003e from ICSID annulment proceedings initiated by Spain.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute with a South American state involving denial of justice by the local court system.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean energy company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador for the unilateral modification of the participation formula in an oil and gas contract, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eUAE investors\u003c/strong\u003e in bilateral investment treaty disputes involving land development contracts and licenses against the Arab Republic of Egypt, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. gas compression company\u003c/strong\u003e in a bilateral investment treaty dispute against Venezuela in relation to unilateral amendments to a contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Indian company\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICC arbitration proceeding involving intellectual property disputes and breaches of licensing agreements in China, India and worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean African telecom company\u003c/strong\u003e in relation to attempts of a state to expropriate and/or dissolve its operations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003erenewable energy investors\u003c/strong\u003e on potential Energy Charter Treaty disputes against Romania and Portugal.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12238}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T16:07:29.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T16:07:29.000Z","searchable_text":"Frey{{ FIELD }}Obtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of Moldovan nationals and their corporate entities in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute against Kazakhstan.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of Swedish nationals and their food and beverage companies in an ICSID arbitration against an Eastern European state for breach of a BIT, which included challenges to European Union law.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of a U.S. energy company against Ecuador in a treaty dispute involving purported windfall profits taxes.{{ FIELD }}Represented more than a dozen European-based renewable energy investors with claims under the Energy Charter Treaty in disputes against Bulgaria, Italy and Spain.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Dutch company in a BIT dispute against Algeria regarding unilateral modifications to agreed tax provisions.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a water concessionaire in ICSID annulment proceedings in which Argentina challenged the award rendered in our client's favor.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended Luxembourg and French renewable energy investors from ICSID annulment proceedings initiated by Spain.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major U.S. energy company in a dispute with a South American state involving denial of justice by the local court system.{{ FIELD }}Represented an energy company in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador for the unilateral modification of the participation formula in an oil and gas contract, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims.{{ FIELD }}Represented UAE investors in bilateral investment treaty disputes involving land development contracts and licenses against the Arab Republic of Egypt, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims.{{ FIELD }}Represented a U.S. gas compression company in a bilateral investment treaty dispute against Venezuela in relation to unilateral amendments to a contract.{{ FIELD }}Represented an Indian company in an ICC arbitration proceeding involving intellectual property disputes and breaches of licensing agreements in China, India and worldwide.{{ FIELD }}Advised an African telecom company in relation to attempts of a state to expropriate and/or dissolve its operations.{{ FIELD }}Advised renewable energy investors on potential Energy Charter Treaty disputes against Romania and Portugal.{{ FIELD }}Amy Frey focuses on all types of cross-border disputes, including investment treaty and commercial arbitration, as well as public international law and human rights law. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Amy’s experience ranges from representing corporates and investors from all over the world with claims against foreign states arising from bilateral investment treaties and the Energy Charter Treaty to contract and licensing disputes.\nAmy counsels clients in arbitration under the rules of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, the International Chamber of Commerce, the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce and the UN Commission on International Trade Law. She also advises clients on foreign investment structuring and planning, on domestic litigation proceedings involving challenges to and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards, and on EU disputes involving state aid and intra-EU arbitration. She has represented clients in claims against Algeria, Argentina, Bangladesh, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Italy, Kazakhstan, Romania, Spain and Venezuela. Amy is also experienced in handling requests for interim, injunctive relief and in ICSID annulment proceedings.\nRecent matters have concerned complex tax and tariff disputes, including the application of customs duties on imports, changes to corporate income tax regimes, taxes on the export of oil and gas, transport pricing, and so-called “windfall profits” taxes.\nIn addition, Amy takes on public interest law and pro bono projects, particularly involving human rights law, with matters covering domestic violence, child abuse, asylum, juvenile delinquent status and human trafficking. She has long been committed to seeking justice and assistance for refugees. Partner University of Mississippi University of Mississippi School of Law Tulane University Tulane University Law School Oxford University, UK  District of Columbia Texas Paris Obtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of Moldovan nationals and their corporate entities in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute against Kazakhstan. Obtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of Swedish nationals and their food and beverage companies in an ICSID arbitration against an Eastern European state for breach of a BIT, which included challenges to European Union law. Obtained a multimillion-dollar award on behalf of a U.S. energy company against Ecuador in a treaty dispute involving purported windfall profits taxes. Represented more than a dozen European-based renewable energy investors with claims under the Energy Charter Treaty in disputes against Bulgaria, Italy and Spain. Represented a Dutch company in a BIT dispute against Algeria regarding unilateral modifications to agreed tax provisions. Successfully defended a water concessionaire in ICSID annulment proceedings in which Argentina challenged the award rendered in our client's favor. Successfully defended Luxembourg and French renewable energy investors from ICSID annulment proceedings initiated by Spain. Represented a major U.S. energy company in a dispute with a South American state involving denial of justice by the local court system. Represented an energy company in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador for the unilateral modification of the participation formula in an oil and gas contract, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims. Represented UAE investors in bilateral investment treaty disputes involving land development contracts and licenses against the Arab Republic of Egypt, in an arbitration that also involved emergency measures for domestic relief connected with human rights claims. Represented a U.S. gas compression company in a bilateral investment treaty dispute against Venezuela in relation to unilateral amendments to a contract. Represented an Indian company in an ICC arbitration proceeding involving intellectual property disputes and breaches of licensing agreements in China, India and worldwide. Advised an African telecom company in relation to attempts of a state to expropriate and/or dissolve its operations. Advised renewable energy investors on potential Energy Charter Treaty disputes against Romania and Portugal.","searchable_name":"Amy Frey","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":443599,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":703,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRob\u0026nbsp;Friedman helps the world's leading companies navigate product-liability risks and challenges.\u0026nbsp; His diverse advisory, litigation and trial practice focuses on the life sciences, manufacturing, consumer products, and technology industries.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob Friedman represents leading companies in high-stakes product liability and mass tort matters, with a focus on cases involving complex science, coordinated national strategy, and trial-ready execution. Clients rely on him for clear judgment, disciplined management of large-scale litigation, and the ability to prepare and defend key company witnesses in matters with significant business impact.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob has spent more than five years helping lead the national defense of Boehringer Ingelheim in the Zantac litigation, one of the largest mass torts in U.S. history. He coordinated a defense effort spanning more than 150,000 claims across federal and state courts, oversaw a team of more than 100 lawyers and professionals, and helped secure a complete Daubert victory in the MDL and nine consecutive defense wins in challenging venues such as Alameda County and Cook County\u0026mdash;without a single adverse verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis practice spans the pharmaceutical, automotive, energy, and emerging technology sectors. He represents Shell Oil Company in multistate environmental mass tort actions brought by State Attorneys General and defends a global manufacturer in PFAS litigation. Rob also advises companies on the evolving intersection of products liability and artificial intelligence, and he will join the faculty of UC Law San Francisco\u0026rsquo;s AI Certificate Program in 2026.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob serves as Associate Talent Partner for his firm\u0026rsquo;s eight-time Law360 \u0026ldquo;Practice Group of the Year\u0026rdquo; Product Liability and Mass Torts group, where he oversees the hiring and development of more than 80 attorneys. A past Mentor Award recipient, he is committed to preparing the next generation of trial lawyers for a rapidly changing litigation landscape.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"robert-friedman","email":"rfriedman@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully argued motion to dismiss resulting in complete dismissal of Illinois False Claims Act case against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eShell Oil Company\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of trial team in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eRader v. GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, a 2016 trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that ended with judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Friedman","nick_name":"Robert","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Robert","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"B.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a Rising Star, one of five lawyers nationwide ","detail":"Product Liability 360, 2011"},{"title":"Recognized as a Georgia \"Rising Star\" ","detail":"Law 360, 2010–2013"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertbfriedman/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRob\u0026nbsp;Friedman helps the world's leading companies navigate product-liability risks and challenges.\u0026nbsp; His diverse advisory, litigation and trial practice focuses on the life sciences, manufacturing, consumer products, and technology industries.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob Friedman represents leading companies in high-stakes product liability and mass tort matters, with a focus on cases involving complex science, coordinated national strategy, and trial-ready execution. Clients rely on him for clear judgment, disciplined management of large-scale litigation, and the ability to prepare and defend key company witnesses in matters with significant business impact.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob has spent more than five years helping lead the national defense of Boehringer Ingelheim in the Zantac litigation, one of the largest mass torts in U.S. history. He coordinated a defense effort spanning more than 150,000 claims across federal and state courts, oversaw a team of more than 100 lawyers and professionals, and helped secure a complete Daubert victory in the MDL and nine consecutive defense wins in challenging venues such as Alameda County and Cook County\u0026mdash;without a single adverse verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis practice spans the pharmaceutical, automotive, energy, and emerging technology sectors. He represents Shell Oil Company in multistate environmental mass tort actions brought by State Attorneys General and defends a global manufacturer in PFAS litigation. Rob also advises companies on the evolving intersection of products liability and artificial intelligence, and he will join the faculty of UC Law San Francisco\u0026rsquo;s AI Certificate Program in 2026.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRob serves as Associate Talent Partner for his firm\u0026rsquo;s eight-time Law360 \u0026ldquo;Practice Group of the Year\u0026rdquo; Product Liability and Mass Torts group, where he oversees the hiring and development of more than 80 attorneys. A past Mentor Award recipient, he is committed to preparing the next generation of trial lawyers for a rapidly changing litigation landscape.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully argued motion to dismiss resulting in complete dismissal of Illinois False Claims Act case against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eShell Oil Company\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of trial team in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eRader v. GlaxoSmithKline\u003c/em\u003e, a 2016 trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that ended with judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named a Rising Star, one of five lawyers nationwide ","detail":"Product Liability 360, 2011"},{"title":"Recognized as a Georgia \"Rising Star\" ","detail":"Law 360, 2010–2013"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13202}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-01T18:24:19.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-01T18:24:19.000Z","searchable_text":"Friedman{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Rising Star, one of five lawyers nationwide \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Product Liability 360, 2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a Georgia \\\"Rising Star\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, 2010–2013\"}{{ FIELD }}Successfully argued motion to dismiss resulting in complete dismissal of Illinois False Claims Act case against Shell Oil Company.{{ FIELD }}Member of trial team in Rader v. GlaxoSmithKline, a 2016 trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that ended with judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff.{{ FIELD }}Rob Friedman helps the world's leading companies navigate product-liability risks and challenges.  His diverse advisory, litigation and trial practice focuses on the life sciences, manufacturing, consumer products, and technology industries. \nRob Friedman represents leading companies in high-stakes product liability and mass tort matters, with a focus on cases involving complex science, coordinated national strategy, and trial-ready execution. Clients rely on him for clear judgment, disciplined management of large-scale litigation, and the ability to prepare and defend key company witnesses in matters with significant business impact.\nRob has spent more than five years helping lead the national defense of Boehringer Ingelheim in the Zantac litigation, one of the largest mass torts in U.S. history. He coordinated a defense effort spanning more than 150,000 claims across federal and state courts, oversaw a team of more than 100 lawyers and professionals, and helped secure a complete Daubert victory in the MDL and nine consecutive defense wins in challenging venues such as Alameda County and Cook County—without a single adverse verdict.\nHis practice spans the pharmaceutical, automotive, energy, and emerging technology sectors. He represents Shell Oil Company in multistate environmental mass tort actions brought by State Attorneys General and defends a global manufacturer in PFAS litigation. Rob also advises companies on the evolving intersection of products liability and artificial intelligence, and he will join the faculty of UC Law San Francisco’s AI Certificate Program in 2026.\nRob serves as Associate Talent Partner for his firm’s eight-time Law360 “Practice Group of the Year” Product Liability and Mass Torts group, where he oversees the hiring and development of more than 80 attorneys. A past Mentor Award recipient, he is committed to preparing the next generation of trial lawyers for a rapidly changing litigation landscape.\n  Partner Named a Rising Star, one of five lawyers nationwide  Product Liability 360, 2011 Recognized as a Georgia \"Rising Star\"  Law 360, 2010–2013 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Georgia State Bar of Georgia Successfully argued motion to dismiss resulting in complete dismissal of Illinois False Claims Act case against Shell Oil Company. Member of trial team in Rader v. GlaxoSmithKline, a 2016 trial in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas that ended with judgment as a matter of law at the close of the plaintiff.","searchable_name":"Robert B. Friedman","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":440972,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5848,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDarren leads King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Global Human Capital and Compliance Practice. Darren is recognized globally as a pioneer in the area of international employment law. Darren\u0026rsquo;s centralized advisor approach to international employment law has changed the way that many of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest companies manage their global workforce and HR compliance issues. In the course of his career, Darren has undertaken more than 500 multi-jurisdictional strategic, transactional and compliance related projects, covering more than 170 different countries.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDarren is the trusted advisor to many of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest companies in matters ranging from day-to-day complex cross-border employment issues on a single country basis, to large and complex multijurisdictional workforce projects. Darren is well known for developing consistent global workforce compliance and risk management solutions for some of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest companies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDarren assists multinational corporate clients with the full range of human capital matters on a global basis, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMultijurisdictional strategic and compliance-related employment law issues\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEmployment and labor issues arising from cross-border mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, and outsourcings\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTerminations\u0026mdash;individual and large-scale reductions in force\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEmployment and contingent workforce arrangements and documentation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEmployment-related privacy and data protection\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProtection of employers' proprietary and confidential information\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorkplace harassment, anti-discrimination, and equal opportunity law matters\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorkplace policies and handbooks\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cem\u003eDarren is practicing in California as a Registered Foreign Legal Consultant.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"darren-gardner","email":"dgardner@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":28,"guid":"28.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1204,"guid":"1204.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1225,"guid":"1225.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Gardner","nick_name":"Darren","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Darren","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"G.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“The value that is added by Darren and his team is second to none.”","detail":"IEL Elite 2024"},{"title":"\"Every jurisdiction we advise on and for every complex matter that arises-Darren is our trusted adviser.”","detail":"IEL Elite 2024"},{"title":"\"uber-responsive and pragmatic\" and \"has an encyclopedic knowledge of the law, and understands in house challenges\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"\"world-renowned practitioner\" and a \"great strategist\" in his field","detail":"Who's Who Legal"},{"title":"Darren has won more than 30 international and US awards including International Attorney of the Year","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2017"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDarren leads King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Global Human Capital and Compliance Practice. Darren is recognized globally as a pioneer in the area of international employment law. Darren\u0026rsquo;s centralized advisor approach to international employment law has changed the way that many of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest companies manage their global workforce and HR compliance issues. In the course of his career, Darren has undertaken more than 500 multi-jurisdictional strategic, transactional and compliance related projects, covering more than 170 different countries.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDarren is the trusted advisor to many of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest companies in matters ranging from day-to-day complex cross-border employment issues on a single country basis, to large and complex multijurisdictional workforce projects. Darren is well known for developing consistent global workforce compliance and risk management solutions for some of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest companies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDarren assists multinational corporate clients with the full range of human capital matters on a global basis, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMultijurisdictional strategic and compliance-related employment law issues\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEmployment and labor issues arising from cross-border mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, and outsourcings\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTerminations\u0026mdash;individual and large-scale reductions in force\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEmployment and contingent workforce arrangements and documentation\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eEmployment-related privacy and data protection\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProtection of employers' proprietary and confidential information\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorkplace harassment, anti-discrimination, and equal opportunity law matters\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWorkplace policies and handbooks\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cem\u003eDarren is practicing in California as a Registered Foreign Legal Consultant.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"“The value that is added by Darren and his team is second to none.”","detail":"IEL Elite 2024"},{"title":"\"Every jurisdiction we advise on and for every complex matter that arises-Darren is our trusted adviser.”","detail":"IEL Elite 2024"},{"title":"\"uber-responsive and pragmatic\" and \"has an encyclopedic knowledge of the law, and understands in house challenges\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"\"world-renowned practitioner\" and a \"great strategist\" in his field","detail":"Who's Who Legal"},{"title":"Darren has won more than 30 international and US awards including International Attorney of the Year","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8172}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2025-10-15T16:06:20.000Z","updated_at":"2025-10-15T16:06:20.000Z","searchable_text":"Gardner{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“The value that is added by Darren and his team is second to none.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IEL Elite 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Every jurisdiction we advise on and for every complex matter that arises-Darren is our trusted adviser.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IEL Elite 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"uber-responsive and pragmatic\\\" and \\\"has an encyclopedic knowledge of the law, and understands in house challenges\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"world-renowned practitioner\\\" and a \\\"great strategist\\\" in his field\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Darren has won more than 30 international and US awards including International Attorney of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Darren leads King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Global Human Capital and Compliance Practice. Darren is recognized globally as a pioneer in the area of international employment law. Darren’s centralized advisor approach to international employment law has changed the way that many of the world’s largest companies manage their global workforce and HR compliance issues. In the course of his career, Darren has undertaken more than 500 multi-jurisdictional strategic, transactional and compliance related projects, covering more than 170 different countries.\nDarren is the trusted advisor to many of the world’s largest companies in matters ranging from day-to-day complex cross-border employment issues on a single country basis, to large and complex multijurisdictional workforce projects. Darren is well known for developing consistent global workforce compliance and risk management solutions for some of the world’s largest companies.\nDarren assists multinational corporate clients with the full range of human capital matters on a global basis, including:\n\nMultijurisdictional strategic and compliance-related employment law issues\nEmployment and labor issues arising from cross-border mergers and acquisitions, joint ventures, and outsourcings\nTerminations—individual and large-scale reductions in force\nEmployment and contingent workforce arrangements and documentation\nEmployment-related privacy and data protection\nProtection of employers' proprietary and confidential information\nWorkplace harassment, anti-discrimination, and equal opportunity law matters\nWorkplace policies and handbooks\n\nDarren is practicing in California as a Registered Foreign Legal Consultant. Partner “The value that is added by Darren and his team is second to none.” IEL Elite 2024 \"Every jurisdiction we advise on and for every complex matter that arises-Darren is our trusted adviser.” IEL Elite 2024 \"uber-responsive and pragmatic\" and \"has an encyclopedic knowledge of the law, and understands in house challenges\" Chambers USA \"world-renowned practitioner\" and a \"great strategist\" in his field Who's Who Legal Darren has won more than 30 international and US awards including International Attorney of the Year Los Angeles Business Journal, 2017 University of New South Wales  University of New South Wales  England and Wales High Court of Australia Supreme Court of New South Wales","searchable_name":"Darren G. Gardner","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":443890,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6348,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDale Giali is a litigator who has represented a number of the world's largest multinational corporations in food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer product false advertising matters, including defending consumer class actions and prosecuting and defending competitor lawsuits. Dale is recognized by clients and peers alike for his imaginative defense strategies, his understanding of the industries he serves and for his successful results on behalf of the firm's clients.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDale regularly practices in state and federal trial and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising related to alleged contaminants in products (heavy metals, glyphosate, PFAS, mycotoxins, phthalates),\u0026nbsp;sustainability/environmental/green claims, nutrition and health claims, claims involving \"natural\" and transgenic products, alleged violations of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts), state and federal warranty claims and violations of state consumer protection laws.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDale also routinely counsels businesses on regulations such as California\u0026rsquo;s Automatic Renewal Law and the federal Restore Online Shopper Confidence Act (or ROSCA). He has significant experience providing a range of additional interrelated services for his clients, including litigating allegations of antitrust violations, unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, business torts, and franchise relationship counseling and agreement violations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e has repeatedly recognized Dale as a Litigation Star for class actions and he was named a BTI Super All-Star. He has also been recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a Litigation Trailblazer. Dale was identified by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as an MVP in the field of class action litigation in the United States. Dale is consistently recognized in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, including as a \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e \"Leading Individual\" for trade secret misappropriation litigation, and he was named to \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eHall of Fame for \u003c/em\u003eIntellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-contentious matters).\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"dale-giali","email":"dgiali@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHusain v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2024 WL 4011959 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2024) Motion to dismiss consumer class action complaint granted with prejudice in case challenging Kettle Brand Air Fried as being deceptively advertised as not made via deep frying in oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTyrnauer v. Ben \u0026amp; Jerry's Homemade, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e,\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e739 F.Supp.3d 246 (D. Vt. 2024) Motion to dismiss granted re nationwide consumer class action complaint alleging false advertising regarding allegations of migrant child labor in dairy farms in Vermont.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e100 F.4th 419 (2d Cir. 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647\u0026nbsp;F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;591 F. Supp. 3d 362 (S.D. Ill. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;592 F. Supp. 3d 146 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;570 F.Supp.3d 69, (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Giali","nick_name":"Dale","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Dale","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2377,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1990-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Earns Top-Tier Rankings","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"},{"title":"Earns 198 Lawyer Rankings, 90 Practice Group Rankings","detail":"Chambers USA Guide, 2024"},{"title":"Named Client Service All-Stars","detail":"BTI Consulting, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized 186 K\u0026S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"Named Client Service All-Stars","detail":"BTI Consulting, 2023"},{"title":"Earns Top-Tier Rankings","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Named Litigation Star \u0026 Local Litigation Star (Class Actions)","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018-2022"},{"title":"Hall of Fame - Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-contentious matters)","detail":"Legal 500, 2020"},{"title":"Named Litigation Trailblazer","detail":"National Law Journal, 2017"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/dale-giali-972785/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDale Giali is a litigator who has represented a number of the world's largest multinational corporations in food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer product false advertising matters, including defending consumer class actions and prosecuting and defending competitor lawsuits. Dale is recognized by clients and peers alike for his imaginative defense strategies, his understanding of the industries he serves and for his successful results on behalf of the firm's clients.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDale regularly practices in state and federal trial and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising related to alleged contaminants in products (heavy metals, glyphosate, PFAS, mycotoxins, phthalates),\u0026nbsp;sustainability/environmental/green claims, nutrition and health claims, claims involving \"natural\" and transgenic products, alleged violations of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts), state and federal warranty claims and violations of state consumer protection laws.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDale also routinely counsels businesses on regulations such as California\u0026rsquo;s Automatic Renewal Law and the federal Restore Online Shopper Confidence Act (or ROSCA). He has significant experience providing a range of additional interrelated services for his clients, including litigating allegations of antitrust violations, unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, business torts, and franchise relationship counseling and agreement violations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e has repeatedly recognized Dale as a Litigation Star for class actions and he was named a BTI Super All-Star. He has also been recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a Litigation Trailblazer. Dale was identified by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as an MVP in the field of class action litigation in the United States. Dale is consistently recognized in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, including as a \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e \"Leading Individual\" for trade secret misappropriation litigation, and he was named to \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u003cem\u003eHall of Fame for \u003c/em\u003eIntellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-contentious matters).\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHusain v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2024 WL 4011959 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2024) Motion to dismiss consumer class action complaint granted with prejudice in case challenging Kettle Brand Air Fried as being deceptively advertised as not made via deep frying in oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTyrnauer v. Ben \u0026amp; Jerry's Homemade, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e,\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e739 F.Supp.3d 246 (D. Vt. 2024) Motion to dismiss granted re nationwide consumer class action complaint alleging false advertising regarding allegations of migrant child labor in dairy farms in Vermont.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e100 F.4th 419 (2d Cir. 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647\u0026nbsp;F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;591 F. Supp. 3d 362 (S.D. Ill. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;592 F. Supp. 3d 146 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;570 F.Supp.3d 69, (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Earns Top-Tier Rankings","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"},{"title":"Earns 198 Lawyer Rankings, 90 Practice Group Rankings","detail":"Chambers USA Guide, 2024"},{"title":"Named Client Service All-Stars","detail":"BTI Consulting, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized 186 K\u0026S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"Named Client Service All-Stars","detail":"BTI Consulting, 2023"},{"title":"Earns Top-Tier Rankings","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Named Litigation Star \u0026 Local Litigation Star (Class Actions)","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018-2022"},{"title":"Hall of Fame - Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-contentious matters)","detail":"Legal 500, 2020"},{"title":"Named Litigation Trailblazer","detail":"National Law Journal, 2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9732}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:08.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:08.000Z","searchable_text":"Giali{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Earns Top-Tier Rankings\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Earns 198 Lawyer Rankings, 90 Practice Group Rankings\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA Guide, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Client Service All-Stars\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI Consulting, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized 186 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Client Service All-Stars\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI Consulting, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Earns Top-Tier Rankings\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Litigation Star \u0026amp; Local Litigation Star (Class Actions)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2018-2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Hall of Fame - Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-contentious matters)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Litigation Trailblazer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Husain v. Campbell Soup Company, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2024 WL 4011959 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2024) Motion to dismiss consumer class action complaint granted with prejudice in case challenging Kettle Brand Air Fried as being deceptively advertised as not made via deep frying in oil.{{ FIELD }}Tyrnauer v. Ben \u0026amp; Jerry's Homemade, Inc., 739 F.Supp.3d 246 (D. Vt. 2024) Motion to dismiss granted re nationwide consumer class action complaint alleging false advertising regarding allegations of migrant child labor in dairy farms in Vermont.{{ FIELD }}Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, 100 F.4th 419 (2d Cir. 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products.{{ FIELD }}Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.{{ FIELD }}Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., 591 F. Supp. 3d 362 (S.D. Ill. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.{{ FIELD }}Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. 592 F. Supp. 3d 146 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.{{ FIELD }}Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 570 F.Supp.3d 69, (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.{{ FIELD }}Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.{{ FIELD }}Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.{{ FIELD }}Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.{{ FIELD }}Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’”{{ FIELD }}Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.{{ FIELD }}Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.{{ FIELD }}Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.{{ FIELD }}In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue.{{ FIELD }}Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products.{{ FIELD }}Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.{{ FIELD }}Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements.{{ FIELD }}Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products.{{ FIELD }}Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.{{ FIELD }}Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.{{ FIELD }}Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.{{ FIELD }}Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy.{{ FIELD }}Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.{{ FIELD }}Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).{{ FIELD }}Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.{{ FIELD }}Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.”{{ FIELD }}In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.{{ FIELD }}Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).{{ FIELD }}Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.{{ FIELD }}Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.{{ FIELD }}Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”{{ FIELD }}Dale Giali is a litigator who has represented a number of the world's largest multinational corporations in food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer product false advertising matters, including defending consumer class actions and prosecuting and defending competitor lawsuits. Dale is recognized by clients and peers alike for his imaginative defense strategies, his understanding of the industries he serves and for his successful results on behalf of the firm's clients.\nDale regularly practices in state and federal trial and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising related to alleged contaminants in products (heavy metals, glyphosate, PFAS, mycotoxins, phthalates), sustainability/environmental/green claims, nutrition and health claims, claims involving \"natural\" and transgenic products, alleged violations of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts), state and federal warranty claims and violations of state consumer protection laws.\nDale also routinely counsels businesses on regulations such as California’s Automatic Renewal Law and the federal Restore Online Shopper Confidence Act (or ROSCA). He has significant experience providing a range of additional interrelated services for his clients, including litigating allegations of antitrust violations, unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, business torts, and franchise relationship counseling and agreement violations.\nBenchmark Litigation has repeatedly recognized Dale as a Litigation Star for class actions and he was named a BTI Super All-Star. He has also been recognized by The National Law Journal as a Litigation Trailblazer. Dale was identified by Law360 as an MVP in the field of class action litigation in the United States. Dale is consistently recognized in Chambers USA and Legal 500, including as a Legal 500 \"Leading Individual\" for trade secret misappropriation litigation, and he was named to Legal 500’s Hall of Fame for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-contentious matters). Partner Earns Top-Tier Rankings Legal 500, 2024 Earns 198 Lawyer Rankings, 90 Practice Group Rankings Chambers USA Guide, 2024 Named Client Service All-Stars BTI Consulting, 2024 Recognized 186 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields Chambers USA, 2023 Named Client Service All-Stars BTI Consulting, 2023 Earns Top-Tier Rankings Legal 500, 2023 Named Litigation Star \u0026amp; Local Litigation Star (Class Actions) Benchmark Litigation, 2018-2022 Hall of Fame - Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-contentious matters) Legal 500, 2020 Named Litigation Trailblazer National Law Journal, 2017 University of California  University of San Diego University of San Diego School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth 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 Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia California District of Columbia Member, American Bar Association Member, Food and Drug Law Institute Member, Consumer Brands Association Member, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Los Angeles Chapter Husain v. Campbell Soup Company, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2024 WL 4011959 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 2, 2024) Motion to dismiss consumer class action complaint granted with prejudice in case challenging Kettle Brand Air Fried as being deceptively advertised as not made via deep frying in oil. Tyrnauer v. Ben \u0026amp; Jerry's Homemade, Inc., 739 F.Supp.3d 246 (D. Vt. 2024) Motion to dismiss granted re nationwide consumer class action complaint alleging false advertising regarding allegations of migrant child labor in dairy farms in Vermont. Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, 100 F.4th 419 (2d Cir. 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products. Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement. Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., 591 F. Supp. 3d 362 (S.D. Ill. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted. Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. 592 F. Supp. 3d 146 (S.D.N.Y. 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil. Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., 570 F.Supp.3d 69, (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022). Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215 (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims. Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022). Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product. Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product. Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses. Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’” Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed. Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case. Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client. In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue. Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products. Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements. Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements. Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products. Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted. Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products. Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice. Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy. Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013). Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception. Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.). Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four. Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.” In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013). Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement. Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay). Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend. Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”","searchable_name":"Dale Giali","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}]}}