{"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":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"107","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"B","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":447695,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6432,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDamien Bailey is a leading international lawyer on corporate and commercial transactions in the technology, media and telecommunications sector. He advises global telecom and technology companies, governments, and companies across multiple sectors on a wide range of matters including digital infrastructure projects, joint ventures, transformational projects and new technologies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Damien was as partner at a Big 4 accounting firm and co-head of global telecommunications and head of TMT in Asia for two large international law firms.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien is a strategic adviser to clients on their key projects in multiple jurisdictions. This includes advising on the introduction of world first technologies, entry into new markets and geographies, their rollout of new infrastructure projects (such as satellites, subsea cables, data centres and terrestrial networks) and digital transformation projects. He has worked across a wide range of sectors, including telecoms, technology, financial services, energy, sports, media, gaming and government.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien works across a number of jurisdictions in Asia Pacific and the Middle East on both inbound and outbound investments in the telecoms and technology sector, as well as regional and global sourcing and transformational projects in a range of industries.\u0026nbsp; He also provides regulatory advice and navigates regulatory environments where the technology is ahead of the regulations, which often requires engagement with regulators and making submissions on behalf of clients.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien has previously lived in Hong Kong for over 8 years. He is regularly recognised in Chambers, Legal 500 Asia Pacific, Who\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal, Acritas 5 Stars, and Best Lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"damien-bailey","email":"dbailey@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":115,"guid":"115.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1140,"guid":"1140.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1141,"guid":"1141.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1472,"guid":"1472.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bailey","nick_name":"Damien","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Damien","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a leading practitioner - Information Technology Law; Outsourcing Law; Telecommunications Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2024"},{"title":"Damien Bailey offers telecommunications sector expertise which covers the Australian market, Asia and the Middle East ","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2023"},{"title":"Damien Bailey is excellent and very good with client relationships ","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2024"},{"title":"Named a leading lawyer ","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2022"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/damien-bailey-161bb5/?originalSubdomain=au","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDamien Bailey is a leading international lawyer on corporate and commercial transactions in the technology, media and telecommunications sector. He advises global telecom and technology companies, governments, and companies across multiple sectors on a wide range of matters including digital infrastructure projects, joint ventures, transformational projects and new technologies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Damien was as partner at a Big 4 accounting firm and co-head of global telecommunications and head of TMT in Asia for two large international law firms.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien is a strategic adviser to clients on their key projects in multiple jurisdictions. This includes advising on the introduction of world first technologies, entry into new markets and geographies, their rollout of new infrastructure projects (such as satellites, subsea cables, data centres and terrestrial networks) and digital transformation projects. He has worked across a wide range of sectors, including telecoms, technology, financial services, energy, sports, media, gaming and government.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien works across a number of jurisdictions in Asia Pacific and the Middle East on both inbound and outbound investments in the telecoms and technology sector, as well as regional and global sourcing and transformational projects in a range of industries.\u0026nbsp; He also provides regulatory advice and navigates regulatory environments where the technology is ahead of the regulations, which often requires engagement with regulators and making submissions on behalf of clients.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien has previously lived in Hong Kong for over 8 years. He is regularly recognised in Chambers, Legal 500 Asia Pacific, Who\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal, Acritas 5 Stars, and Best Lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a leading practitioner - Information Technology Law; Outsourcing Law; Telecommunications Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2024"},{"title":"Damien Bailey offers telecommunications sector expertise which covers the Australian market, Asia and the Middle East ","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2023"},{"title":"Damien Bailey is excellent and very good with client relationships ","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2024"},{"title":"Named a leading lawyer ","detail":"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10018}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2026-04-21T20:13:46.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T20:13:46.000Z","searchable_text":"Bailey{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a leading practitioner - Information Technology Law; Outsourcing Law; Telecommunications Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Damien Bailey offers telecommunications sector expertise which covers the Australian market, Asia and the Middle East \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Damien Bailey is excellent and very good with client relationships \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a leading lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Damien Bailey is a leading international lawyer on corporate and commercial transactions in the technology, media and telecommunications sector. He advises global telecom and technology companies, governments, and companies across multiple sectors on a wide range of matters including digital infrastructure projects, joint ventures, transformational projects and new technologies.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Damien was as partner at a Big 4 accounting firm and co-head of global telecommunications and head of TMT in Asia for two large international law firms.\nDamien is a strategic adviser to clients on their key projects in multiple jurisdictions. This includes advising on the introduction of world first technologies, entry into new markets and geographies, their rollout of new infrastructure projects (such as satellites, subsea cables, data centres and terrestrial networks) and digital transformation projects. He has worked across a wide range of sectors, including telecoms, technology, financial services, energy, sports, media, gaming and government.\nDamien works across a number of jurisdictions in Asia Pacific and the Middle East on both inbound and outbound investments in the telecoms and technology sector, as well as regional and global sourcing and transformational projects in a range of industries.  He also provides regulatory advice and navigates regulatory environments where the technology is ahead of the regulations, which often requires engagement with regulators and making submissions on behalf of clients.\nDamien has previously lived in Hong Kong for over 8 years. He is regularly recognised in Chambers, Legal 500 Asia Pacific, Who’s Who Legal, Acritas 5 Stars, and Best Lawyers. Partner Named a leading practitioner - Information Technology Law; Outsourcing Law; Telecommunications Law Best Lawyers, 2024 Damien Bailey offers telecommunications sector expertise which covers the Australian market, Asia and the Middle East  Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2023 Damien Bailey is excellent and very good with client relationships  Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2024 Named a leading lawyer  Chambers Asia Pacific, Australia, TMT, 2022 University of New South Wales  Bond University  Supreme Court of New South Wales Supreme Court of Hong Kong","searchable_name":"Damien Bailey","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427219,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6490,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAdam Baker represents global financial institutions, healthcare and life sciences companies, and other public corporations in complex government and internal investigations and regulatory matters. He has extensive experience counseling clients facing investigations by the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, State Attorneys General, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, as well as other criminal and civil authorities. In particular, Adam has defended clients in matters implicating various federal laws and regulations, including insider trading, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Anti-Kickback Statute, healthcare fraud, and the Food, Drug \u0026amp; Cosmetic Act. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Adam served as a criminal Assistant United States Attorney in the Health Care Fraud/Opioid Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Unit in the District of New Jersey. In that role, he led a number of large-scale investigations and prosecutions of major pharmaceutical companies for healthcare fraud, diversion of controlled substances, and violations of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute.\u0026nbsp; He also partnered with the DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Consumer Protection Branch on a significant investigation into potential violations by an opioid manufacturer and related individuals of the Food, Drug \u0026amp; Cosmetic Act.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to his government service, Adam was a Partner at another AmLaw 50 firm where he oversaw complex investigations and regulatory matters for financial institutions and its employees.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdam is active within the LGBTQ+ community. He helped found Boston Colleges\u0026rsquo; first gay-straight alliance and served on his prior firm\u0026rsquo;s Diversity \u0026amp; LGBTQ+ committees. He serves on Boston College Law School\u0026rsquo;s national alumni board and formerly served as a Corp member for Teach For America.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"adam-baker","email":"abaker@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal investigation on behalf of the Special Committee of an international corporation concerning potential financial improprieties resulting in a restatement and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and represented the Special Committee in resulting parallel investigations by the DOJ and SEC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational financial services institution in investigations by the SEC and FINRA related to potential insider trading by current and former employees involved in a nonpublic M\u0026amp;A deal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational financial services institution in an internal investigation of potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and OFAC regulations by an employee who attempted to broker deals with the Iranian government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the former CEO of a publicly-traded company in insider trading investigations by the DOJ and SEC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a men\u0026rsquo;s college basketball coach in investigations by the DOJ and NCAA Enforcement regarding potential provision of payments and benefits to players.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a key figure in the \u0026ldquo;Bridgegate\u0026rdquo; matter in parallel investigations by the New Jersey Legislative Select Committee and U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office, District of New Jersey.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a former Dewey \u0026amp; Leboeuf employee in the New York County District Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office\u0026rsquo;s investigation of the downfall of the firm, successfully obtaining immunity for the client.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baker","nick_name":"Adam","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Adam","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":245,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2008-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-baker-4a471038/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAdam Baker represents global financial institutions, healthcare and life sciences companies, and other public corporations in complex government and internal investigations and regulatory matters. He has extensive experience counseling clients facing investigations by the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, State Attorneys General, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, as well as other criminal and civil authorities. In particular, Adam has defended clients in matters implicating various federal laws and regulations, including insider trading, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Anti-Kickback Statute, healthcare fraud, and the Food, Drug \u0026amp; Cosmetic Act. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Adam served as a criminal Assistant United States Attorney in the Health Care Fraud/Opioid Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Unit in the District of New Jersey. In that role, he led a number of large-scale investigations and prosecutions of major pharmaceutical companies for healthcare fraud, diversion of controlled substances, and violations of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute.\u0026nbsp; He also partnered with the DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Consumer Protection Branch on a significant investigation into potential violations by an opioid manufacturer and related individuals of the Food, Drug \u0026amp; Cosmetic Act.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to his government service, Adam was a Partner at another AmLaw 50 firm where he oversaw complex investigations and regulatory matters for financial institutions and its employees.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdam is active within the LGBTQ+ community. He helped found Boston Colleges\u0026rsquo; first gay-straight alliance and served on his prior firm\u0026rsquo;s Diversity \u0026amp; LGBTQ+ committees. He serves on Boston College Law School\u0026rsquo;s national alumni board and formerly served as a Corp member for Teach For America.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal investigation on behalf of the Special Committee of an international corporation concerning potential financial improprieties resulting in a restatement and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and represented the Special Committee in resulting parallel investigations by the DOJ and SEC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational financial services institution in investigations by the SEC and FINRA related to potential insider trading by current and former employees involved in a nonpublic M\u0026amp;A deal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational financial services institution in an internal investigation of potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and OFAC regulations by an employee who attempted to broker deals with the Iranian government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the former CEO of a publicly-traded company in insider trading investigations by the DOJ and SEC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a men\u0026rsquo;s college basketball coach in investigations by the DOJ and NCAA Enforcement regarding potential provision of payments and benefits to players.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a key figure in the \u0026ldquo;Bridgegate\u0026rdquo; matter in parallel investigations by the New Jersey Legislative Select Committee and U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office, District of New Jersey.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a former Dewey \u0026amp; Leboeuf employee in the New York County District Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office\u0026rsquo;s investigation of the downfall of the firm, successfully obtaining immunity for the client.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10412}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:59:19.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:59:19.000Z","searchable_text":"Baker{{ FIELD }}Conducted an internal investigation on behalf of the Special Committee of an international corporation concerning potential financial improprieties resulting in a restatement and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and represented the Special Committee in resulting parallel investigations by the DOJ and SEC.{{ FIELD }}Represented a multinational financial services institution in investigations by the SEC and FINRA related to potential insider trading by current and former employees involved in a nonpublic M\u0026amp;A deal.{{ FIELD }}Represented a multinational financial services institution in an internal investigation of potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and OFAC regulations by an employee who attempted to broker deals with the Iranian government.{{ FIELD }}Represented the former CEO of a publicly-traded company in insider trading investigations by the DOJ and SEC.{{ FIELD }}Represented a men’s college basketball coach in investigations by the DOJ and NCAA Enforcement regarding potential provision of payments and benefits to players.{{ FIELD }}Represented a key figure in the “Bridgegate” matter in parallel investigations by the New Jersey Legislative Select Committee and U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of New Jersey.{{ FIELD }}Represented a former Dewey \u0026amp; Leboeuf employee in the New York County District Attorney’s Office’s investigation of the downfall of the firm, successfully obtaining immunity for the client.{{ FIELD }}Adam Baker represents global financial institutions, healthcare and life sciences companies, and other public corporations in complex government and internal investigations and regulatory matters. He has extensive experience counseling clients facing investigations by the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, State Attorneys General, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, as well as other criminal and civil authorities. In particular, Adam has defended clients in matters implicating various federal laws and regulations, including insider trading, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Anti-Kickback Statute, healthcare fraud, and the Food, Drug \u0026amp; Cosmetic Act. \nPreviously, Adam served as a criminal Assistant United States Attorney in the Health Care Fraud/Opioid Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Unit in the District of New Jersey. In that role, he led a number of large-scale investigations and prosecutions of major pharmaceutical companies for healthcare fraud, diversion of controlled substances, and violations of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute.  He also partnered with the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch on a significant investigation into potential violations by an opioid manufacturer and related individuals of the Food, Drug \u0026amp; Cosmetic Act.   \nPrior to his government service, Adam was a Partner at another AmLaw 50 firm where he oversaw complex investigations and regulatory matters for financial institutions and its employees. \nAdam is active within the LGBTQ+ community. He helped found Boston Colleges’ first gay-straight alliance and served on his prior firm’s Diversity \u0026amp; LGBTQ+ committees. He serves on Boston College Law School’s national alumni board and formerly served as a Corp member for Teach For America.   Partner Boston College Boston College Law School Boston College Boston College Law School Fordham University Fordham University School of Law U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York New York Conducted an internal investigation on behalf of the Special Committee of an international corporation concerning potential financial improprieties resulting in a restatement and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and represented the Special Committee in resulting parallel investigations by the DOJ and SEC. Represented a multinational financial services institution in investigations by the SEC and FINRA related to potential insider trading by current and former employees involved in a nonpublic M\u0026amp;A deal. Represented a multinational financial services institution in an internal investigation of potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and OFAC regulations by an employee who attempted to broker deals with the Iranian government. Represented the former CEO of a publicly-traded company in insider trading investigations by the DOJ and SEC. Represented a men’s college basketball coach in investigations by the DOJ and NCAA Enforcement regarding potential provision of payments and benefits to players. Represented a key figure in the “Bridgegate” matter in parallel investigations by the New Jersey Legislative Select Committee and U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of New Jersey. Represented a former Dewey \u0026amp; Leboeuf employee in the New York County District Attorney’s Office’s investigation of the downfall of the firm, successfully obtaining immunity for the client.","searchable_name":"Adam Baker","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":437134,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"david-balser","email":"dbalser@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":18}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1157,"guid":"1157.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Balser","nick_name":"David","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","years_held":"1987-1989"}],"first_name":"David","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11778}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-11T18:21:37.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-11T18:21:37.000Z","searchable_text":"Balser{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is top in class action litigation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"U.S. “Litigation Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Class Actions{{ FIELD }}Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.{{ FIELD }}Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.{{ FIELD }}Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.{{ FIELD }}Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.{{ FIELD }}Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.{{ FIELD }}Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.{{ FIELD }}Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.{{ FIELD }}Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.{{ FIELD }}Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes{{ FIELD }}Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets{{ FIELD }}Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.{{ FIELD }}Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.{{ FIELD }}Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.{{ FIELD }}Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project.{{ FIELD }}Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.{{ FIELD }}Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.”{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor.{{ FIELD }}Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.{{ FIELD }}David Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients’ most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation. \nRanked by Chambers USA as a “Star Individual” for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\n\n “He is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best.”\n“He has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation.”\n“He can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive.”\n“He is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met.”\n“He's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.”\n\nDavid’s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as Distinguished Leader by the Daily Report in 2022, which praised his “proven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.” He has also been named a “Litigation Star” by Benchmark Litigation and honored as a BTI Client Service All-Star. David’s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges. \nDavid leads the firm’s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\n  David L Balser Partner Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT “His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.”  DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022 \"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\"  Chambers USA 2023 “He is top in class action litigation\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.” CHAMBERS USA 2023 Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection) THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022 “Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation Best Lawyers in America U.S. “Litigation Star”  Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present 2018 BTI Client Service All-Star BTI, 2018 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School Georgia Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Class Actions Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products. Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services. Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit. Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit. Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court. Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality. Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial. Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees. Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company. Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website. Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act. Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment. Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds. Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance. Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island. Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action. Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019. Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project. Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia. Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.” Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment. Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims. Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor. Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.","searchable_name":"David L. Balser","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":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":447228,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7274,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the \u0026ldquo;v.\u0026rdquo; In particular,\u0026nbsp;he\u0026nbsp;has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to\u0026nbsp;rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will\u0026nbsp;served as Associate General Counsel\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot and\u0026nbsp;was a member of the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Legal Senior Leadership Team.\u0026nbsp;As leader of\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he\u0026nbsp;was responsible for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s most significant commercial and business litigation,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;challenged core aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business. During his\u0026nbsp;21-year tenure\u0026nbsp;with The Home Depot,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;led the successful defense\u0026nbsp;of several hundred class\u0026nbsp;actions, created and led the company\u0026rsquo;s recovery litigation program,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations\u0026nbsp;and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized thought leader in complex litigation,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term\u0026mdash;one of the few in-house\u0026nbsp;counsel\u0026nbsp;to do so. He received the\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Business Chronicle\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works,\u0026nbsp;Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions,\u0026nbsp;ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee\u0026nbsp;Winston\u0026nbsp;College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding\u0026nbsp;Adjunct\u0026nbsp;Professor Award in 2025.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026nbsp;chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform,\u0026nbsp;which was\u0026nbsp;instrumental in passing Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will\u0026nbsp;played\u0026nbsp;varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"william-barnette-2","email":"wbarnette@kslaw.com ","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k)\u0026nbsp;plan,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCano v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;e.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBerger v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarino v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGoldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009)\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVarnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWillard v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScott v. Am. Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of individual smoking and health jury trials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: OSB Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppeals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDrafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWoodfield v. Bowman\u003c/em\u003e, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eon remand\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTransunion v. Ramirez\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFacebook v. Duguid\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUnited States PTO v. Booking.com BV\u003c/em\u003e, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInvestigations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Representation while in-house counsel\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":502,"guid":"502.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":18,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":19,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Barnette","nick_name":"Will","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Sol Gothard, Louisiana","years_held":"1995 - 1996"}],"first_name":"William","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1136,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020"},{"title":"Chairman-Class Actions Section","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present "},{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25"},{"title":"General Counsel Pro Bono Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2020"},{"title":"Store Support Excellence Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2024"},{"title":"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award","detail":"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016"},{"title":"Member","detail":"American Law Institute, 2025-present"},{"title":"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award","detail":"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow","detail":"2024-present"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow ","detail":"2019-2023"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the \u0026ldquo;v.\u0026rdquo; In particular,\u0026nbsp;he\u0026nbsp;has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to\u0026nbsp;rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will\u0026nbsp;served as Associate General Counsel\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot and\u0026nbsp;was a member of the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Legal Senior Leadership Team.\u0026nbsp;As leader of\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he\u0026nbsp;was responsible for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s most significant commercial and business litigation,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;challenged core aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business. During his\u0026nbsp;21-year tenure\u0026nbsp;with The Home Depot,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;led the successful defense\u0026nbsp;of several hundred class\u0026nbsp;actions, created and led the company\u0026rsquo;s recovery litigation program,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations\u0026nbsp;and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized thought leader in complex litigation,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term\u0026mdash;one of the few in-house\u0026nbsp;counsel\u0026nbsp;to do so. He received the\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Business Chronicle\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works,\u0026nbsp;Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions,\u0026nbsp;ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee\u0026nbsp;Winston\u0026nbsp;College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding\u0026nbsp;Adjunct\u0026nbsp;Professor Award in 2025.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026nbsp;chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform,\u0026nbsp;which was\u0026nbsp;instrumental in passing Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will\u0026nbsp;played\u0026nbsp;varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k)\u0026nbsp;plan,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCano v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;e.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBerger v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarino v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGoldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009)\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVarnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWillard v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScott v. Am. Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of individual smoking and health jury trials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: OSB Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppeals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDrafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWoodfield v. Bowman\u003c/em\u003e, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eon remand\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTransunion v. Ramirez\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFacebook v. Duguid\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUnited States PTO v. Booking.com BV\u003c/em\u003e, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInvestigations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Representation while in-house counsel\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020"},{"title":"Chairman-Class Actions Section","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present "},{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25"},{"title":"General Counsel Pro Bono Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2020"},{"title":"Store Support Excellence Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2024"},{"title":"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award","detail":"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016"},{"title":"Member","detail":"American Law Institute, 2025-present"},{"title":"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award","detail":"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow","detail":"2024-present"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow ","detail":"2019-2023"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13228}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-31T22:04:40.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-31T22:04:40.000Z","searchable_text":"Barnette{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Board of Directors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Class Actions Section\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Board of Directors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"General Counsel Pro Bono Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Home Depot, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Store Support Excellence Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Home Depot, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Member\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Law Institute, 2025-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2024-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2019-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.){{ FIELD }}Representing national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.){{ FIELD }}Won reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)* {{ FIELD }}Won three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k) plan, Cano v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25); Pizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024); Lanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions, In re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials, In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber, e.g., Kitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers, e.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25); Berger v. Home Depot, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014); Chochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013); Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008); O’Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services, e.g., Marino v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents, e.g., Goldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009) * {{ FIELD }}Won series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices, e.g., Varnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15); Willard v. Home Depot, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)* {{ FIELD }}Defense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation, Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998) {{ FIELD }}Won dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal, Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of individual smoking and health jury trials, e.g., Eiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005) {{ FIELD }}Recovery {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board, In re: OSB Litig., No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services, In re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig., MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)* {{ FIELD }}Appeals {{ FIELD }}Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068{{ FIELD }}Argued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Home Depot v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)* {{ FIELD }}Argued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute, Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999) {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards, In re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Frederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)* {{ FIELD }}Managed drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, Transunion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021); Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020); United States PTO v. Booking.com BV, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)* {{ FIELD }}Investigations {{ FIELD }}Successfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act {{ FIELD }}*Representation while in-house counsel {{ FIELD }}Will Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm’s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade, and winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the “v.” In particular, he has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations. \nPrior to rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will served as Associate General Counsel for The Home Depot and was a member of the company’s Legal Senior Leadership Team. As leader of The Home Depot’s commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he was responsible for the company’s most significant commercial and business litigation, which frequently challenged core aspects of the company’s business. During his 21-year tenure with The Home Depot, Will led the successful defense of several hundred class actions, created and led the company’s recovery litigation program, and successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\nA recognized thought leader in complex litigation, Will argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term—one of the few in-house counsel to do so. He received the Atlanta Business Chronicle’s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works, Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction and There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions, ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He frequently lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award in 2025. \nWill chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, which was instrumental in passing Georgia’s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will played varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute. Partner Chairman-Board of Directors Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020 Chairman-Class Actions Section State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present  Chairman-Board of Directors Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25 General Counsel Pro Bono Award The Home Depot, 2020 Store Support Excellence Award The Home Depot, 2024 Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016 Member American Law Institute, 2025-present Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025 Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow 2024-present Litigation Counsel of America Fellow  2019-2023 Sewanee: The University of the South  Loyola University New Orleans Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Supreme Court of the United States Georgia Louisiana Chairman, State Bar of Georgia, Class Actions Section, 2024-present Member, American Law Institute, 2025-present Member, Board of Directors, Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2017-present; Vice-Chairman, 2022-23; Chairman; 2023-25 Member, In-House Counsel Advisory Board, Emory Law Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims, 2017-present Member, Lawyers Club of Atlanta, 2002-present Member, State Bar of Georgia, 2000-present Member, Louisiana State Bar Association, 1995-present Member, Executive Committee of Board of Directors of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2013-2021; Secretary (2017); Treasurer (2018); Vice-President (2019); President (2020) Member, Georgia Senate Study Committee on Legal Reform, 2019-2020 Member, American Bar Association House of Delegates, 1998-2002 Law Clerk, Hon. Sol Gothard, Louisiana Representing national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.) Representing national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.) Won reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*  Won three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k) plan, Cano v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25); Pizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024); Lanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*  Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions, In re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*  Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials, In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*  Won series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber, e.g., Kitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*  Won series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers, e.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25); Berger v. Home Depot, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014); Chochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013); Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008); O’Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*  Won series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services, e.g., Marino v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*  Won series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents, e.g., Goldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009) *  Won series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices, e.g., Varnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15); Willard v. Home Depot, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*  Defense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation, Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)  Won dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal, Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*  Won series of individual smoking and health jury trials, e.g., Eiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)  Recovery  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board, In re: OSB Litig., No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services, In re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig., MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*  Appeals  Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 Argued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Home Depot v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*  Argued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute, Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)  Managed successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*  Managed successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards, In re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*  Managed successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*  Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Frederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*  Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*  Managed drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, Transunion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021); Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020); United States PTO v. Booking.com BV, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*  Investigations  Successfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act  *Representation while in-house counsel ","searchable_name":"William P. Barnette (Will)","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":442789,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5487,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eStephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25\u0026nbsp;years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client\u0026rsquo;s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is \u0026ldquo;[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.\u0026rdquo; In common with his colleagues, \u0026ldquo;he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective\u0026rdquo;; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the \u0026ldquo;[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers \u0026ldquo; by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"stephen-baskin","email":"sbaskin@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (\u0026ldquo;TCL\u0026rdquo;). Case favorably settled for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCraig Alexander v. a major international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(GA: DeKalb Country State Court)\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client\u0026rsquo;s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton\u0026rsquo;s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (\u0026ldquo;GM\u0026rdquo;) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCertain RFID Devices\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSoundView Innovations v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client\u0026rsquo;s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLighthouse Consulting Group, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright\u0026rsquo;s decision.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCapital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(Eastern District of Virginia);\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. SunTrust and NCR Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM\u0026rsquo;s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSt. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOlivistar LLC. Regions Bank\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLoyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParallel Iron v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eand US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreateads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInnova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital, LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eStambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eA major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).\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":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1240,"guid":"1240.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baskin","nick_name":"Steve","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Stephen","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":345,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"\"A great client-oriented attorney\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked “Patent 1000”","detail":"Intellectual Asset Management"},{"title":"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”","detail":"Washingtonian Magazine"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eStephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25\u0026nbsp;years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client\u0026rsquo;s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is \u0026ldquo;[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.\u0026rdquo; In common with his colleagues, \u0026ldquo;he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective\u0026rdquo;; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the \u0026ldquo;[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers \u0026ldquo; by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (\u0026ldquo;TCL\u0026rdquo;). Case favorably settled for client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCraig Alexander v. a major international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(GA: DeKalb Country State Court)\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client\u0026rsquo;s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton\u0026rsquo;s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEncore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIntellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (\u0026ldquo;GM\u0026rdquo;) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCertain RFID Devices\u003c/em\u003e, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSoundView Innovations v. a major international airline\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client\u0026rsquo;s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLighthouse Consulting Group, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e(WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright\u0026rsquo;s decision.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCapital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e(Eastern District of Virginia);\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ev. SunTrust and NCR Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM\u0026rsquo;s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eNCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSt. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSymbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOlivistar LLC. Regions Bank\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLoyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParallel Iron v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions v. Google\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Lead counsel representing a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eand US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eet al.\u003c/em\u003e) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWalker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCreateads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInnova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAtlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines\u003c/em\u003e, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMicrolog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGarnet Digital, LLC Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLeon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eStambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis).\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAutoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al\u003c/em\u003e., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eA major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"A great client-oriented attorney\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\"","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked “Patent 1000”","detail":"Intellectual Asset Management"},{"title":"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”","detail":"Washingtonian Magazine"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6942}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:20.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:20.000Z","searchable_text":"Baskin{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"A great client-oriented attorney\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked “Patent 1000”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Intellectual Asset Management\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Best Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washingtonian Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc. (D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data.{{ FIELD }}In the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (“TCL”). Case favorably settled for client.{{ FIELD }}Encore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.{{ FIELD }}Craig Alexander v. a major international airline (GA: DeKalb Country State Court). Representing a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client’s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool.{{ FIELD }}Hand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al. (D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation.{{ FIELD }}Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc. (N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies.{{ FIELD }}Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton’s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y.{{ FIELD }}SunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc (N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid.{{ FIELD }}Encore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims.{{ FIELD }}Symbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline (N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes.{{ FIELD }}Intellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (“GM”) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices.{{ FIELD }}Amtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al (International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities. Certain RFID Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234.{{ FIELD }}SoundView Innovations v. a major international airline (District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client’s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses.{{ FIELD }}Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC (WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright’s decision.{{ FIELD }}Capital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services (Eastern District of Virginia); v. SunTrust and NCR Corporation (Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM’s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team.{{ FIELD }}EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC (Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology.{{ FIELD }}Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC (Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device.{{ FIELD }}NCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al (Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC.{{ FIELD }}Anuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages.{{ FIELD }}St. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction.{{ FIELD }}Symbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation (Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes.{{ FIELD }}Olivistar LLC. Regions Bank (E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems.{{ FIELD }}Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds.{{ FIELD }}Parallel Iron v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement. Brilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Aeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways. Lead counsel representing a major international airline and US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline No. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011); Aeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Walker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics, et al.) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet). Walker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Createads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013).{{ FIELD }}Innova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom). InNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Autoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies. Autoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Atlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes. Atlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Cyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson). Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).{{ FIELD }}CyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform. Cyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types. Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010).{{ FIELD }}Garnet Digital LLC Litigation. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis). Garnet Digital, LLC Litigation, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Leon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis). Stambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011).{{ FIELD }}MacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis). MacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011).{{ FIELD }}Autoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone. Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012).{{ FIELD }}A major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).{{ FIELD }}Stephen Baskin is a partner on the Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation team. Steve co-leads the Intellectual Property group and the Firm's Technology Industry Initiative. With over 25 years of experience, Steve is a first-chair trial lawyer with substantial experience representing technology companies in patent litigation, licensing and trade secret disputes, and other complex matters in District Court and the International Trade Commission. His litigation and trial experience is broad and has included the representation of some of the largest and most well-known companies, including airlines, financial services institutions, manufacturing, technology, telecommunications and consumer products companies.\nSteve leads all types of patent litigation cases, with a results-oriented approach that is focused on achieving the client’s overall desired result, which he understands can vary case by case. He also spends considerable time counseling clients in pre-litigation matters, analyzing patents and related technology in either defending allegations or conducting due diligence in potential offensive actions for clients. Steve is currently advising clients in several matters involving technical areas, such as the use of RFID and related technology; the use of website functionality directed to features involving search criteria and functions related to specific industries; technology related to telecommunications systems involving cellular and wifi functionality including relevant standards; and a case involving specific types of methods and systems for securing computer systems avoiding malware and related threats. He also participated in a month-long arbitration for a client involving standard essential patents directed to specific telecommunication standards and functions, and is representing a substantial technology company involving ATM functionality and mobile communications allowing for authentication and mobile check deposit functionality. \nSteve has been recognized as a leading intellectual property lawyer by Chambers USA and is recommended by IAM Patent 1000 for patent litigation noting that Steve is “[A]ggressive yet affable, [S]teve is a great storyteller in the courtroom. Judges like him.” In common with his colleagues, “he works exceptionally hard and is highly effective”; and was listed as a DC Super Lawyer for Intellectual Property Litigation for five consecutive years. He has also been named each year since 2013 as one of the “[T]op 100: Washington DC Super Lawyers “ by Super Lawyers and has been identified as one of Washington, DC's \"Best Lawyers\" by Washingtonian Magazine.\nSteve is also very involved in the community and public affairs. He serves as Council Member for the Corporate Area Board for the American Cancer Society and serves as a Board of Director for Thanks USA. Partner \"A great client-oriented attorney\" Chambers USA \"he's very quick to respond and doesn't overpromise or provide advice which runs counter to bottom line interest.\" Chambers USA Ranked “Patent 1000” Intellectual Asset Management Named “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers Listed “Top 100 Super Lawyers” Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2013 – Present Recognized as a “Best Lawyer” Washingtonian Magazine Ohio University  Case Western Reserve University Case Western Reserve University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 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 D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia Virginia Chair of Executive Area Board at American Cancer Society Board of Directors at ThanksUSA The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital v. Illumina, Inc. (D. Del). Lead counsel in representation of Nationwide Children's Hospital, a major pediatric research center, in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,552,458 related to methods for improving the processing of genetic sequence data. In the Matter of Certain Smart Televisions, Inv. No. 337-TA-1420, representing respondent TCL Electronics Holding, Ltd. et al. (“TCL”). Case favorably settled for client. Encore Wire Corporation v. Southwire Company, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in representation of Encore Wire Corporation in patent infringement lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas involving 18 patents covering five distinct products at issue. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation. Craig Alexander v. a major international airline (GA: DeKalb Country State Court). Representing a major international airline in a lawsuit brought by an employee alleging that our client misappropriated trade secrets through our client’s development of an enterprise text-based communications tool. Hand Held Products, Inc. et. al. v. TransCore, LP et. al. (D.Del). Lead counsel in representation of TransCore in a patent infringement suit alleging infringement of multiple patents. TransCore was sued by two subsidiaries of Honeywell alleging infringement of nine patents, breach of a 2008 License Agreement, and fraud for failure to pay royalties under the License Agreement. Case settled favorably for the client in mediation. Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Cox Communications, Inc. (N.D.Ga.). Lead counsel in representation of Cox Communications in a patent litigation matter. Fleet Connect alleges that Cox's WiFi gateways, extenders, and related products infringe seven of its patents related to wireless communications technologies. Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (W.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing Peloton in a patent litigation matter against Fleet Connect Solutions. Fleet Connect alleges Peloton’s products infringe seven patents related to WiFi and Bluetooth connectivity. We successfully obtained a motion to transfer out of W.D.T.X., to S.D.N.Y. SunStone Information Defense, Inc. v. F5, Inc (N.D.Cal.). Represented F5, Inc. and Capital One in an alleged infringement of three patents. Obtained stay of Capital One and successfully transferred case from EDVA to NDCA. At claim construction, the Court held several terms found in each of the asserted claims to be indefinite, thereby rendering the claims invalid. Encore Wire Corporation v. Copperweld Bimetallics, LLC (E.D.Tex.). Represented Encore Wire Corporation in Lanham Act false advertising and antitrust litigation, which culminated in favorable settlements and dismissal of all claims. Symbology Innovations LLC v. a major international airline (N.D.Tex.). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Symbology Innovations, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The plaintiff claims our client infringed on three of its patents related to systems and methods for enabling portable electronic devices to retrieve information about an object using visual detection of symbols like QR codes. Intellectual Ventures I LLC et. al. v. General Motors Company et. al. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel in defense of General Motors Company and General Motors LLC (“GM”) in the W.D. Texas in a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Intellectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC, which alleged that GM infringed one or more claims of 12 U.S. patents. The patents span a wide range of subject matter and technologies, including wireless communication systems, intelligent networks, digital cameras, navigational systems, and GPS devices. Amtech Systems, LLC v. Kapsch USA, et. al (International Trade Commission). Lead counsel representing Amtech Systems, a U.S. manufacturer and distributor of RFID readers and transponders used on toll roads to monitor vehicle traffic and charge tolls, involving a six-patent section 337 complaint directed towards RFID devices imported, sold for importation or sold after importation by a number of Kapsch entities. Certain RFID Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1234. SoundView Innovations v. a major international airline (District of Delaware). Lead counsel representing a major international airline in a patent dispute with Sound View Innovations, which owns a substantial patent portfolio originally developed by computer science researchers at Lucent Technologies. Sound View asserted several of those patents against our client and other industry participants who have deployed certain open source technologies related to large-scale computing platforms. After extensive fact and expert discovery, the case was dismissed with prejudice following our client’s setting forth several non-infringement and invalidity defenses. Lighthouse Consulting Group, LLC (WDTX; EDTX; D.N.J.). Represented NCR Corporation and several financial institutions, including Bank of America, BB\u0026amp;T and SunTrust (Truist),Capital One, Citigroup, Citizens, Morgan Stanley, and PNC against patent infringement claims directed to mobile check deposit technology. Following the filing of a motion for judgment on the pleadings, Judge Albright ruled that Lighthouse's claims against BB\u0026amp;T inappropriately relied on the doctrine of equivalents to allege that a mobile app was equivalent to a physical device allegedly operating in a similar way. Lighthouse dismissed the remaining cases against the other financial institutions following Judge Albright’s decision. Capital Security Systems Corporation v. CapitalOne and ABNB Financial Services (Eastern District of Virginia); v. SunTrust and NCR Corporation (Northern District of Georgia). Lead counsel in matter involving the use of ATM’s and specifically hardware and software functionality allowing customers to make deposits via an ATM without the need of an envelope or other documents. The trial team obtained an extremely favorable Markman ruling resulting in plaintiff conceding non-infringement, and also successfully invalidated several of the asserted claims. On appeal, The Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance on the non-infringement/Markman appeal, which yielded a complete win on non-infringement for the team. EcoServices, LLC v. Certified Aviation Services, LLC (Central District of California). Lead counsel for the defendant, Certified Aviation Services, LLC, in a patent infringement matter between competitors in the aircraft engine wash industry. The patents involve specific features and technical measurements for use of atomized spray, and also directed to the technical features and use of the system for detecting engine type utilizing specific detection related technology. Sharpe Innovations, Inc. v. Cricket Wireless LLC (Eastern District of Virginia). Representing Cricket Wireless in a patent infringement matter in the Eastern District of Virginia involving patents related to micro SIM card adaptors. IPEG LLC v. Valley National Bank (District of New Jersey). Represented Valley National Bank and NCR Corporation in a matter involving banking on a mobile device. NCR Corporation v. Pendum, LLC et al (Northern District of Georgia). Representing NCR Corporation in the Northern District of Georgia in a trademark and copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets matter against Pendum, LLC and Burroughs, INC. Anuwave, LLC v. Jacksboro National Bancshares, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Defended Jacksonboro National Bancshares, Inc. in a patent infringement matter against Anuwave LLC in which alleged infringement of a patent that allowed users to receive bank services via SMS messages. St. Isidore Research, LLC v. LegacyTexas Group, Inc. et al (Eastern District of Texas). Represented LegacyTexas Group in the Eastern District of Texas in a patent infringement matter involving systems and methods for verifying, authenticating, and providing notification of a transaction, such as a commercial or financial transaction. Symbology Innovations, LLC v. JetBlue Airways Corporation (Eastern District of Texas). Represented JetBlue Airways in the Eastern District of Texas in a matter related to systems and methods of presenting information about an object on a portable electronic device, such as QR Codes. Olivistar LLC. Regions Bank (E.D.Tex.). Represented Regions Bank in a patent infringement matter involving cloud storage systems. Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation v. American Airlines, Inc. (E.D.Tex.). Lead counsel for American Airlines, United Airlines, US Airways, Frontier Airlines, and another Major International Airline against Loyalty Conversion Systems Corporation in a patent infringement case filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The technology included converting loyalty points into other forms of credits and/or currency for purchase of good and/or services. Successfully argued that the claims covered unpatentable subject matter under 35 USC 101 and won judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). In addition, filed two Covered Business Method Patent Review Petitions that were instituted on 101 grounds. Parallel Iron v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google in patent infringement action against Parallel Iron in the D. of Delaware where the Google File System was accused of infringing multiple patents. Parallel Iron, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00367 (D. Del., filed March 6, 2013). Brilliant Optical Solutions v. Google. Lead counsel representing Google Fiber, Inc. in a patent infringement case filed in the Western District of Missouri where the Google Fiber System was accused of infringement. Brilliant Optical Solutions, LLC v. Google Inc., No. 4:13-cv-00356 (W.D. Minn., filed April 10, 2013). Aeritas LLC v. a major international airline. and US Airways. Lead counsel representing a major international airline and US Airways in the District of Delaware. Aeritas LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of the use of an electronic mobile boarding pass to gain entry on a flight. Aeritas, LLC v. a major international airline No. 1:11-cv-00969 (D. Del., filed October 13, 2011); Aeritas, LLC v. US Airways Group, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-01267 (D. Del., filed December 21, 2011). Walker Digital LLC v. American Airlines Inc. et al. Representing a major international airline against Walker Digital LLC. Walker Digital filed its complaint against ten defendants (which includes American Airlines, Best Buy Co., Dell, Inc., and Sony Electronics, et al.) in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,138,105 and 6,601,036. The Asserted Patents are directed to systems and methods for managing the sale of a group of products using sales performance data and/or inventory data of the products included in the group. (Judge Sleet). Walker Digital, LLC v. American Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 1:11-cv-00320 (D. Del. filed April 11, 2011). Createads v. Web.com, Network Solutions and Register.com. Representing Web.com et. al in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Web.com Group Inc., et al., No. 1:12-cv-01612 (D. Del., filed November 29, 2012). Createads v. Media Temple. Defended Media Temple in a patent infringement case in the D. of Delaware involving web development technology. CreateAds LLC v. Media Temple, Inc., No. 1:13-cv-00115 (D. Del., filed January 18, 2013). Innova Patent Licensing LLC v. 3Com Corp., et al. Defended Wells Fargo Bank against Innova Patent Licensing in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue includes information security technologies such as spam-blocking software. The plaintiff in this suit sued numerous defendants, including some of the largest banks in the country. Case settled. (Judge Folsom). InNova v. 3Com Corporation, et al., No. 2:10-cv-00251 (E.D. Tex., filed July 20, 2010). Autoscribe Corp. et al. v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al. Defended against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia but was successfully transferred to Iowa where the bulk of Wells Fargo's home mortgage division resides. The bank's systems, services and processes at issue include customer service and payment acceptance technologies. Autoscribe Corp. et al., v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A. et al., No. 4:10-cv-00202 (S.D. Iowa filed April 30, 2010). Atlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corporation and DOES 1-10, Inclusive. Represented Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt's two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace's protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes. Atlas Brace Technologies USA, LLC v. Leatt Corporation, et al., No. 2:11-cv-09973 (C.D. Cal., filed December 1, 2011). Cyberfone Systems LLC (formerly LVL Patent Group, LLC) v. United Airlines, U.S. Airways, and Air Canada. Defended United Airlines, U.S. Airways and Air Canada in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of form transactions that transmit data from a form presented to a user, including customer travel managements systems, which allegedly includes kiosks and network services platform. (Judge Robinson). Cyberfone Systems LLC v. Federal Express Corporation, et al., No. 1:11-cv-00834 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011). CyberFone Systems LLC v. Amazon.com, et al. Defended United Airlines in the District of Delaware. CyberFone Systems, LLC filed multiple actions in District of Delaware alleging infringement of obtaining data transaction information and forming a plurality of data transactions for the single transaction and sending the data to different destinations, using a mobile services network platform. Cyberfone Systems LLC v. American Airlines, No. 1:11-cv-00831 (D. Del. filed September 15, 2011). Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines Inc., et al. Represented United Airlines and NCR Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas relating to contact center system software for handling multiple media types. Microlog Corp. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. et al., No. 6:10-cv-00260 (E.D. Tex. filed May 21, 2010). Garnet Digital LLC Litigation. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in the Eastern District of Texas. Garnet Digital filed a case against mobile device manufacturers and carriers alleging infringement through the use and/or sale of a \"telecommunications device,\" that is coupled to television displays or television receivers, for creating an interactive display terminal and accessing information stored in a \"remote computerized database\" using a \"communications exchange,\" and methods for using the same. (Judge Leonard Davis). Garnet Digital, LLC Litigation, No. 6:11-cv-00647 (E.D. Tex. filed December 2, 2011). Leon Stambler v. Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T. Represented Walgreens, Williams-Sonoma, Crate \u0026amp; Barrel and AT\u0026amp;T in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Texas where the plaintiff asserted that its patents covered secure online transactions. (Judge Leonard Davis). Stambler v. American Eagle Outfitters, Inc., et al., No. 6:11-cv-00460 (E.D. Tex. filed September 6, 2011). MacroSolve Inc. v. United Airlines Inc. Defended United Airlines in patent infringement case where MacroSolve has accused the United Airline's use of a mobile services network platform and corresponding date processing systems, and, in particular, the mobile application \"United Airlines Mobile app.\" of infringing one or more claims of the '816 patent. (Judge Leonard Davis). MacroSolve, Inc. v. United Air Lines, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-00694 (E.D. Tex. filed December 21, 2011). Autoscribe Corp. v. BB\u0026amp;T. Defended BB\u0026amp;T against Autoscribe Corporation and Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, a financial services and payment processor company, in a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The infringement allegations are directed to BB\u0026amp;T systems, services and processes for accepting check payments over the phone. Pollin Patent Licensing, LLC, et al. v. BB\u0026amp;T Corporation, et al., No. 5:12-cv-00022 (E.D.N.C., filed January 13, 2012). A major international airline v. Applied Interact LLC \u0026amp; Quest Nettech Corp. (D.Del.). Brought action for a Declaratory Judgment in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Applied Interact LLC after the major international airline rejected Applied Interact's license request. This action sought a declaration that the three patents-in-suit were invalid and not infringed. Quest Net Tech (\"Quest\") subsequently acquired the rights to the patents from Applied Interact and the complaint was amended to include Quest. The case was dismissed after we secured a favorable settlement agreement on behalf of our client. (Judge Robinson). a major international airline v. Applied Interact, LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00941 (D. Del., filed December 8, 2009).","searchable_name":"Stephen E. Baskin (Steve)","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":447582,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5626,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eErik Belenky focuses on mergers and acquisitions, where he represents public and private companies, as well as private equity firms, in the full range of M\u0026amp;A activity, including significant acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, and other strategic transactions. Erik also has substantial experience counseling companies, including boards of directors and C-Suite executives, on takeover defense, proxy contests, shareholder activism and corporate governance. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErik has advised numerous leading public and private companies on substantial M\u0026amp;A matters, such as Newell Brands, General Electric Company, Baker Hughes Company, 3M, Georgia-Pacific, RELX Group (formerly, Reed Elsevier), The Home Depot, United Parcel Service,\u0026nbsp;Xerox Holdings Corporation and Genuine Parts Company.\u0026nbsp; Recent representative transactions include acting for Newell Brands in its acquisition of Jarden Corporation; General Electric Company in the sale of its Small Industrial Motors business to Wolong Electric Group; 3M in its acquisition of Madison Fire \u0026amp; Rescue from Madison Industries, in partnership with Bain Capital; Baker Hughes Company in its acquisition of Continental Disc Corporation from Tinicum; Genuine Parts Company in its acquisition of Kaman Distribution Group; Mailchimp in its sale to\u0026nbsp;Intuit; Xerox in its tender offer and proxy fight for HP; and U.S. Xpress in its sale to\u0026nbsp;Knight-Swift Transportation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the last 14\u0026nbsp;consecutive years, Erik has been listed as a top M\u0026amp;A attorney in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp; He is also listed in M\u0026amp;A by \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e and has been recognized as a \"Client Service All Star MVP\" by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Consulting Group\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErik was formerly a member of the board of trustees of The Schenck School (an independent school in Atlanta, GA for children with dyslexia).\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"erik-belenky","email":"ebelenky@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eErik has extensive M\u0026amp;A experience across a broad range of industries. Representative transactions include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCONSUMER AND RETAIL\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNouria Energy Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e, in its acquisition of Enmarket, a leading convenience store retailer in the Southeast, from Colonial Group, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNewell Brands Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in numerous transactions, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits $16 billion acquisition of Jarden Corporation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its Pure Fishing to Sycamore Partners for approximately $1.3 billion\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits sale of The Waddington Group to Novolex Holdings, a portfolio company of The Carlyle Group, for approximately $2.3 billion\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe $1.95 billion sale of its Tools business, including the Irwin\u0026reg;, Lenox\u0026reg;, and Hilmor\u0026reg; brands, to Stanley Black \u0026amp; Decker, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of The United States Playing Card Company to Cartamundi Group, a leading manufacturer and distributor of playing cards and board games\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its Process Solutions business to One Rock Capital Partners, LLC for $500 million\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe $395 million sale of Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc. to Seidler Equity Partners and Major League Baseball -\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Daily Deal's\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Most Innovative Middle Market Deal of the Year (2018)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its Winter Sports businesses to Kohlberg \u0026amp; Company for $240 million\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its Pine Mountain\u0026reg; fire starters and fire logs business, and Diamond\u0026reg; matches, fire starters, lighters, toothpicks, and laundry business, to Royal Oak Enterprises, a leading manufacturer of charcoal and grilling products\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGenuine Parts Company\u003c/strong\u003e, in its announced plan to separate its automotive parts and industrial parts segments into two independent, publicly traded companies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGenuine Parts Company\u003c/strong\u003e, in its acquisition of Motor Parts \u0026amp; Equipment Corporation, the largest independent owner of NAPA Auto Parts stores in the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Home Depot\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple transactions, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits acquisition of The Litemore group of companies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits acquisition of Landmark Interiors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits acquisition of the Brafasco group of companies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of Chem-Dry carpet cleaning franchise chain\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIQVentures Holdings\u003c/strong\u003e, in its pending $504 million acquisition of The Aaron's Company (NYSE: AAN), a leading lease-to-own retailer of appliances, electronics, furniture and home goods\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia-Pacific\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the sale of its joint venture interest in Vania and Polive (feminine products) to Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSweetwater Sound\u003c/strong\u003e, the nation's largest e-commerce retailer of musical instruments and pro audio equipment, in its growth equity investment by Providence Equity Partners\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLes Enterprises Barrette Ltee\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the sale of Barrette Outdoor Living (North America's leading manufacturer of wood-alternative fence and railing products) to TorQuest Partners and Caisse de d\u0026eacute;p\u0026ocirc;t et placement du Qu\u0026eacute;bec\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eINDUSTRIALS\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGenuine Parts Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its $1.3 billion acquisition of Kaman Distribution Group, a leading distributor of power transmission, automation and fluid power products\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBaker Hughes Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple transactions, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe pending $1.45 billion sale of its Waygate Technologies business to Hexagon\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits $540 million acquisition of Continental Disc Corporation, a leading provider of safety-critical pressure management solutions, from investment partnerships managed by Tinicum Incorporated\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits acquisition of AccessESP, a provider of advanced technology for artificial lift solutions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its specialty polymers business to SK Capital\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its A-C Compressor service and repair business to Rotating Machinery Services, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its Rotoflow\u0026trade; turboexpander business to Air Products\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a variety of transactions, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of the small industrial motors business of its Power Conversion division to Wolong Electric Group Co., Ltd.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of the Electric Machinery unit of its Converteam business to WEG\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia-Pacific\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in in acquisition of Excel Displays \u0026amp; Packaging, a designer and manufacturer of point-of-purchase displays and industrial packaging\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMonstanto Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its feed and processing joint venture with Cargill Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Vincit Group\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading provider of food safety and pathogen control services for the protein industry, in its investment by Harvest Capital Partners\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple transactions, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits pending $1.95 billion acquisition, in partnership with Bain Capital, of Madison Fire \u0026amp; Rescue from Madison Industries; in connection with the closing, 3M will contribute its Scott Safety business to the partnership\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its fused silica manufacturing business to Christy Minerals\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale to SIAT Group of 3M's 50% equity stake in Combi Packaging Systems (a producer and distributor of packaging machinery and spare parts)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSuperior Essex\u003c/strong\u003e, in the formation of its global joint venture with Nexans, creating the world's largest manufacturer or magnet wire\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTECHNOLOGY\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMailchimp\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading email marketing company to small and mid-market businesses, in its $12 billion sale to Intuit. The transaction was the largest sale of a privately held software company in U.S. history\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eXerox Holdings Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its tender offer and proxy fight for HP Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRELX Group plc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein numerous transactions, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits acquisitions of SST Software, a precision agriculture information solutions company, and CDMS, a leading provider of compliance data and solutions to support agronomic recommendations and decisions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of a 51 percent stake in Reed Construction Data (RCD) to Warburg Pincus, and the sale of 100 percent of RSMeans to The Gordian Group, a Warburg Pincus portfolio company\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe acquisition of Chemical Data, a leading provider of US petrochemical price benchmarks and predictive analytics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe acquisition of FlightStats, a leading flight status tracker\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits acquisition of Intelligize, a leading provider of Securities and Exchange Commission intelligence and data solutions\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMonitise plc\u003c/strong\u003e, a provider of mobile banking technology services, in its acquisition of ClairMail\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eENERGY\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBaker Hughes Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the sale of its global Natural Gas Solutions (NGS) business to First Reserve\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple transactions, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe acquisition of the Salof group of companies, designers of mini LNG and CO2 technologies and facilities\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its Industrial Air \u0026amp; Gas Technologies business to Colfax Corporation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFINANCIAL SERVICES\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the sale of its Commercial Distribution Finance, Vendor Finance, and Corporate Finance platforms to Wells Fargo \u0026amp; Co.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican First Finance\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading virtual lease-to-own and retail finance provider, in its sale to FirstCash, Inc. for up to $1.47 billion in cash and stock\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Pacific\u003c/strong\u003e, in its acquisition of the Temple-Inland building products business from International Paper Company for $750 million\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKamco Supply\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading supplier of ceilings, wallboard, steel, lumber, and related construction products, in its $317 million sale to GMS Inc. (NYSE: GMS)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAVIATION, TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Xpress Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(NYSE: USX) in its sale to Knight-Swift Transportation (NYSE: KNX)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eARINC Incorporated\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and its shareholders, including multiple major airlines, in the sale of the company to The Carlyle Group\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service\u003c/strong\u003e, in its acquisition of HTML Logistics\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKoch Industries\u003c/strong\u003e, in its acquisition of The Chicago Fuels Terminal from DTE Energy\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHEALTHCARE\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEDG Partners\u003c/strong\u003e, a private equity firm focused on small and middle market healthcare companies, in numerous acquisitions, divestitures, and growth equity investments\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGemino Healthcare Finance,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ea nationwide provider of asset based and term loans to small and mid-size healthcare service providers, in the company's sale to Solar Senior Capital Ltd.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":5169}]},"expertise":[{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1141,"guid":"1141.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1220,"guid":"1220.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Belenky","nick_name":"Erik","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Erik","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":613,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1997-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":2,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Leading Dealmakers in America","detail":"Lawdragon 500 - 2025"},{"title":"BTI Client Service All Star","detail":"2021"},{"title":"Leader in M\u0026A ","detail":"Chambers USA "},{"title":"M\u0026A ","detail":"Legal 500 US "},{"title":"M\u0026A; Corporate Law ","detail":"Best Lawyers in Americas "},{"title":"Most Innovative Deal of the Year —  The Deal Awards Middle Market  ","detail":"The Deal, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eErik Belenky focuses on mergers and acquisitions, where he represents public and private companies, as well as private equity firms, in the full range of M\u0026amp;A activity, including significant acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, and other strategic transactions. Erik also has substantial experience counseling companies, including boards of directors and C-Suite executives, on takeover defense, proxy contests, shareholder activism and corporate governance. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErik has advised numerous leading public and private companies on substantial M\u0026amp;A matters, such as Newell Brands, General Electric Company, Baker Hughes Company, 3M, Georgia-Pacific, RELX Group (formerly, Reed Elsevier), The Home Depot, United Parcel Service,\u0026nbsp;Xerox Holdings Corporation and Genuine Parts Company.\u0026nbsp; Recent representative transactions include acting for Newell Brands in its acquisition of Jarden Corporation; General Electric Company in the sale of its Small Industrial Motors business to Wolong Electric Group; 3M in its acquisition of Madison Fire \u0026amp; Rescue from Madison Industries, in partnership with Bain Capital; Baker Hughes Company in its acquisition of Continental Disc Corporation from Tinicum; Genuine Parts Company in its acquisition of Kaman Distribution Group; Mailchimp in its sale to\u0026nbsp;Intuit; Xerox in its tender offer and proxy fight for HP; and U.S. Xpress in its sale to\u0026nbsp;Knight-Swift Transportation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the last 14\u0026nbsp;consecutive years, Erik has been listed as a top M\u0026amp;A attorney in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp; He is also listed in M\u0026amp;A by \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e and has been recognized as a \"Client Service All Star MVP\" by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Consulting Group\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErik was formerly a member of the board of trustees of The Schenck School (an independent school in Atlanta, GA for children with dyslexia).\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eErik has extensive M\u0026amp;A experience across a broad range of industries. Representative transactions include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCONSUMER AND RETAIL\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNouria Energy Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e, in its acquisition of Enmarket, a leading convenience store retailer in the Southeast, from Colonial Group, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eNewell Brands Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in numerous transactions, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits $16 billion acquisition of Jarden Corporation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its Pure Fishing to Sycamore Partners for approximately $1.3 billion\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits sale of The Waddington Group to Novolex Holdings, a portfolio company of The Carlyle Group, for approximately $2.3 billion\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe $1.95 billion sale of its Tools business, including the Irwin\u0026reg;, Lenox\u0026reg;, and Hilmor\u0026reg; brands, to Stanley Black \u0026amp; Decker, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of The United States Playing Card Company to Cartamundi Group, a leading manufacturer and distributor of playing cards and board games\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its Process Solutions business to One Rock Capital Partners, LLC for $500 million\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe $395 million sale of Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc. to Seidler Equity Partners and Major League Baseball -\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Daily Deal's\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Most Innovative Middle Market Deal of the Year (2018)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its Winter Sports businesses to Kohlberg \u0026amp; Company for $240 million\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its Pine Mountain\u0026reg; fire starters and fire logs business, and Diamond\u0026reg; matches, fire starters, lighters, toothpicks, and laundry business, to Royal Oak Enterprises, a leading manufacturer of charcoal and grilling products\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGenuine Parts Company\u003c/strong\u003e, in its announced plan to separate its automotive parts and industrial parts segments into two independent, publicly traded companies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGenuine Parts Company\u003c/strong\u003e, in its acquisition of Motor Parts \u0026amp; Equipment Corporation, the largest independent owner of NAPA Auto Parts stores in the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Home Depot\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple transactions, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits acquisition of The Litemore group of companies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits acquisition of Landmark Interiors\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits acquisition of the Brafasco group of companies\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of Chem-Dry carpet cleaning franchise chain\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eIQVentures Holdings\u003c/strong\u003e, in its pending $504 million acquisition of The Aaron's Company (NYSE: AAN), a leading lease-to-own retailer of appliances, electronics, furniture and home goods\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia-Pacific\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the sale of its joint venture interest in Vania and Polive (feminine products) to Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSweetwater Sound\u003c/strong\u003e, the nation's largest e-commerce retailer of musical instruments and pro audio equipment, in its growth equity investment by Providence Equity Partners\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLes Enterprises Barrette Ltee\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the sale of Barrette Outdoor Living (North America's leading manufacturer of wood-alternative fence and railing products) to TorQuest Partners and Caisse de d\u0026eacute;p\u0026ocirc;t et placement du Qu\u0026eacute;bec\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eINDUSTRIALS\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGenuine Parts Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its $1.3 billion acquisition of Kaman Distribution Group, a leading distributor of power transmission, automation and fluid power products\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBaker Hughes Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple transactions, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe pending $1.45 billion sale of its Waygate Technologies business to Hexagon\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits $540 million acquisition of Continental Disc Corporation, a leading provider of safety-critical pressure management solutions, from investment partnerships managed by Tinicum Incorporated\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits acquisition of AccessESP, a provider of advanced technology for artificial lift solutions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its specialty polymers business to SK Capital\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its A-C Compressor service and repair business to Rotating Machinery Services, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its Rotoflow\u0026trade; turboexpander business to Air Products\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a variety of transactions, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of the small industrial motors business of its Power Conversion division to Wolong Electric Group Co., Ltd.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of the Electric Machinery unit of its Converteam business to WEG\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia-Pacific\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in in acquisition of Excel Displays \u0026amp; Packaging, a designer and manufacturer of point-of-purchase displays and industrial packaging\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMonstanto Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its feed and processing joint venture with Cargill Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eThe Vincit Group\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading provider of food safety and pathogen control services for the protein industry, in its investment by Harvest Capital Partners\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple transactions, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits pending $1.95 billion acquisition, in partnership with Bain Capital, of Madison Fire \u0026amp; Rescue from Madison Industries; in connection with the closing, 3M will contribute its Scott Safety business to the partnership\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its fused silica manufacturing business to Christy Minerals\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale to SIAT Group of 3M's 50% equity stake in Combi Packaging Systems (a producer and distributor of packaging machinery and spare parts)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eSuperior Essex\u003c/strong\u003e, in the formation of its global joint venture with Nexans, creating the world's largest manufacturer or magnet wire\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTECHNOLOGY\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMailchimp\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading email marketing company to small and mid-market businesses, in its $12 billion sale to Intuit. The transaction was the largest sale of a privately held software company in U.S. history\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eXerox Holdings Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its tender offer and proxy fight for HP Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRELX Group plc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein numerous transactions, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits acquisitions of SST Software, a precision agriculture information solutions company, and CDMS, a leading provider of compliance data and solutions to support agronomic recommendations and decisions\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of a 51 percent stake in Reed Construction Data (RCD) to Warburg Pincus, and the sale of 100 percent of RSMeans to The Gordian Group, a Warburg Pincus portfolio company\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe acquisition of Chemical Data, a leading provider of US petrochemical price benchmarks and predictive analytics\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe acquisition of FlightStats, a leading flight status tracker\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eits acquisition of Intelligize, a leading provider of Securities and Exchange Commission intelligence and data solutions\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eMonitise plc\u003c/strong\u003e, a provider of mobile banking technology services, in its acquisition of ClairMail\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eENERGY\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBaker Hughes Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the sale of its global Natural Gas Solutions (NGS) business to First Reserve\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple transactions, including:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe acquisition of the Salof group of companies, designers of mini LNG and CO2 technologies and facilities\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ethe sale of its Industrial Air \u0026amp; Gas Technologies business to Colfax Corporation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFINANCIAL SERVICES\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the sale of its Commercial Distribution Finance, Vendor Finance, and Corporate Finance platforms to Wells Fargo \u0026amp; Co.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican First Finance\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading virtual lease-to-own and retail finance provider, in its sale to FirstCash, Inc. for up to $1.47 billion in cash and stock\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Pacific\u003c/strong\u003e, in its acquisition of the Temple-Inland building products business from International Paper Company for $750 million\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKamco Supply\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading supplier of ceilings, wallboard, steel, lumber, and related construction products, in its $317 million sale to GMS Inc. (NYSE: GMS)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAVIATION, TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Xpress Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(NYSE: USX) in its sale to Knight-Swift Transportation (NYSE: KNX)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eARINC Incorporated\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and its shareholders, including multiple major airlines, in the sale of the company to The Carlyle Group\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service\u003c/strong\u003e, in its acquisition of HTML Logistics\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eKoch Industries\u003c/strong\u003e, in its acquisition of The Chicago Fuels Terminal from DTE Energy\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHEALTHCARE\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEDG Partners\u003c/strong\u003e, a private equity firm focused on small and middle market healthcare companies, in numerous acquisitions, divestitures, and growth equity investments\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eGemino Healthcare Finance,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ea nationwide provider of asset based and term loans to small and mid-size healthcare service providers, in the company's sale to Solar Senior Capital Ltd.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Leading Dealmakers in America","detail":"Lawdragon 500 - 2025"},{"title":"BTI Client Service All Star","detail":"2021"},{"title":"Leader in M\u0026A ","detail":"Chambers USA "},{"title":"M\u0026A ","detail":"Legal 500 US "},{"title":"M\u0026A; Corporate Law ","detail":"Best Lawyers in Americas "},{"title":"Most Innovative Deal of the Year —  The Deal Awards Middle Market  ","detail":"The Deal, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7246}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2026-04-16T14:17:46.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-16T14:17:46.000Z","searchable_text":"Belenky{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Dealmakers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon 500 - 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"BTI Client Service All Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leader in M\u0026amp;A \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"M\u0026amp;A \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"M\u0026amp;A; Corporate Law \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in Americas \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Most Innovative Deal of the Year —  The Deal Awards Middle Market  \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Deal, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Erik has extensive M\u0026amp;A experience across a broad range of industries. Representative transactions include:{{ FIELD }}CONSUMER AND RETAIL{{ FIELD }}Nouria Energy Corporation, in its acquisition of Enmarket, a leading convenience store retailer in the Southeast, from Colonial Group, Inc.{{ FIELD }}Newell Brands Inc. in numerous transactions, including:\nits $16 billion acquisition of Jarden Corporation\nthe sale of its Pure Fishing to Sycamore Partners for approximately $1.3 billion\nits sale of The Waddington Group to Novolex Holdings, a portfolio company of The Carlyle Group, for approximately $2.3 billion\nthe $1.95 billion sale of its Tools business, including the Irwin®, Lenox®, and Hilmor® brands, to Stanley Black \u0026amp; Decker, Inc.\nthe sale of The United States Playing Card Company to Cartamundi Group, a leading manufacturer and distributor of playing cards and board games\nthe sale of its Process Solutions business to One Rock Capital Partners, LLC for $500 million\nthe $395 million sale of Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc. to Seidler Equity Partners and Major League Baseball - The Daily Deal's Most Innovative Middle Market Deal of the Year (2018)\nthe sale of its Winter Sports businesses to Kohlberg \u0026amp; Company for $240 million\nthe sale of its Pine Mountain® fire starters and fire logs business, and Diamond® matches, fire starters, lighters, toothpicks, and laundry business, to Royal Oak Enterprises, a leading manufacturer of charcoal and grilling products{{ FIELD }}Genuine Parts Company, in its announced plan to separate its automotive parts and industrial parts segments into two independent, publicly traded companies.{{ FIELD }}Genuine Parts Company, in its acquisition of Motor Parts \u0026amp; Equipment Corporation, the largest independent owner of NAPA Auto Parts stores in the U.S.{{ FIELD }}The Home Depot in multiple transactions, including:\nits acquisition of The Litemore group of companies\nits acquisition of Landmark Interiors\nits acquisition of the Brafasco group of companies\nthe sale of Chem-Dry carpet cleaning franchise chain{{ FIELD }}IQVentures Holdings, in its pending $504 million acquisition of The Aaron's Company (NYSE: AAN), a leading lease-to-own retailer of appliances, electronics, furniture and home goods{{ FIELD }}Georgia-Pacific in the sale of its joint venture interest in Vania and Polive (feminine products) to Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson{{ FIELD }}Sweetwater Sound, the nation's largest e-commerce retailer of musical instruments and pro audio equipment, in its growth equity investment by Providence Equity Partners{{ FIELD }}Les Enterprises Barrette Ltee in the sale of Barrette Outdoor Living (North America's leading manufacturer of wood-alternative fence and railing products) to TorQuest Partners and Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec{{ FIELD }}INDUSTRIALS{{ FIELD }}Genuine Parts Company in its $1.3 billion acquisition of Kaman Distribution Group, a leading distributor of power transmission, automation and fluid power products{{ FIELD }}Baker Hughes Company in multiple transactions, including:\nthe pending $1.45 billion sale of its Waygate Technologies business to Hexagon\nits $540 million acquisition of Continental Disc Corporation, a leading provider of safety-critical pressure management solutions, from investment partnerships managed by Tinicum Incorporated\nits acquisition of AccessESP, a provider of advanced technology for artificial lift solutions\nthe sale of its specialty polymers business to SK Capital\nthe sale of its A-C Compressor service and repair business to Rotating Machinery Services, Inc.\nthe sale of its Rotoflow™ turboexpander business to Air Products\n {{ FIELD }}General Electric Company in a variety of transactions, including:\nthe sale of the small industrial motors business of its Power Conversion division to Wolong Electric Group Co., Ltd.\nthe sale of the Electric Machinery unit of its Converteam business to WEG{{ FIELD }}Georgia-Pacific in in acquisition of Excel Displays \u0026amp; Packaging, a designer and manufacturer of point-of-purchase displays and industrial packaging{{ FIELD }}Monstanto Company in its feed and processing joint venture with Cargill Inc.{{ FIELD }}The Vincit Group, a leading provider of food safety and pathogen control services for the protein industry, in its investment by Harvest Capital Partners{{ FIELD }}3M in multiple transactions, including:\nits pending $1.95 billion acquisition, in partnership with Bain Capital, of Madison Fire \u0026amp; Rescue from Madison Industries; in connection with the closing, 3M will contribute its Scott Safety business to the partnership\nthe sale of its fused silica manufacturing business to Christy Minerals\nthe sale to SIAT Group of 3M's 50% equity stake in Combi Packaging Systems (a producer and distributor of packaging machinery and spare parts){{ FIELD }}Superior Essex, in the formation of its global joint venture with Nexans, creating the world's largest manufacturer or magnet wire{{ FIELD }}TECHNOLOGY{{ FIELD }}Mailchimp, a leading email marketing company to small and mid-market businesses, in its $12 billion sale to Intuit. The transaction was the largest sale of a privately held software company in U.S. history{{ FIELD }}Xerox Holdings Corporation in its tender offer and proxy fight for HP Inc.{{ FIELD }}RELX Group plc in numerous transactions, including:\nits acquisitions of SST Software, a precision agriculture information solutions company, and CDMS, a leading provider of compliance data and solutions to support agronomic recommendations and decisions\nthe sale of a 51 percent stake in Reed Construction Data (RCD) to Warburg Pincus, and the sale of 100 percent of RSMeans to The Gordian Group, a Warburg Pincus portfolio company\nthe acquisition of Chemical Data, a leading provider of US petrochemical price benchmarks and predictive analytics\nthe acquisition of FlightStats, a leading flight status tracker\nits acquisition of Intelligize, a leading provider of Securities and Exchange Commission intelligence and data solutions{{ FIELD }}Monitise plc, a provider of mobile banking technology services, in its acquisition of ClairMail{{ FIELD }}ENERGY{{ FIELD }}Baker Hughes Company in the sale of its global Natural Gas Solutions (NGS) business to First Reserve{{ FIELD }}General Electric Company in multiple transactions, including:\nthe acquisition of the Salof group of companies, designers of mini LNG and CO2 technologies and facilities\nthe sale of its Industrial Air \u0026amp; Gas Technologies business to Colfax Corporation{{ FIELD }}FINANCIAL SERVICES{{ FIELD }}General Electric Company in the sale of its Commercial Distribution Finance, Vendor Finance, and Corporate Finance platforms to Wells Fargo \u0026amp; Co.{{ FIELD }}American First Finance, a leading virtual lease-to-own and retail finance provider, in its sale to FirstCash, Inc. for up to $1.47 billion in cash and stock{{ FIELD }}CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING{{ FIELD }}Georgia Pacific, in its acquisition of the Temple-Inland building products business from International Paper Company for $750 million{{ FIELD }}Kamco Supply, a leading supplier of ceilings, wallboard, steel, lumber, and related construction products, in its $317 million sale to GMS Inc. (NYSE: GMS){{ FIELD }}AVIATION, TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS{{ FIELD }}U.S. Xpress Enterprises (NYSE: USX) in its sale to Knight-Swift Transportation (NYSE: KNX){{ FIELD }}ARINC Incorporated and its shareholders, including multiple major airlines, in the sale of the company to The Carlyle Group{{ FIELD }}United Parcel Service, in its acquisition of HTML Logistics{{ FIELD }}Koch Industries, in its acquisition of The Chicago Fuels Terminal from DTE Energy{{ FIELD }}HEALTHCARE{{ FIELD }}EDG Partners, a private equity firm focused on small and middle market healthcare companies, in numerous acquisitions, divestitures, and growth equity investments{{ FIELD }}Gemino Healthcare Finance, a nationwide provider of asset based and term loans to small and mid-size healthcare service providers, in the company's sale to Solar Senior Capital Ltd.{{ FIELD }}Erik Belenky focuses on mergers and acquisitions, where he represents public and private companies, as well as private equity firms, in the full range of M\u0026amp;A activity, including significant acquisitions, divestitures, joint ventures, and other strategic transactions. Erik also has substantial experience counseling companies, including boards of directors and C-Suite executives, on takeover defense, proxy contests, shareholder activism and corporate governance. \nErik has advised numerous leading public and private companies on substantial M\u0026amp;A matters, such as Newell Brands, General Electric Company, Baker Hughes Company, 3M, Georgia-Pacific, RELX Group (formerly, Reed Elsevier), The Home Depot, United Parcel Service, Xerox Holdings Corporation and Genuine Parts Company.  Recent representative transactions include acting for Newell Brands in its acquisition of Jarden Corporation; General Electric Company in the sale of its Small Industrial Motors business to Wolong Electric Group; 3M in its acquisition of Madison Fire \u0026amp; Rescue from Madison Industries, in partnership with Bain Capital; Baker Hughes Company in its acquisition of Continental Disc Corporation from Tinicum; Genuine Parts Company in its acquisition of Kaman Distribution Group; Mailchimp in its sale to Intuit; Xerox in its tender offer and proxy fight for HP; and U.S. Xpress in its sale to Knight-Swift Transportation.\nFor the last 14 consecutive years, Erik has been listed as a top M\u0026amp;A attorney in Chambers USA.  He is also listed in M\u0026amp;A by The Legal 500 US and Best Lawyers in America and has been recognized as a \"Client Service All Star MVP\" by BTI Consulting Group.\nErik was formerly a member of the board of trustees of The Schenck School (an independent school in Atlanta, GA for children with dyslexia). Erik Belenky lawyer Partner Leading Dealmakers in America Lawdragon 500 - 2025 BTI Client Service All Star 2021 Leader in M\u0026amp;A  Chambers USA  M\u0026amp;A  Legal 500 US  M\u0026amp;A; Corporate Law  Best Lawyers in Americas  Most Innovative Deal of the Year —  The Deal Awards Middle Market   The Deal, 2018 Colby College  London School of Economics and Political Science, UK  Duke University Duke University School of Law Georgia Erik has extensive M\u0026amp;A experience across a broad range of industries. Representative transactions include: CONSUMER AND RETAIL Nouria Energy Corporation, in its acquisition of Enmarket, a leading convenience store retailer in the Southeast, from Colonial Group, Inc. Newell Brands Inc. in numerous transactions, including:\nits $16 billion acquisition of Jarden Corporation\nthe sale of its Pure Fishing to Sycamore Partners for approximately $1.3 billion\nits sale of The Waddington Group to Novolex Holdings, a portfolio company of The Carlyle Group, for approximately $2.3 billion\nthe $1.95 billion sale of its Tools business, including the Irwin®, Lenox®, and Hilmor® brands, to Stanley Black \u0026amp; Decker, Inc.\nthe sale of The United States Playing Card Company to Cartamundi Group, a leading manufacturer and distributor of playing cards and board games\nthe sale of its Process Solutions business to One Rock Capital Partners, LLC for $500 million\nthe $395 million sale of Rawlings Sporting Goods Company, Inc. to Seidler Equity Partners and Major League Baseball - The Daily Deal's Most Innovative Middle Market Deal of the Year (2018)\nthe sale of its Winter Sports businesses to Kohlberg \u0026amp; Company for $240 million\nthe sale of its Pine Mountain® fire starters and fire logs business, and Diamond® matches, fire starters, lighters, toothpicks, and laundry business, to Royal Oak Enterprises, a leading manufacturer of charcoal and grilling products Genuine Parts Company, in its announced plan to separate its automotive parts and industrial parts segments into two independent, publicly traded companies. Genuine Parts Company, in its acquisition of Motor Parts \u0026amp; Equipment Corporation, the largest independent owner of NAPA Auto Parts stores in the U.S. The Home Depot in multiple transactions, including:\nits acquisition of The Litemore group of companies\nits acquisition of Landmark Interiors\nits acquisition of the Brafasco group of companies\nthe sale of Chem-Dry carpet cleaning franchise chain IQVentures Holdings, in its pending $504 million acquisition of The Aaron's Company (NYSE: AAN), a leading lease-to-own retailer of appliances, electronics, furniture and home goods Georgia-Pacific in the sale of its joint venture interest in Vania and Polive (feminine products) to Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson Sweetwater Sound, the nation's largest e-commerce retailer of musical instruments and pro audio equipment, in its growth equity investment by Providence Equity Partners Les Enterprises Barrette Ltee in the sale of Barrette Outdoor Living (North America's leading manufacturer of wood-alternative fence and railing products) to TorQuest Partners and Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec INDUSTRIALS Genuine Parts Company in its $1.3 billion acquisition of Kaman Distribution Group, a leading distributor of power transmission, automation and fluid power products Baker Hughes Company in multiple transactions, including:\nthe pending $1.45 billion sale of its Waygate Technologies business to Hexagon\nits $540 million acquisition of Continental Disc Corporation, a leading provider of safety-critical pressure management solutions, from investment partnerships managed by Tinicum Incorporated\nits acquisition of AccessESP, a provider of advanced technology for artificial lift solutions\nthe sale of its specialty polymers business to SK Capital\nthe sale of its A-C Compressor service and repair business to Rotating Machinery Services, Inc.\nthe sale of its Rotoflow™ turboexpander business to Air Products\n  General Electric Company in a variety of transactions, including:\nthe sale of the small industrial motors business of its Power Conversion division to Wolong Electric Group Co., Ltd.\nthe sale of the Electric Machinery unit of its Converteam business to WEG Georgia-Pacific in in acquisition of Excel Displays \u0026amp; Packaging, a designer and manufacturer of point-of-purchase displays and industrial packaging Monstanto Company in its feed and processing joint venture with Cargill Inc. The Vincit Group, a leading provider of food safety and pathogen control services for the protein industry, in its investment by Harvest Capital Partners 3M in multiple transactions, including:\nits pending $1.95 billion acquisition, in partnership with Bain Capital, of Madison Fire \u0026amp; Rescue from Madison Industries; in connection with the closing, 3M will contribute its Scott Safety business to the partnership\nthe sale of its fused silica manufacturing business to Christy Minerals\nthe sale to SIAT Group of 3M's 50% equity stake in Combi Packaging Systems (a producer and distributor of packaging machinery and spare parts) Superior Essex, in the formation of its global joint venture with Nexans, creating the world's largest manufacturer or magnet wire TECHNOLOGY Mailchimp, a leading email marketing company to small and mid-market businesses, in its $12 billion sale to Intuit. The transaction was the largest sale of a privately held software company in U.S. history Xerox Holdings Corporation in its tender offer and proxy fight for HP Inc. RELX Group plc in numerous transactions, including:\nits acquisitions of SST Software, a precision agriculture information solutions company, and CDMS, a leading provider of compliance data and solutions to support agronomic recommendations and decisions\nthe sale of a 51 percent stake in Reed Construction Data (RCD) to Warburg Pincus, and the sale of 100 percent of RSMeans to The Gordian Group, a Warburg Pincus portfolio company\nthe acquisition of Chemical Data, a leading provider of US petrochemical price benchmarks and predictive analytics\nthe acquisition of FlightStats, a leading flight status tracker\nits acquisition of Intelligize, a leading provider of Securities and Exchange Commission intelligence and data solutions Monitise plc, a provider of mobile banking technology services, in its acquisition of ClairMail ENERGY Baker Hughes Company in the sale of its global Natural Gas Solutions (NGS) business to First Reserve General Electric Company in multiple transactions, including:\nthe acquisition of the Salof group of companies, designers of mini LNG and CO2 technologies and facilities\nthe sale of its Industrial Air \u0026amp; Gas Technologies business to Colfax Corporation FINANCIAL SERVICES General Electric Company in the sale of its Commercial Distribution Finance, Vendor Finance, and Corporate Finance platforms to Wells Fargo \u0026amp; Co. American First Finance, a leading virtual lease-to-own and retail finance provider, in its sale to FirstCash, Inc. for up to $1.47 billion in cash and stock CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING Georgia Pacific, in its acquisition of the Temple-Inland building products business from International Paper Company for $750 million Kamco Supply, a leading supplier of ceilings, wallboard, steel, lumber, and related construction products, in its $317 million sale to GMS Inc. (NYSE: GMS) AVIATION, TRANSPORTATION AND LOGISTICS U.S. Xpress Enterprises (NYSE: USX) in its sale to Knight-Swift Transportation (NYSE: KNX) ARINC Incorporated and its shareholders, including multiple major airlines, in the sale of the company to The Carlyle Group United Parcel Service, in its acquisition of HTML Logistics Koch Industries, in its acquisition of The Chicago Fuels Terminal from DTE Energy HEALTHCARE EDG Partners, a private equity firm focused on small and middle market healthcare companies, in numerous acquisitions, divestitures, and growth equity investments Gemino Healthcare Finance, a nationwide provider of asset based and term loans to small and mid-size healthcare service providers, in the company's sale to Solar Senior Capital Ltd.","searchable_name":"Erik Belenky","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":447427,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5636,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKaty\u0026nbsp;Berger is a partner\u0026nbsp;in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Finance \u0026amp; Restructuring practice. Katy represents financial institutions, funds, asset managers and institutional investors in structured warehouse facilities, safe harbored repurchase facilities,\u0026nbsp;subscription facilities, securitizations, private placements, receivables financing transactions, and other specialty finance transactions across a variety of asset classes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKaty is a fellow of the American College of Investment Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"katy-berger","email":"kberger@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":26,"guid":"26.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":73,"guid":"73.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":36,"guid":"36.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":29,"guid":"29.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1252,"guid":"1252.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1261,"guid":"1261.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":134,"guid":"134.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Berger","nick_name":"Katy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Katy","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":722,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":null},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKaty\u0026nbsp;Berger is a partner\u0026nbsp;in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Finance \u0026amp; Restructuring practice. Katy represents financial institutions, funds, asset managers and institutional investors in structured warehouse facilities, safe harbored repurchase facilities,\u0026nbsp;subscription facilities, securitizations, private placements, receivables financing transactions, and other specialty finance transactions across a variety of asset classes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKaty is a fellow of the American College of Investment Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7346}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2026-04-08T21:13:17.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-08T21:13:17.000Z","searchable_text":"Berger{{ FIELD }}Katy Berger is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Finance \u0026amp; Restructuring practice. Katy represents financial institutions, funds, asset managers and institutional investors in structured warehouse facilities, safe harbored repurchase facilities, subscription facilities, securitizations, private placements, receivables financing transactions, and other specialty finance transactions across a variety of asset classes.\nKaty is a fellow of the American College of Investment Counsel. Partner Cornell University Cornell Law School Fordham University Fordham University School of Law New York American College of Investment Counsel (ACIC), Fellow","searchable_name":"Katy Berger","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":426841,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5738,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"craig-bessenger","email":"cbessenger@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment on behalf of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emovie studio, directors, and producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor movie studio\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor media company\u003c/strong\u003e, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclosely held corporation\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented publicly-traded\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in numerous class actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforeign national\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebank directors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproducer of high-quality automotive images\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bessenger","nick_name":"Craig","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"2010 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Craig","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"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":"H.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment on behalf of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emovie studio, directors, and producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor movie studio\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor media company\u003c/strong\u003e, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclosely held corporation\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented publicly-traded\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in numerous class actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforeign national\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebank directors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproducer of high-quality automotive images\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8096}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:19.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:19.000Z","searchable_text":"Bessenger{{ FIELD }}Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the movie studio, directors, and producer involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a major movie studio against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal.{{ FIELD }}Defeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a major media company, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a closely held corporation.{{ FIELD }}Represented publicly-traded healthcare company in numerous class actions.{{ FIELD }}Represented a foreign national in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.{{ FIELD }}Represented bank directors in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.{{ FIELD }}Represented a medical device manufacturer in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.{{ FIELD }}Represented a producer of high-quality automotive images in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Craig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations. Partner Brown University  University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California District of Columbia Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the movie studio, directors, and producer involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case. Successfully defended a major movie studio against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal. Defeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a major media company, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal. Achieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a closely held corporation. Represented publicly-traded healthcare company in numerous class actions. Represented a foreign national in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations. Represented bank directors in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities. Represented a medical device manufacturer in an investigation by state regulatory authorities. Represented a producer of high-quality automotive images in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.","searchable_name":"Craig H. Bessenger","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":436688,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3236,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation. \u0026nbsp;He regularly works with board\u0026nbsp;committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, among others, and has been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLawdragon.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;He is rated AV\u0026reg; Preeminent\u0026trade; by Martindale-Hubbel.\u0026nbsp; Client and peer reviews in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;say Paul\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.\u0026nbsp; Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he \u0026lsquo;is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u0026rsquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Securities Reporter.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"paul-bessette","email":"pbessette@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-512-940-6250","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSignificant Matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital Turbine, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSolarWinds Corp\u003c/em\u003e.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds\u0026rsquo;s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as \u0026ldquo;the largest and most sophisticated\u0026rdquo; cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhunware, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware\u0026rsquo;s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShattuck Labs\u003c/em\u003e: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re PolatityTE:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss\u0026mdash;the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE\u0026rsquo;s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolent Health, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed \u0026ldquo;rocket docket\u0026rdquo; timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdeptus Health, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFXCM, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank\u0026rsquo;s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM\u0026rsquo;s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hanger, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created \u0026ldquo;cookie jar\u0026rdquo; reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate \u0026ldquo;tone at the top.\u0026rdquo; In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003een banc,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court\u0026rsquo;s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants\u0026rsquo; state of mind. 768 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeiman v. Bulmahn, et al\u003c/em\u003e.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP\u0026rsquo;s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re SemCrude L.P.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMiyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost\u0026rsquo;s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company\u0026rsquo;s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a \u0026sect;10(b) securities-fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":132}]},"expertise":[{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bessette","nick_name":"Paul","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Paul","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America","detail":"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024"},{"title":"\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\"","detail":"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense","detail":"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide"},{"title":"\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1"},{"title":"Recognized by Best Lawyer","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023"},{"title":"\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026 responsiveness.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2021"},{"title":"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.","detail":"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2"},{"title":"\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”","detail":"U.S. News \u0026 World Report, 2015"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025"},{"title":"One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\"","detail":"Lawdragon, 2008"},{"title":"One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\"","detail":"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011"},{"title":"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers ","detail":"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation","detail":"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation. \u0026nbsp;He regularly works with board\u0026nbsp;committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, among others, and has been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLawdragon.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;He is rated AV\u0026reg; Preeminent\u0026trade; by Martindale-Hubbel.\u0026nbsp; Client and peer reviews in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;say Paul\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.\u0026nbsp; Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he \u0026lsquo;is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u0026rsquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Securities Reporter.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSignificant Matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital Turbine, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSolarWinds Corp\u003c/em\u003e.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds\u0026rsquo;s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as \u0026ldquo;the largest and most sophisticated\u0026rdquo; cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhunware, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware\u0026rsquo;s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShattuck Labs\u003c/em\u003e: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re PolatityTE:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss\u0026mdash;the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE\u0026rsquo;s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolent Health, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed \u0026ldquo;rocket docket\u0026rdquo; timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdeptus Health, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFXCM, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank\u0026rsquo;s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM\u0026rsquo;s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hanger, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created \u0026ldquo;cookie jar\u0026rdquo; reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate \u0026ldquo;tone at the top.\u0026rdquo; In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003een banc,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court\u0026rsquo;s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants\u0026rsquo; state of mind. 768 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeiman v. Bulmahn, et al\u003c/em\u003e.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP\u0026rsquo;s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re SemCrude L.P.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMiyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost\u0026rsquo;s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company\u0026rsquo;s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a \u0026sect;10(b) securities-fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America","detail":"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024"},{"title":"\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\"","detail":"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense","detail":"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide"},{"title":"\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1"},{"title":"Recognized by Best Lawyer","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023"},{"title":"\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026 responsiveness.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2021"},{"title":"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.","detail":"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2"},{"title":"\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”","detail":"U.S. News \u0026 World Report, 2015"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025"},{"title":"One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\"","detail":"Lawdragon, 2008"},{"title":"One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\"","detail":"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011"},{"title":"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers ","detail":"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation","detail":"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4186}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-04T21:52:53.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-04T21:52:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Bessette{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\\\" \\\"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Best Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026amp; responsiveness.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026amp;Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\\\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Securities Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"One of \\\"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2008\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"One of \\\"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Securities Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010\"}{{ FIELD }}Significant Matters{{ FIELD }}Digital Turbine, Inc.: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.{{ FIELD }}SolarWinds Corp.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds’ December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds’s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated” cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds’ former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.{{ FIELD }}Phunware, Inc.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware’s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware’s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.{{ FIELD }}Shattuck Labs: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply{{ FIELD }}In re PolatityTE: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss—the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE’s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.{{ FIELD }}Evolent Health, Inc.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed “rocket docket” timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.{{ FIELD }}Adeptus Health, Inc.: We defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus’s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus’s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.{{ FIELD }}FXCM, Inc.: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank’s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM’s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App’x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).{{ FIELD }}In re Hanger, Inc.: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created “cookie jar” reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate “tone at the top.” In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs’ allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants’ state of mind. 768 Fed. App’x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).{{ FIELD }}Neiman v. Bulmahn, et al.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP’s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company’s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).{{ FIELD }}In re SemCrude L.P.: Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).{{ FIELD }}Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.: Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost’s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff’s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Bell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.: Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company’s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).{{ FIELD }}In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation: Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Greenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a §10(b) securities-fraud claim.{{ FIELD }}Paul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm’s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.  For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation.  He regularly works with board committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues. \nPaul is ranked by Chambers, Best Lawyers in America, and Legal 500, among others, and has been recognized by Super Lawyers and Lawdragon.  He is rated AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbel.  Client and peer reviews in Chambers say Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.  Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he ‘is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”’  “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.”\nPaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including ABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter and The Securities Reporter. Paul R. Bessette Partner Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America Litigation Counsel of America, 2024 Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America Leading Lawyers of America, 2024 \"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\" Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024 Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide \"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\" Chambers USA 2023, Band 1 Recognized by Best Lawyer The Best Lawyers in America - 2023 \"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026amp; responsiveness.\" Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023 \"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\" Chambers, 2021 Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026amp;Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions. Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2 Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions. Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2 \"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\" Chambers USA 2018, Band 2 Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.” Chambers USA, 2016 “Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors” Chambers USA, 2016 Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.” Chambers USA, 2016 “Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.” U.S. News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015 Recognized for Securities Litigation  The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025 One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\" Lawdragon, 2008 One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\" Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011 Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers  Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019 Recognized for Securities Litigation Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010 The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Baylor University Baylor University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California New York Texas Significant Matters Digital Turbine, Inc.: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024. SolarWinds Corp.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds’ December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds’s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated” cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds’ former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement. Phunware, Inc.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware’s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware’s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim. Shattuck Labs: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply In re PolatityTE: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss—the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE’s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss. Evolent Health, Inc.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed “rocket docket” timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session. Adeptus Health, Inc.: We defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus’s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus’s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well. FXCM, Inc.: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank’s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM’s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App’x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019). In re Hanger, Inc.: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created “cookie jar” reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate “tone at the top.” In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs’ allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants’ state of mind. 768 Fed. App’x 175 (5th Cir. 2019). Neiman v. Bulmahn, et al.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP’s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company’s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017). In re SemCrude L.P.: Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015). Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.: Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost’s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff’s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013). Bell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.: Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company’s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005). In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation: Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Greenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a §10(b) securities-fraud claim.","searchable_name":"Paul R. Bessette","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446151,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6369,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatthew Biben focuses his practice on complex negotiation and litigation of disputes, including regulatory and enforcement matters on behalf of both individuals and organizations. His diverse litigation practice includes representing financial institutions and FinTech companies in civil disputes, securities and bankruptcy litigation, and complex matters involving the government.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a former general counsel of a large bank and federal prosecutor, Matthew routinely acts as counsel in litigated disputes and internal investigations of both domestic and international matters involving, among others, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Reserve Board (FRB), Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), state attorneys general and foreign regulators.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining private practice, Matthew served for three-and-a-half years at JPMorgan Chase, where he was Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Chase Consumer \u0026amp; Community Banking, which included JPMorgan Chase\u0026rsquo;s Private Wealth Management, Card and Merchant Services, Auto Finance, Student Loan, Consumer Banking, Business Banking and Mortgage Banking businesses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew also served as Executive Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation for almost seven years, becoming the second youngest person in BNY\u0026rsquo;s history to be promoted to Executive Vice President. He also served as BNY Mellon\u0026rsquo;s Global Head of Litigation and supervised various corporate functions that included the Office of the Corporate Secretary.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew spent the first 12 years of his career in government, serving in the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office for the Southern District of New York, where he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Criminal Division and received the Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s Director Award for superior performance. Previously, he was an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office. He argued numerous appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and was lead counsel in more than 25 federal and state trials.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"matthew-biben","email":"mbiben@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnti-Money Laundering\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoutinely advise banks and non-banks on BSA/AML compliance and enforcement issues including:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSociete Generale\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;before the FRB and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and separately before the NYDFS in negotiating a successful settlement regarding the bank\u0026rsquo;s BSA/AML compliance and risk management programs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMashreq Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in negotiating a favorable settlement with the NYDFS, NYFed, FRB, and OFAC resolving wide ranging BSA/AML and Sanctions issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHabib Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a $630 million lawsuit by the NYDFS and negotiating a $225 million settlement relating to long-running AML/BSA compliance issues and assisting Habib in winding down the business of their NY branch\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCoinbase\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in sweeping NYDFS investigation relating to BSA/AML and other compliance issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large foreign bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in responding to the DOJ investigation of Mossack Fonseca \u0026amp; and the \u0026ldquo;Panama Papers\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eComplex Civil Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFanDuel\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDraftKings\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a landmark victory in the NY Court of Appeals legalizing interactive fantasy sports in New York State (garnering American Lawyer Litigator of the Week runner-up honors)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFanDuel\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a New York State Court litigation brought on by the former founders of FanDuel relating to merger acquisition violation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBlackRock\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation relating to mortgage-era fraud allegations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMacquarie Asset Management\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a joint venture dispute relating to drag-along rights\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent leading\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal investment bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in arbitration relating to a joint venture dispute\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented ad hoc\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e1st lien term lenders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFanDuel\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit and settlement with the New York Attorney General (NYAG) over the legality of daily fantasy sports and later resolving allegations of false advertising whereby the NYAG dropped its claims challenging the legality of FanDuel\u0026rsquo;s contests after a change in the New York State law permitting daily fantasy sports\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented the Chairman of the board of\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Rio Tinto\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a broad ranging SEC investigation into accounting fraud\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBanks and Financial Institutions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to BSA/AML advice, I have extensively advised on bank regulatory compliance and enforcement issues, including the CFPB, the FRB, NYDFS, FDIC, OCC and others, including:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTruist\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running DOJ FIRREA investigation of their trust businesses in a cost-of-litigation settlement where all allegations were denied\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea global bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on fair lender compliance issue in relation to DFS investigation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esuperregional bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a CFPB into investigation into TISA compliance avoiding an enforcement action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efinancial institutions and individuals\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in SEC investigations, including the Chairman of the Board of a Fortune 100 company\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a leading\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFintech company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a CFPB investigation relating to FCRA and UDAAP allegations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eToyota Financial Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ and CFPB investigation and negotiating a favorable settlement relating to the indirect auto lender\u0026rsquo;s fair lending practices\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea senior executive of one of the largest global banks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of RMBS and a separate OCC investigation persuading both agencies after years of investigation to close their investigations without action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead an extensive internal investigation and representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large foreign bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;before the FRB and NYDFS concerning Regulation W compliance issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large foreign bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in responding to a multi-state attorneys general investigation of its auto lending and securitization practices\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esenior finance and actuarial employees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAMBAC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in SEC investigation of accounting fraud\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCFO of an insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation before the NYDFS which resulted in the matter being closed without action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAdmirals Bank\u003c/strong\u003e, as it restructured operations in the face of significant regulatory scrutiny and complex bank regulatory and enforcement issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRoot Insurance\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a New York Attorney General investigation relating to data breach allegations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGovernance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eServed as a Director and Chair of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGovernance Committee\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of the largest privately held bank. BNY Melon Corporate Secretary was a direct report. Extensive pro bono governance work. Write and lecture on the topic. A sample of representations include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProvided\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe Board of Directors of multiple financial institutions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with advice on their annual self-evaluation as well as broader governance issues including expectations and guidance as applied to bank boards\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBoard of Directors of Bed Bath \u0026amp; Beyond\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an internal investigation concerning compensation and disclosure issues\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3543}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":38,"guid":"38.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":923,"guid":"923.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":699,"guid":"699.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1261,"guid":"1261.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":803,"guid":"803.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1327,"guid":"1327.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Biben","nick_name":"Matt","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Matthew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for his “standout expertise” in the category of “Banking (Enforcement \u0026 Investigations)”","detail":"Chamber USA – Nationwide (Band 3) 2020-2026"},{"title":"Nationally recommended in the category of Financial Services Litigation, “tenacious but balanced litigator” ","detail":"The Legal 500 US 2016-2026"},{"title":"Recognized as Benchmark Litigation “Litigation Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation"},{"title":"Recognized as Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyer","detail":"Lawdragon, 2024-2026"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-biben-480bb2a/","seodescription":"Matthew L. Biben is a partner of our Business Litigation Practice Group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatthew Biben focuses his practice on complex negotiation and litigation of disputes, including regulatory and enforcement matters on behalf of both individuals and organizations. His diverse litigation practice includes representing financial institutions and FinTech companies in civil disputes, securities and bankruptcy litigation, and complex matters involving the government.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a former general counsel of a large bank and federal prosecutor, Matthew routinely acts as counsel in litigated disputes and internal investigations of both domestic and international matters involving, among others, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Reserve Board (FRB), Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), state attorneys general and foreign regulators.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining private practice, Matthew served for three-and-a-half years at JPMorgan Chase, where he was Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Chase Consumer \u0026amp; Community Banking, which included JPMorgan Chase\u0026rsquo;s Private Wealth Management, Card and Merchant Services, Auto Finance, Student Loan, Consumer Banking, Business Banking and Mortgage Banking businesses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew also served as Executive Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation for almost seven years, becoming the second youngest person in BNY\u0026rsquo;s history to be promoted to Executive Vice President. He also served as BNY Mellon\u0026rsquo;s Global Head of Litigation and supervised various corporate functions that included the Office of the Corporate Secretary.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew spent the first 12 years of his career in government, serving in the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office for the Southern District of New York, where he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Criminal Division and received the Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s Director Award for superior performance. Previously, he was an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office. He argued numerous appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and was lead counsel in more than 25 federal and state trials.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnti-Money Laundering\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoutinely advise banks and non-banks on BSA/AML compliance and enforcement issues including:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSociete Generale\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;before the FRB and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and separately before the NYDFS in negotiating a successful settlement regarding the bank\u0026rsquo;s BSA/AML compliance and risk management programs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMashreq Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in negotiating a favorable settlement with the NYDFS, NYFed, FRB, and OFAC resolving wide ranging BSA/AML and Sanctions issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHabib Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a $630 million lawsuit by the NYDFS and negotiating a $225 million settlement relating to long-running AML/BSA compliance issues and assisting Habib in winding down the business of their NY branch\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCoinbase\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in sweeping NYDFS investigation relating to BSA/AML and other compliance issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large foreign bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in responding to the DOJ investigation of Mossack Fonseca \u0026amp; and the \u0026ldquo;Panama Papers\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eComplex Civil Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFanDuel\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDraftKings\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a landmark victory in the NY Court of Appeals legalizing interactive fantasy sports in New York State (garnering American Lawyer Litigator of the Week runner-up honors)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFanDuel\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a New York State Court litigation brought on by the former founders of FanDuel relating to merger acquisition violation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBlackRock\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation relating to mortgage-era fraud allegations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMacquarie Asset Management\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a joint venture dispute relating to drag-along rights\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent leading\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal investment bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in arbitration relating to a joint venture dispute\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented ad hoc\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e1st lien term lenders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFanDuel\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit and settlement with the New York Attorney General (NYAG) over the legality of daily fantasy sports and later resolving allegations of false advertising whereby the NYAG dropped its claims challenging the legality of FanDuel\u0026rsquo;s contests after a change in the New York State law permitting daily fantasy sports\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented the Chairman of the board of\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Rio Tinto\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a broad ranging SEC investigation into accounting fraud\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBanks and Financial Institutions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to BSA/AML advice, I have extensively advised on bank regulatory compliance and enforcement issues, including the CFPB, the FRB, NYDFS, FDIC, OCC and others, including:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTruist\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running DOJ FIRREA investigation of their trust businesses in a cost-of-litigation settlement where all allegations were denied\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea global bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on fair lender compliance issue in relation to DFS investigation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esuperregional bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a CFPB into investigation into TISA compliance avoiding an enforcement action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efinancial institutions and individuals\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in SEC investigations, including the Chairman of the Board of a Fortune 100 company\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a leading\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFintech company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a CFPB investigation relating to FCRA and UDAAP allegations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eToyota Financial Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ and CFPB investigation and negotiating a favorable settlement relating to the indirect auto lender\u0026rsquo;s fair lending practices\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea senior executive of one of the largest global banks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of RMBS and a separate OCC investigation persuading both agencies after years of investigation to close their investigations without action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead an extensive internal investigation and representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large foreign bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;before the FRB and NYDFS concerning Regulation W compliance issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large foreign bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in responding to a multi-state attorneys general investigation of its auto lending and securitization practices\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esenior finance and actuarial employees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAMBAC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in SEC investigation of accounting fraud\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCFO of an insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation before the NYDFS which resulted in the matter being closed without action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAdmirals Bank\u003c/strong\u003e, as it restructured operations in the face of significant regulatory scrutiny and complex bank regulatory and enforcement issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRoot Insurance\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a New York Attorney General investigation relating to data breach allegations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGovernance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eServed as a Director and Chair of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGovernance Committee\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of the largest privately held bank. BNY Melon Corporate Secretary was a direct report. Extensive pro bono governance work. Write and lecture on the topic. A sample of representations include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProvided\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe Board of Directors of multiple financial institutions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with advice on their annual self-evaluation as well as broader governance issues including expectations and guidance as applied to bank boards\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBoard of Directors of Bed Bath \u0026amp; Beyond\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an internal investigation concerning compensation and disclosure issues\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for his “standout expertise” in the category of “Banking (Enforcement \u0026 Investigations)”","detail":"Chamber USA – Nationwide (Band 3) 2020-2026"},{"title":"Nationally recommended in the category of Financial Services Litigation, “tenacious but balanced litigator” ","detail":"The Legal 500 US 2016-2026"},{"title":"Recognized as Benchmark Litigation “Litigation Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation"},{"title":"Recognized as Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyer","detail":"Lawdragon, 2024-2026"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9814}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-24T23:17:27.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-24T23:17:27.000Z","searchable_text":"Biben{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for his “standout expertise” in the category of “Banking (Enforcement \u0026amp; Investigations)”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chamber USA – Nationwide (Band 3) 2020-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Nationally recommended in the category of Financial Services Litigation, “tenacious but balanced litigator” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US 2016-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Benchmark Litigation “Litigation Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2024-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}Anti-Money Laundering\nRoutinely advise banks and non-banks on BSA/AML compliance and enforcement issues including:{{ FIELD }}Represented Societe Generale before the FRB and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and separately before the NYDFS in negotiating a successful settlement regarding the bank’s BSA/AML compliance and risk management programs{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Mashreq Bank in negotiating a favorable settlement with the NYDFS, NYFed, FRB, and OFAC resolving wide ranging BSA/AML and Sanctions issues{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended Habib Bank against a $630 million lawsuit by the NYDFS and negotiating a $225 million settlement relating to long-running AML/BSA compliance issues and assisting Habib in winding down the business of their NY branch{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Coinbase in sweeping NYDFS investigation relating to BSA/AML and other compliance issues{{ FIELD }}Advised a large foreign bank in responding to the DOJ investigation of Mossack Fonseca \u0026amp; and the “Panama Papers”{{ FIELD }}Complex Civil Litigation\nRepresented FanDuel and DraftKings in a landmark victory in the NY Court of Appeals legalizing interactive fantasy sports in New York State (garnering American Lawyer Litigator of the Week runner-up honors){{ FIELD }}Represent FanDuel in a New York State Court litigation brought on by the former founders of FanDuel relating to merger acquisition violation{{ FIELD }}Represent BlackRock in litigation relating to mortgage-era fraud allegations{{ FIELD }}Represented Macquarie Asset Management in a joint venture dispute relating to drag-along rights{{ FIELD }}Represent leading global investment bank in arbitration relating to a joint venture dispute{{ FIELD }}Represented ad hoc 1st lien term lenders in the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy{{ FIELD }}Represented FanDuel in a lawsuit and settlement with the New York Attorney General (NYAG) over the legality of daily fantasy sports and later resolving allegations of false advertising whereby the NYAG dropped its claims challenging the legality of FanDuel’s contests after a change in the New York State law permitting daily fantasy sports{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented the Chairman of the board of Rio Tinto in a broad ranging SEC investigation into accounting fraud{{ FIELD }}Banks and Financial Institutions\nIn addition to BSA/AML advice, I have extensively advised on bank regulatory compliance and enforcement issues, including the CFPB, the FRB, NYDFS, FDIC, OCC and others, including:{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Truist in a long-running DOJ FIRREA investigation of their trust businesses in a cost-of-litigation settlement where all allegations were denied{{ FIELD }}Advised a global bank on fair lender compliance issue in relation to DFS investigation{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a superregional bank in a CFPB into investigation into TISA compliance avoiding an enforcement action{{ FIELD }}Represented financial institutions and individuals in SEC investigations, including the Chairman of the Board of a Fortune 100 company{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading Fintech company in a CFPB investigation relating to FCRA and UDAAP allegations{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Toyota Financial Services in a DOJ and CFPB investigation and negotiating a favorable settlement relating to the indirect auto lender’s fair lending practices{{ FIELD }}Represented a senior executive of one of the largest global banks in a DOJ investigation of RMBS and a separate OCC investigation persuading both agencies after years of investigation to close their investigations without action{{ FIELD }}Lead an extensive internal investigation and representing a large foreign bank before the FRB and NYDFS concerning Regulation W compliance issues{{ FIELD }}Advised a large foreign bank in responding to a multi-state attorneys general investigation of its auto lending and securitization practices{{ FIELD }}Represented senior finance and actuarial employees of AMBAC in SEC investigation of accounting fraud{{ FIELD }}Represented the CFO of an insurance company in an investigation before the NYDFS which resulted in the matter being closed without action{{ FIELD }}Represented Admirals Bank, as it restructured operations in the face of significant regulatory scrutiny and complex bank regulatory and enforcement issues{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Root Insurance in a New York Attorney General investigation relating to data breach allegations{{ FIELD }}Governance\nServed as a Director and Chair of the Governance Committee of the largest privately held bank. BNY Melon Corporate Secretary was a direct report. Extensive pro bono governance work. Write and lecture on the topic. A sample of representations include:{{ FIELD }}Provided the Board of Directors of multiple financial institutions with advice on their annual self-evaluation as well as broader governance issues including expectations and guidance as applied to bank boards{{ FIELD }}Represented the Board of Directors of Bed Bath \u0026amp; Beyond in an internal investigation concerning compensation and disclosure issues{{ FIELD }}Matthew Biben focuses his practice on complex negotiation and litigation of disputes, including regulatory and enforcement matters on behalf of both individuals and organizations. His diverse litigation practice includes representing financial institutions and FinTech companies in civil disputes, securities and bankruptcy litigation, and complex matters involving the government.\nAs a former general counsel of a large bank and federal prosecutor, Matthew routinely acts as counsel in litigated disputes and internal investigations of both domestic and international matters involving, among others, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Reserve Board (FRB), Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), state attorneys general and foreign regulators.\nPrior to joining private practice, Matthew served for three-and-a-half years at JPMorgan Chase, where he was Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Chase Consumer \u0026amp; Community Banking, which included JPMorgan Chase’s Private Wealth Management, Card and Merchant Services, Auto Finance, Student Loan, Consumer Banking, Business Banking and Mortgage Banking businesses.\nMatthew also served as Executive Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation for almost seven years, becoming the second youngest person in BNY’s history to be promoted to Executive Vice President. He also served as BNY Mellon’s Global Head of Litigation and supervised various corporate functions that included the Office of the Corporate Secretary.\nMatthew spent the first 12 years of his career in government, serving in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, where he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Criminal Division and received the Attorney General’s Director Award for superior performance. Previously, he was an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney’s Office. He argued numerous appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and was lead counsel in more than 25 federal and state trials. Matthew Biben lawyer Partner Ranked for his “standout expertise” in the category of “Banking (Enforcement \u0026amp; Investigations)” Chamber USA – Nationwide (Band 3) 2020-2026 Nationally recommended in the category of Financial Services Litigation, “tenacious but balanced litigator”  The Legal 500 US 2016-2026 Recognized as Benchmark Litigation “Litigation Star” Benchmark Litigation Recognized as Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyer Lawdragon, 2024-2026 Cornell University Cornell Law School University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York New York University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School – Board of Trustees American Arbitration Association – Board Member New York Legal Assistance Group - Member Board of Directors New York Lawyers for the Public Interest - Director Anti-Money Laundering\nRoutinely advise banks and non-banks on BSA/AML compliance and enforcement issues including: Represented Societe Generale before the FRB and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and separately before the NYDFS in negotiating a successful settlement regarding the bank’s BSA/AML compliance and risk management programs Successfully represented Mashreq Bank in negotiating a favorable settlement with the NYDFS, NYFed, FRB, and OFAC resolving wide ranging BSA/AML and Sanctions issues Successfully defended Habib Bank against a $630 million lawsuit by the NYDFS and negotiating a $225 million settlement relating to long-running AML/BSA compliance issues and assisting Habib in winding down the business of their NY branch Successfully represented Coinbase in sweeping NYDFS investigation relating to BSA/AML and other compliance issues Advised a large foreign bank in responding to the DOJ investigation of Mossack Fonseca \u0026amp; and the “Panama Papers” Complex Civil Litigation\nRepresented FanDuel and DraftKings in a landmark victory in the NY Court of Appeals legalizing interactive fantasy sports in New York State (garnering American Lawyer Litigator of the Week runner-up honors) Represent FanDuel in a New York State Court litigation brought on by the former founders of FanDuel relating to merger acquisition violation Represent BlackRock in litigation relating to mortgage-era fraud allegations Represented Macquarie Asset Management in a joint venture dispute relating to drag-along rights Represent leading global investment bank in arbitration relating to a joint venture dispute Represented ad hoc 1st lien term lenders in the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy Represented FanDuel in a lawsuit and settlement with the New York Attorney General (NYAG) over the legality of daily fantasy sports and later resolving allegations of false advertising whereby the NYAG dropped its claims challenging the legality of FanDuel’s contests after a change in the New York State law permitting daily fantasy sports Successfully represented the Chairman of the board of Rio Tinto in a broad ranging SEC investigation into accounting fraud Banks and Financial Institutions\nIn addition to BSA/AML advice, I have extensively advised on bank regulatory compliance and enforcement issues, including the CFPB, the FRB, NYDFS, FDIC, OCC and others, including: Successfully represented Truist in a long-running DOJ FIRREA investigation of their trust businesses in a cost-of-litigation settlement where all allegations were denied Advised a global bank on fair lender compliance issue in relation to DFS investigation Successfully represented a superregional bank in a CFPB into investigation into TISA compliance avoiding an enforcement action Represented financial institutions and individuals in SEC investigations, including the Chairman of the Board of a Fortune 100 company Represented a leading Fintech company in a CFPB investigation relating to FCRA and UDAAP allegations Successfully represented Toyota Financial Services in a DOJ and CFPB investigation and negotiating a favorable settlement relating to the indirect auto lender’s fair lending practices Represented a senior executive of one of the largest global banks in a DOJ investigation of RMBS and a separate OCC investigation persuading both agencies after years of investigation to close their investigations without action Lead an extensive internal investigation and representing a large foreign bank before the FRB and NYDFS concerning Regulation W compliance issues Advised a large foreign bank in responding to a multi-state attorneys general investigation of its auto lending and securitization practices Represented senior finance and actuarial employees of AMBAC in SEC investigation of accounting fraud Represented the CFO of an insurance company in an investigation before the NYDFS which resulted in the matter being closed without action Represented Admirals Bank, as it restructured operations in the face of significant regulatory scrutiny and complex bank regulatory and enforcement issues Successfully represented Root Insurance in a New York Attorney General investigation relating to data breach allegations Governance\nServed as a Director and Chair of the Governance Committee of the largest privately held bank. BNY Melon Corporate Secretary was a direct report. Extensive pro bono governance work. Write and lecture on the topic. A sample of representations include: Provided the Board of Directors of multiple financial institutions with advice on their annual self-evaluation as well as broader governance issues including expectations and guidance as applied to bank boards Represented the Board of Directors of Bed Bath \u0026amp; Beyond in an internal investigation concerning compensation and disclosure issues","searchable_name":"Matthew L. Biben (Matt)","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":445617,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7308,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael Bittner is an intellectual property trial lawyer, with an emphasis on patent litigation. He is recognized for being \u0026ldquo;superb at working up cases and delivering them in the right key for district court, Federal Circuit, and PTAB judges\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003e(IAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, 2020). Michael has extensive experience across a wide array of technologies and has also been recognized for his patent litigation work by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e The Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation (plaintiffs and defendants), including performing pre-filing investigations, handling complex discovery, preparing for and presenting at \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings, working with fact and expert witnesses, preparing and presenting the case for dispositive motions and trial, and through appeal. He represents clients in a wide variety of technologies, including telecommunications, networking, financial services, and data management. Michael also focuses on cases adjudicating whether royalties for standard essential patent portfolios comply with FRAND/RAND obligations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael has been recognized in the area of Intellectual Property: Texas in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e (2022\u0026ndash;2025) and as a \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Up and Coming Practitioner\u0026rdquo; (2019, 2021). He is listed as a \u0026ldquo;Key Lawyer\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e in the area of Patents: Litigation (2021, 2025), recognized in the \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e (2019\u0026ndash;2025), named to \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation US\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;40 \u0026amp; Under List\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property (2017\u0026ndash;2020), and named as a \u0026ldquo;Rising Star\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property Litigation for \u003cem\u003eTexas Super Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e (2015\u0026ndash;2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael also has extensive experience representing clients in other intellectual property disputes, including trademark, trade dress, and trade secret litigation. He has represented both Fortune 500 and small-to-medium sized business in disputes ranging from fixed fee brand enforcement actions and multimillion-dollar \u0026ldquo;bet the business\u0026rdquo; cases.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"michael-bittner","email":"mbittner@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC\u003c/em\u003e (N.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCaptivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (D. Neb.) \u0026ndash; Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEricsson, et al. v. LG, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG\u0026rsquo;s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e (E.D.Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eeDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees based on an exceptional case finding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bittner","nick_name":"Michael","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable David J. Folsom, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","years_held":"2008 - 2009"}],"first_name":"Michael","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"with honors","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2008-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation – Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Litigation – Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026 Patent Litigation","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“40 \u0026 Under List” in Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020"},{"title":"Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021–2025"},{"title":"“Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2019–2021"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025"},{"title":"Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025"},{"title":"Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 "},{"title":"“Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015–2018"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-bittner-2a796295/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMichael Bittner is an intellectual property trial lawyer, with an emphasis on patent litigation. He is recognized for being \u0026ldquo;superb at working up cases and delivering them in the right key for district court, Federal Circuit, and PTAB judges\u0026rdquo; \u003cem\u003e(IAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e, 2020). Michael has extensive experience across a wide array of technologies and has also been recognized for his patent litigation work by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003eand\u003cem\u003e The Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation (plaintiffs and defendants), including performing pre-filing investigations, handling complex discovery, preparing for and presenting at \u003cem\u003eMarkman\u003c/em\u003e hearings, working with fact and expert witnesses, preparing and presenting the case for dispositive motions and trial, and through appeal. He represents clients in a wide variety of technologies, including telecommunications, networking, financial services, and data management. Michael also focuses on cases adjudicating whether royalties for standard essential patent portfolios comply with FRAND/RAND obligations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael has been recognized in the area of Intellectual Property: Texas in \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e (2022\u0026ndash;2025) and as a \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Up and Coming Practitioner\u0026rdquo; (2019, 2021). He is listed as a \u0026ldquo;Key Lawyer\u0026rdquo; in \u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500 US\u003c/em\u003e in the area of Patents: Litigation (2021, 2025), recognized in the \u003cem\u003eIAM Patent 1000\u003c/em\u003e (2019\u0026ndash;2025), named to \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation US\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;40 \u0026amp; Under List\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property (2017\u0026ndash;2020), and named as a \u0026ldquo;Rising Star\u0026rdquo; in Intellectual Property Litigation for \u003cem\u003eTexas Super Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e (2015\u0026ndash;2020).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMichael also has extensive experience representing clients in other intellectual property disputes, including trademark, trade dress, and trade secret litigation. He has represented both Fortune 500 and small-to-medium sized business in disputes ranging from fixed fee brand enforcement actions and multimillion-dollar \u0026ldquo;bet the business\u0026rdquo; cases.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC\u003c/em\u003e (N.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCaptivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (D. Neb.) \u0026ndash; Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEricsson, et al. v. LG, et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG\u0026rsquo;s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e (E.D.Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eYETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (W.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eeDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees based on an exceptional case finding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eClear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex) \u0026ndash; Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under \u003cem\u003eAlice\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Tex.) \u0026ndash; Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation – Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Litigation – Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026"},{"title":"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026 Patent Litigation","detail":"Lawdragon, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026"},{"title":"“40 \u0026 Under List” in Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020"},{"title":"Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021–2025"},{"title":"“Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2019–2021"},{"title":"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025"},{"title":"Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025"},{"title":"Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection”","detail":"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 "},{"title":"“Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015–2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13352}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-05T19:50:22.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-05T19:50:22.000Z","searchable_text":"Bittner{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation – Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation – Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026amp; Patent Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2022–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Future Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“40 \u0026amp; Under List” in Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2021–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2019–2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2015–2018\"}{{ FIELD }}SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC (N.D. Tex.) – Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal.{{ FIELD }}Captivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al. (D. Neb.) – Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting.{{ FIELD }}Ericsson, et al. v. LG, et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG’s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology.{{ FIELD }}Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al (E.D.Tex.) – Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial.{{ FIELD }}YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al. (W.D. Tex.) – Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice and an award of attorneys’ fees based on an exceptional case finding.{{ FIELD }}Clear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice.{{ FIELD }}GeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants (E.D. Tex.) – Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Michael Bittner is an intellectual property trial lawyer, with an emphasis on patent litigation. He is recognized for being “superb at working up cases and delivering them in the right key for district court, Federal Circuit, and PTAB judges” (IAM Patent 1000, 2020). Michael has extensive experience across a wide array of technologies and has also been recognized for his patent litigation work by Chambers USA and The Legal 500 US.\nMichael is experienced in all aspects of patent litigation (plaintiffs and defendants), including performing pre-filing investigations, handling complex discovery, preparing for and presenting at Markman hearings, working with fact and expert witnesses, preparing and presenting the case for dispositive motions and trial, and through appeal. He represents clients in a wide variety of technologies, including telecommunications, networking, financial services, and data management. Michael also focuses on cases adjudicating whether royalties for standard essential patent portfolios comply with FRAND/RAND obligations.\nMichael has been recognized in the area of Intellectual Property: Texas in Chambers USA (2022–2025) and as a Chambers USA “Up and Coming Practitioner” (2019, 2021). He is listed as a “Key Lawyer” in The Legal 500 US in the area of Patents: Litigation (2021, 2025), recognized in the IAM Patent 1000 (2019–2025), named to Benchmark Litigation US’s “40 \u0026amp; Under List” in Intellectual Property (2017–2020), and named as a “Rising Star” in Intellectual Property Litigation for Texas Super Lawyers (2015–2020).\nMichael also has extensive experience representing clients in other intellectual property disputes, including trademark, trade dress, and trade secret litigation. He has represented both Fortune 500 and small-to-medium sized business in disputes ranging from fixed fee brand enforcement actions and multimillion-dollar “bet the business” cases. Partner Litigation – Intellectual Property The Best Lawyers in America®, 2024–2026 Litigation – Patent The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026 “500 Leading Litigators in America – Recognized for IP \u0026amp; Patent Litigation Lawdragon, 2022–2026 “Future Star” Benchmark Litigation US, 2022–2026 “40 \u0026amp; Under List” in Intellectual Property Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2020 Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas Chambers USA, 2021–2025 “Up and Coming Practitioner” for Intellectual Property – Texas Chambers USA, 2019–2021 “Key Lawyer” for Patents: Litigation The Legal 500 US, 2021, 2025 Michael “can be looked to in complex litigations across all manner of technologies, highly regarded for his perceptive insights and meticulous approach” IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025 Michael “plays the role of strategist, case manager and advocate to perfection” IAM Patent 1000, 2019–2025  “Rising Star” for Intellectual Property Litigation, Texas Super Lawyers, 2015–2018 University of Texas  The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Texas Law Clerk, Honorable David J. Folsom, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas SAP America, Inc. v. InvestPic, LLC (N.D. Tex.) – Represented the plaintiff in patent non-infringement and invalidity declaratory judgment actions, and related appeal. Captivate LLC v. Waitt Consulting LLC, et al. (D. Neb.) – Represented Captivate in a patent infringement suit against Waitt Consulting. Ericsson, et al. v. LG, et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Ericsson in a FRAND patent suit against LG related to licensing LG’s patent portfolio of 2G, 3G, and 4G LTE wireless technology. Tech Pharmacy Services, Inc. v. AlixaRx, Inc., et al (E.D.Tex.) – Represented defendants in a trade secret and patent litigation matter. Obtained defense verdict in jury trial on claims of patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and fraud following a month-long trial. YETI Coolers, LLC v. RTIC Coolers, LLC., et al. (W.D. Tex.) – Represented defendants in case involving claims of trade dress, copyright, and patent infringement. Case resolved on favorable terms. eDekka LLC v. 3balls.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented multiple defendants in patent infringement case involving data management and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice and an award of attorneys’ fees based on an exceptional case finding. Clear with Computers v. Altec Indus., Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Represented defendant in patent infringement case involving internet advertising and related appeal. Obtained judgment of invalidity on motion to dismiss under Alice. GeoTag, Inc. v. Numerous Defendants (E.D. Tex.) – Represented over thirty defendants in patent infringement suits relating to website store location technology. Lead counsel for largest joint defense effort in the history of the Eastern District of Texas (more than 400 defendants). Case resolved on favorable terms.","searchable_name":"Michael A. Bittner","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}