{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"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 Leeds School of Law","value":2850},{"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":3052},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"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":"133","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"S","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":426539,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":4092,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKyle Sampson focuses on Food and Drug Administration regulatory, compliance and enforcement issues. As a partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice, Kyle represents companies in the full range of regulatory and enforcement issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKyle advises food, drug, biologics, medical device, cosmetics and dietary supplement companies on FDA compliance, regulatory and enforcement matters. His practice also includes strategic advice and compliance counseling, enforcement, litigation and transactional matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKyle has engaged in extensive public service in every branch of the federal government. He served in the White House as Associate Counsel to the President; at the Department of Justice as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney and as Counselor and Chief of Staff to two attorneys general; and in the U.S. Senate as Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kyle-sampson","email":"ksampson@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 202 340 8202","matters":["\u003cp\u003eAssist \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical and medical device companies\u003c/strong\u003e in developing and implementing comprehensive regulatory and healthcare fraud and abuse compliance programs involving off-label promotion, anti-kickback violations, federal healthcare program reimbursement, and pricing and false claims actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServe as counsel to \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies\u003c/strong\u003e in regulatory matters involving product development and commercialization.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in responding to FDA enforcement actions, including Form FDA-483 observations and Warning Letters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServe as compliance counsel for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e subject to consent decree resulting from allegation that company provided false scientific data to FDA in regulatory submissions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea medical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in consent decree negotiations with FDA and Department of Justice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWith Monitor appointed by U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office for the District of New Jersey under Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA), oversaw \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eorthopedic device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e's compliance with federal Anti-Kickback Statute and other federal healthcare laws and its implementation of comprehensive compliance program.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReview advertising and promotional materials and activities for prescription drugs, biologics and devices for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003evarious clients.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProvide advice to \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emanufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eof controlled substances and listed chemicals\u003c/strong\u003e regarding compliance with the Controlled Substances Act and Drug Enforcement Administration regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emanufacturers of drug, medical device, human food, animal feed and consumer products\u003c/strong\u003e in negotiations with the FDA over recalls of manufacturers\u0026rsquo; products, including proper classification of recall, assessment of health hazard, and development and implementation of recall strategy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eforeign manufacturers and domestic importers\u003c/strong\u003e in responding to the FDA\u0026rsquo;s detention of imports and placement of firms on Import Alert, including negotiating firms\u0026rsquo; removal from Detention Without Physical Examination (DWPE).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHelp \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical and medical device companies\u003c/strong\u003e respond to widespread counterfeiting of products and unlawful importation by Internet pharmacies and others in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Lanham Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProvided advice to two \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eattorneys general\u003c/strong\u003e on legal and policy issues, coordinated Justice Department positions in criminal prosecutions and civil litigation, and formulated and implemented policy initiatives and legislative proposals.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, conducted \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003etrial and appellate litigation,\u003c/strong\u003e including arguing three cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1193,"guid":"1193.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1223,"guid":"1223.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Sampson","nick_name":"D.","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Karen J. Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit","years_held":"1996-1997"}],"first_name":"D.","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2174,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"with honors","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1996-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"Kyle","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Attorney General’s Award for Outstanding Service to the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, and to America ","detail":"U.S. Department of Justice, 2005"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/kyle-sampson-4302348/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKyle Sampson focuses on Food and Drug Administration regulatory, compliance and enforcement issues. As a partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice, Kyle represents companies in the full range of regulatory and enforcement issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKyle advises food, drug, biologics, medical device, cosmetics and dietary supplement companies on FDA compliance, regulatory and enforcement matters. His practice also includes strategic advice and compliance counseling, enforcement, litigation and transactional matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKyle has engaged in extensive public service in every branch of the federal government. He served in the White House as Associate Counsel to the President; at the Department of Justice as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney and as Counselor and Chief of Staff to two attorneys general; and in the U.S. Senate as Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eAssist \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical and medical device companies\u003c/strong\u003e in developing and implementing comprehensive regulatory and healthcare fraud and abuse compliance programs involving off-label promotion, anti-kickback violations, federal healthcare program reimbursement, and pricing and false claims actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServe as counsel to \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies\u003c/strong\u003e in regulatory matters involving product development and commercialization.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in responding to FDA enforcement actions, including Form FDA-483 observations and Warning Letters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServe as compliance counsel for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e subject to consent decree resulting from allegation that company provided false scientific data to FDA in regulatory submissions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea medical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in consent decree negotiations with FDA and Department of Justice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWith Monitor appointed by U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office for the District of New Jersey under Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA), oversaw \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eorthopedic device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e's compliance with federal Anti-Kickback Statute and other federal healthcare laws and its implementation of comprehensive compliance program.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReview advertising and promotional materials and activities for prescription drugs, biologics and devices for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003evarious clients.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProvide advice to \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emanufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eof controlled substances and listed chemicals\u003c/strong\u003e regarding compliance with the Controlled Substances Act and Drug Enforcement Administration regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emanufacturers of drug, medical device, human food, animal feed and consumer products\u003c/strong\u003e in negotiations with the FDA over recalls of manufacturers\u0026rsquo; products, including proper classification of recall, assessment of health hazard, and development and implementation of recall strategy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eforeign manufacturers and domestic importers\u003c/strong\u003e in responding to the FDA\u0026rsquo;s detention of imports and placement of firms on Import Alert, including negotiating firms\u0026rsquo; removal from Detention Without Physical Examination (DWPE).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHelp \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical and medical device companies\u003c/strong\u003e respond to widespread counterfeiting of products and unlawful importation by Internet pharmacies and others in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Lanham Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eProvided advice to two \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eattorneys general\u003c/strong\u003e on legal and policy issues, coordinated Justice Department positions in criminal prosecutions and civil litigation, and formulated and implemented policy initiatives and legislative proposals.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, conducted \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003etrial and appellate litigation,\u003c/strong\u003e including arguing three cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Attorney General’s Award for Outstanding Service to the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, and to America ","detail":"U.S. Department of Justice, 2005"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12357}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:54:31.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:54:31.000Z","searchable_text":"Sampson{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Attorney General’s Award for Outstanding Service to the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, and to America \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Department of Justice, 2005\"}{{ FIELD }}Assist pharmaceutical and medical device companies in developing and implementing comprehensive regulatory and healthcare fraud and abuse compliance programs involving off-label promotion, anti-kickback violations, federal healthcare program reimbursement, and pricing and false claims actions.{{ FIELD }}Serve as counsel to pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies in regulatory matters involving product development and commercialization.{{ FIELD }}Represent pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers in responding to FDA enforcement actions, including Form FDA-483 observations and Warning Letters.{{ FIELD }}Serve as compliance counsel for a pharmaceutical company subject to consent decree resulting from allegation that company provided false scientific data to FDA in regulatory submissions.{{ FIELD }}Represent a medical device manufacturer in consent decree negotiations with FDA and Department of Justice.{{ FIELD }}With Monitor appointed by U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey under Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA), oversaw orthopedic device manufacturer's compliance with federal Anti-Kickback Statute and other federal healthcare laws and its implementation of comprehensive compliance program.{{ FIELD }}Review advertising and promotional materials and activities for prescription drugs, biologics and devices for various clients.{{ FIELD }}Provide advice to manufacturers of controlled substances and listed chemicals regarding compliance with the Controlled Substances Act and Drug Enforcement Administration regulations.{{ FIELD }}Represent manufacturers of drug, medical device, human food, animal feed and consumer products in negotiations with the FDA over recalls of manufacturers’ products, including proper classification of recall, assessment of health hazard, and development and implementation of recall strategy.{{ FIELD }}Represent foreign manufacturers and domestic importers in responding to the FDA’s detention of imports and placement of firms on Import Alert, including negotiating firms’ removal from Detention Without Physical Examination (DWPE).{{ FIELD }}Help pharmaceutical and medical device companies respond to widespread counterfeiting of products and unlawful importation by Internet pharmacies and others in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Lanham Act.{{ FIELD }}\nProvided advice to two attorneys general on legal and policy issues, coordinated Justice Department positions in criminal prosecutions and civil litigation, and formulated and implemented policy initiatives and legislative proposals.\n{{ FIELD }}As Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, conducted trial and appellate litigation, including arguing three cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.{{ FIELD }}Kyle Sampson focuses on Food and Drug Administration regulatory, compliance and enforcement issues. As a partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice, Kyle represents companies in the full range of regulatory and enforcement issues.\n\nKyle advises food, drug, biologics, medical device, cosmetics and dietary supplement companies on FDA compliance, regulatory and enforcement matters. His practice also includes strategic advice and compliance counseling, enforcement, litigation and transactional matters.\nKyle has engaged in extensive public service in every branch of the federal government. He served in the White House as Associate Counsel to the President; at the Department of Justice as a Special Assistant U.S. Attorney and as Counselor and Chief of Staff to two attorneys general; and in the U.S. Senate as Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee.\n \n  Partner Attorney General’s Award for Outstanding Service to the Attorney General, the Department of Justice, and to America  U.S. Department of Justice, 2005 Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School University of Chicago University of Chicago Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Utah District of Columbia Utah Law Clerk, Hon. Karen J. Williams, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Assist pharmaceutical and medical device companies in developing and implementing comprehensive regulatory and healthcare fraud and abuse compliance programs involving off-label promotion, anti-kickback violations, federal healthcare program reimbursement, and pricing and false claims actions. Serve as counsel to pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies in regulatory matters involving product development and commercialization. Represent pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers in responding to FDA enforcement actions, including Form FDA-483 observations and Warning Letters. Serve as compliance counsel for a pharmaceutical company subject to consent decree resulting from allegation that company provided false scientific data to FDA in regulatory submissions. Represent a medical device manufacturer in consent decree negotiations with FDA and Department of Justice. With Monitor appointed by U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey under Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA), oversaw orthopedic device manufacturer's compliance with federal Anti-Kickback Statute and other federal healthcare laws and its implementation of comprehensive compliance program. Review advertising and promotional materials and activities for prescription drugs, biologics and devices for various clients. Provide advice to manufacturers of controlled substances and listed chemicals regarding compliance with the Controlled Substances Act and Drug Enforcement Administration regulations. Represent manufacturers of drug, medical device, human food, animal feed and consumer products in negotiations with the FDA over recalls of manufacturers’ products, including proper classification of recall, assessment of health hazard, and development and implementation of recall strategy. Represent foreign manufacturers and domestic importers in responding to the FDA’s detention of imports and placement of firms on Import Alert, including negotiating firms’ removal from Detention Without Physical Examination (DWPE). Help pharmaceutical and medical device companies respond to widespread counterfeiting of products and unlawful importation by Internet pharmacies and others in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and the Lanham Act. \nProvided advice to two attorneys general on legal and policy issues, coordinated Justice Department positions in criminal prosecutions and civil litigation, and formulated and implemented policy initiatives and legislative proposals.\n As Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, conducted trial and appellate litigation, including arguing three cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Ninth Circuits.","searchable_name":"D. Kyle Sampson","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":442389,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1036,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChristine Savage leads our firm's practice in sanctions law, export controls, and national security investigations of inbound U.S. investment before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (\"CFIUS\").[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristine has over 25\u0026nbsp;years of experience helping clients handle their\u0026nbsp;international trade regulatory, compliance, and investigation needs.\u0026nbsp; She advises clients in a broad range of industries, including aerospace and defense, energy, FinTech and financial services, semiconductors and information technology, and biotechnology, on issues involving sanctions and export control laws.\u0026nbsp; She also assists clients in evaluating foreign investment transactions in sensitive U.S. industries and technologies, including helping them navigate proceedings before CFIUS. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristine looks for practical ways to help solve our clients' concerns, including defending clients in enforcement proceedings\u0026nbsp; and inquiries before the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Bureau of Industry and Security, and Directorate of Defense Trade Controls; assisting clients with internal investigations and compliance programs; and analyzing and structuring complex regulatory and licensing solutions.\u0026nbsp; She also represents\u0026nbsp;clients' interests before the Executive Branch and Congress on the impact of trade and national security regulations on their businesses, including advocating for\u0026nbsp;legislative and regulatory solutions to help advance their trade and investment goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Christine served as an advisor in the International Trade Administration at the U.S. Department of Commerce.\u0026nbsp; In that\u0026nbsp;role, she acted as counsel to the government in\u0026nbsp;trade remedy proceedings and litigation involving numerous countries. She also engaged with foreign government officials and industry experts as part of a U.S. government team involved in White House trade initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristine was recommended by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e in the International Trade category. She is recognized by \u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eChambers U.S.A.\u003c/em\u003e in the International Trade: Export Controls \u0026amp; Economic Sanctions category.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"christine-savage","email":"csavage@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eAssisted\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eenergy, infrastructure, defense, and biotechnology companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in evaluating their export controls and compliance procedures for purposes of positioning their investment strategies for clearance by CFIUS.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eseveral U.S. and non-U.S. aerospace and defense companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in conducting internal investigations of export control and economic sanctions laws and preparing voluntary disclosures before the Bureau of Industry and Security, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, and the Office of Foreign Assets Control.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecompanies in the FinTech industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with respect to economic sanctions compliance before OFAC, including responding to government subpoenas, penalty actions, conducting internal investigations, helping to design effective compliance programs, and addressing novel licensing issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted in obtaining clearance by CFIUS for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecompanies in sensitive sectors, including defense, critical technology, and critical infrastructure industries\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof foreign investment, including addressing issues related to Foreign Ownership, Control and Influence, as well as assisting the companies in negotiating mitigation agreements with the U.S. government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003enumerous clients in the pharmaceutical, medical device and agricultural industries\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining licenses from OFAC for the sale of products in sanctioned countries, including Cuba, Iran and Syria, as well as assisting companies in designing compliance procedures to use existing U.S. government general licenses and license exceptions in a lawful manner.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":25,"guid":"25.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1327,"guid":"1327.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1330,"guid":"1330.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1142,"guid":"1142.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":699,"guid":"699.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":579,"guid":"579.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":15,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Savage","nick_name":"Christine","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Christine","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Leading Partner, International Trade and National Security: Customs, Export Controls and Economic Sanctions","detail":"Legal 500 USA (2025)"},{"title":"\"Christine has a deep understanding of this area of law and gets all aspects.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2025)"},{"title":"“She has a phenomenal grasp of the law and her guidance reliably balances the practicalities of our business with...”","detail":"Chambers USA (2023)"},{"title":"“Christine explores legal options with clients to meet business needs and legal obligations.”","detail":"Chambers USA (2023)"},{"title":"“She is able to give practical advice which is solution-orientated.”","detail":"Chambers USA (2023)"},{"title":"“Christine Savage is an expert's expert. She is thorough, business-minded and risk-focused in her advice.”","detail":" Chambers USA (2022)"},{"title":"“She is extremely effective and extraordinarily knowledgeable about export controls issues.”","detail":"Chambers Global (2022)"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Export Controls \u0026 Economic Sanctions ","detail":"Chambers Global, USA (2012, 2018-2025)"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Export Controls \u0026 Economic Sanctions","detail":"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2010-2011, 2017-2025)"},{"title":"“Exceptionally well versed in various trade regulations and has provided very insightful counsel...”","detail":"Chambers USA (2018)"},{"title":"Top Rated International Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers, Washington, D.C."},{"title":"Recognized Practitioner","detail":"Legal 500 US"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/christinesavage/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChristine Savage leads our firm's practice in sanctions law, export controls, and national security investigations of inbound U.S. investment before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (\"CFIUS\").[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristine has over 25\u0026nbsp;years of experience helping clients handle their\u0026nbsp;international trade regulatory, compliance, and investigation needs.\u0026nbsp; She advises clients in a broad range of industries, including aerospace and defense, energy, FinTech and financial services, semiconductors and information technology, and biotechnology, on issues involving sanctions and export control laws.\u0026nbsp; She also assists clients in evaluating foreign investment transactions in sensitive U.S. industries and technologies, including helping them navigate proceedings before CFIUS. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristine looks for practical ways to help solve our clients' concerns, including defending clients in enforcement proceedings\u0026nbsp; and inquiries before the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Bureau of Industry and Security, and Directorate of Defense Trade Controls; assisting clients with internal investigations and compliance programs; and analyzing and structuring complex regulatory and licensing solutions.\u0026nbsp; She also represents\u0026nbsp;clients' interests before the Executive Branch and Congress on the impact of trade and national security regulations on their businesses, including advocating for\u0026nbsp;legislative and regulatory solutions to help advance their trade and investment goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Christine served as an advisor in the International Trade Administration at the U.S. Department of Commerce.\u0026nbsp; In that\u0026nbsp;role, she acted as counsel to the government in\u0026nbsp;trade remedy proceedings and litigation involving numerous countries. She also engaged with foreign government officials and industry experts as part of a U.S. government team involved in White House trade initiatives.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eChristine was recommended by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e in the International Trade category. She is recognized by \u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eChambers U.S.A.\u003c/em\u003e in the International Trade: Export Controls \u0026amp; Economic Sanctions category.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eAssisted\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eenergy, infrastructure, defense, and biotechnology companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in evaluating their export controls and compliance procedures for purposes of positioning their investment strategies for clearance by CFIUS.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eseveral U.S. and non-U.S. aerospace and defense companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in conducting internal investigations of export control and economic sanctions laws and preparing voluntary disclosures before the Bureau of Industry and Security, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, and the Office of Foreign Assets Control.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecompanies in the FinTech industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with respect to economic sanctions compliance before OFAC, including responding to government subpoenas, penalty actions, conducting internal investigations, helping to design effective compliance programs, and addressing novel licensing issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted in obtaining clearance by CFIUS for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecompanies in sensitive sectors, including defense, critical technology, and critical infrastructure industries\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof foreign investment, including addressing issues related to Foreign Ownership, Control and Influence, as well as assisting the companies in negotiating mitigation agreements with the U.S. government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003enumerous clients in the pharmaceutical, medical device and agricultural industries\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining licenses from OFAC for the sale of products in sanctioned countries, including Cuba, Iran and Syria, as well as assisting companies in designing compliance procedures to use existing U.S. government general licenses and license exceptions in a lawful manner.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Leading Partner, International Trade and National Security: Customs, Export Controls and Economic Sanctions","detail":"Legal 500 USA (2025)"},{"title":"\"Christine has a deep understanding of this area of law and gets all aspects.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2025)"},{"title":"“She has a phenomenal grasp of the law and her guidance reliably balances the practicalities of our business with...”","detail":"Chambers USA (2023)"},{"title":"“Christine explores legal options with clients to meet business needs and legal obligations.”","detail":"Chambers USA (2023)"},{"title":"“She is able to give practical advice which is solution-orientated.”","detail":"Chambers USA (2023)"},{"title":"“Christine Savage is an expert's expert. She is thorough, business-minded and risk-focused in her advice.”","detail":" Chambers USA (2022)"},{"title":"“She is extremely effective and extraordinarily knowledgeable about export controls issues.”","detail":"Chambers Global (2022)"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Export Controls \u0026 Economic Sanctions ","detail":"Chambers Global, USA (2012, 2018-2025)"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Export Controls \u0026 Economic Sanctions","detail":"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2010-2011, 2017-2025)"},{"title":"“Exceptionally well versed in various trade regulations and has provided very insightful counsel...”","detail":"Chambers USA (2018)"},{"title":"Top Rated International Lawyer","detail":"Super Lawyers, Washington, D.C."},{"title":"Recognized Practitioner","detail":"Legal 500 US"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1165},{"id":1165}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:06.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Savage{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Partner, International Trade and National Security: Customs, Export Controls and Economic Sanctions\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 USA (2025)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Christine has a deep understanding of this area of law and gets all aspects.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2025)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“She has a phenomenal grasp of the law and her guidance reliably balances the practicalities of our business with...”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Christine explores legal options with clients to meet business needs and legal obligations.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“She is able to give practical advice which is solution-orientated.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Christine Savage is an expert's expert. She is thorough, business-minded and risk-focused in her advice.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\" Chambers USA (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“She is extremely effective and extraordinarily knowledgeable about export controls issues.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Export Controls \u0026amp; Economic Sanctions \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, USA (2012, 2018-2025)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Export Controls \u0026amp; Economic Sanctions\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Nationwide (2010-2011, 2017-2025)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Exceptionally well versed in various trade regulations and has provided very insightful counsel...”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (2018)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Rated International Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, Washington, D.C.\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized Practitioner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US\"}{{ FIELD }}Assisted energy, infrastructure, defense, and biotechnology companies in evaluating their export controls and compliance procedures for purposes of positioning their investment strategies for clearance by CFIUS.{{ FIELD }}Represented several U.S. and non-U.S. aerospace and defense companies in conducting internal investigations of export control and economic sanctions laws and preparing voluntary disclosures before the Bureau of Industry and Security, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, and the Office of Foreign Assets Control.{{ FIELD }}Representing companies in the FinTech industry with respect to economic sanctions compliance before OFAC, including responding to government subpoenas, penalty actions, conducting internal investigations, helping to design effective compliance programs, and addressing novel licensing issues.{{ FIELD }}Assisted in obtaining clearance by CFIUS for companies in sensitive sectors, including defense, critical technology, and critical infrastructure industries of foreign investment, including addressing issues related to Foreign Ownership, Control and Influence, as well as assisting the companies in negotiating mitigation agreements with the U.S. government.{{ FIELD }}Assisted numerous clients in the pharmaceutical, medical device and agricultural industries in obtaining licenses from OFAC for the sale of products in sanctioned countries, including Cuba, Iran and Syria, as well as assisting companies in designing compliance procedures to use existing U.S. government general licenses and license exceptions in a lawful manner.{{ FIELD }}Christine Savage leads our firm's practice in sanctions law, export controls, and national security investigations of inbound U.S. investment before the Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (\"CFIUS\").\nChristine has over 25 years of experience helping clients handle their international trade regulatory, compliance, and investigation needs.  She advises clients in a broad range of industries, including aerospace and defense, energy, FinTech and financial services, semiconductors and information technology, and biotechnology, on issues involving sanctions and export control laws.  She also assists clients in evaluating foreign investment transactions in sensitive U.S. industries and technologies, including helping them navigate proceedings before CFIUS.  \nChristine looks for practical ways to help solve our clients' concerns, including defending clients in enforcement proceedings  and inquiries before the Office of Foreign Assets Control, Bureau of Industry and Security, and Directorate of Defense Trade Controls; assisting clients with internal investigations and compliance programs; and analyzing and structuring complex regulatory and licensing solutions.  She also represents clients' interests before the Executive Branch and Congress on the impact of trade and national security regulations on their businesses, including advocating for legislative and regulatory solutions to help advance their trade and investment goals.\nPreviously, Christine served as an advisor in the International Trade Administration at the U.S. Department of Commerce.  In that role, she acted as counsel to the government in trade remedy proceedings and litigation involving numerous countries. She also engaged with foreign government officials and industry experts as part of a U.S. government team involved in White House trade initiatives.\nChristine was recommended by Legal 500 U.S. in the International Trade category. She is recognized by Chambers Global and Chambers U.S.A. in the International Trade: Export Controls \u0026amp; Economic Sanctions category. Partner Leading Partner, International Trade and National Security: Customs, Export Controls and Economic Sanctions Legal 500 USA (2025) \"Christine has a deep understanding of this area of law and gets all aspects.\" Chambers USA, Nationwide (2025) “She has a phenomenal grasp of the law and her guidance reliably balances the practicalities of our business with...” Chambers USA (2023) “Christine explores legal options with clients to meet business needs and legal obligations.” Chambers USA (2023) “She is able to give practical advice which is solution-orientated.” Chambers USA (2023) “Christine Savage is an expert's expert. She is thorough, business-minded and risk-focused in her advice.”  Chambers USA (2022) “She is extremely effective and extraordinarily knowledgeable about export controls issues.” Chambers Global (2022) Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Export Controls \u0026amp; Economic Sanctions  Chambers Global, USA (2012, 2018-2025) Top Ranked Lawyer, International Trade: Export Controls \u0026amp; Economic Sanctions Chambers USA, Nationwide (2010-2011, 2017-2025) “Exceptionally well versed in various trade regulations and has provided very insightful counsel...” Chambers USA (2018) Top Rated International Lawyer Super Lawyers, Washington, D.C. Recognized Practitioner Legal 500 US University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of International Trade District of Columbia New York The District of Columbia Bar United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Court of International Trade American Bar Association, International Trade Section, Export Committee Assisted energy, infrastructure, defense, and biotechnology companies in evaluating their export controls and compliance procedures for purposes of positioning their investment strategies for clearance by CFIUS. Represented several U.S. and non-U.S. aerospace and defense companies in conducting internal investigations of export control and economic sanctions laws and preparing voluntary disclosures before the Bureau of Industry and Security, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, and the Office of Foreign Assets Control. Representing companies in the FinTech industry with respect to economic sanctions compliance before OFAC, including responding to government subpoenas, penalty actions, conducting internal investigations, helping to design effective compliance programs, and addressing novel licensing issues. Assisted in obtaining clearance by CFIUS for companies in sensitive sectors, including defense, critical technology, and critical infrastructure industries of foreign investment, including addressing issues related to Foreign Ownership, Control and Influence, as well as assisting the companies in negotiating mitigation agreements with the U.S. government. Assisted numerous clients in the pharmaceutical, medical device and agricultural industries in obtaining licenses from OFAC for the sale of products in sanctioned countries, including Cuba, Iran and Syria, as well as assisting companies in designing compliance procedures to use existing U.S. government general licenses and license exceptions in a lawful manner.","searchable_name":"Christine E. Savage","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":426802,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5641,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeremy Schropp is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Corporate, Finance and Investment Practice.\u0026nbsp; He focuses on full life-cycle representation of technology and emerging growth companies in a variety of sectors, including aerospace, defense, government services, cybersecurity, data analytics, clean technology, education, software and communications.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeremy is experienced in structuring, negotiating and advising clients on a wide variety of M\u0026amp;A transactions, including mergers, tax-free reorganizations, stock purchases, asset transactions and joint ventures. He also has a broad range of corporate finance expertise, advising on and managing early stage and growth private equity, venture capital and debt financings. Jeremy routinely counsels public and private clients on general corporate and governance matters, public disclosure and periodic reporting requirements, fiduciary duties, commercial transactions, credit facilities, compensation arrangements, and entity formation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdmitted only in Virginia; practice directly supervised by principals of the firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h5\u003e","slug":"jeremy-schropp","email":"jschropp@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":27,"guid":"27.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1141,"guid":"1141.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1147,"guid":"1147.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Schropp","nick_name":"Jeremy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jeremy","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":755,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2004-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeremy Schropp is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Corporate, Finance and Investment Practice.\u0026nbsp; He focuses on full life-cycle representation of technology and emerging growth companies in a variety of sectors, including aerospace, defense, government services, cybersecurity, data analytics, clean technology, education, software and communications.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeremy is experienced in structuring, negotiating and advising clients on a wide variety of M\u0026amp;A transactions, including mergers, tax-free reorganizations, stock purchases, asset transactions and joint ventures. He also has a broad range of corporate finance expertise, advising on and managing early stage and growth private equity, venture capital and debt financings. Jeremy routinely counsels public and private clients on general corporate and governance matters, public disclosure and periodic reporting requirements, fiduciary duties, commercial transactions, credit facilities, compensation arrangements, and entity formation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAdmitted only in Virginia; practice directly supervised by principals of the firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/h5\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7304}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:56:58.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:56:58.000Z","searchable_text":"Schropp{{ FIELD }}Jeremy Schropp is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Corporate, Finance and Investment Practice.  He focuses on full life-cycle representation of technology and emerging growth companies in a variety of sectors, including aerospace, defense, government services, cybersecurity, data analytics, clean technology, education, software and communications.\nJeremy is experienced in structuring, negotiating and advising clients on a wide variety of M\u0026amp;A transactions, including mergers, tax-free reorganizations, stock purchases, asset transactions and joint ventures. He also has a broad range of corporate finance expertise, advising on and managing early stage and growth private equity, venture capital and debt financings. Jeremy routinely counsels public and private clients on general corporate and governance matters, public disclosure and periodic reporting requirements, fiduciary duties, commercial transactions, credit facilities, compensation arrangements, and entity formation.\n \nAdmitted only in Virginia; practice directly supervised by principals of the firm Partner Brown University  Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Virginia","searchable_name":"Jeremy M. Schropp","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442375,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":923,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJohn Shakow\u0026nbsp;focuses on complex regulatory, commercial, investigation and litigation issues related to pharmaceutical government pricing and price reporting. A Chambers-ranked partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice and co-chair of the firm's Life Sciences \u0026amp; Healthcare Industry Group, John represents pharmaceutical and biotechnology manufacturers in every facet of government drug payor program compliance and liability mitigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn has over 25 years'\u0026nbsp;experience in helping pharmaceutical and biotechnology clients resolve commercial and organizational challenges while maintaining the integrity of their price-reporting compliance efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe counsels clients on their rights and obligations under Medicaid, Medicare,340B, VA/FSS and related programs, and regularly assists them in interactions with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and the Veterans Administration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn often conducts in-depth pricing assessments to develop and implement government price calculation and reporting policies, procedures, systems and methodologies. John has overseen\u0026nbsp;dozens of substantial\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ebona fide\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;service fee analysis projects for large and small drug manufacturers. He is experienced in managing the coordination and integration of pricing methodologies in major pharmaceutical mergers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn has significant pharmaceutical litigation and investigation experience. He regularly challenges government agencies' positions on drug pricing and reimbursement matters, and defends clients in federal and state investigations related to price reporting. John represents manufacturers in 340B, IRA, and Medicaid Drug Rebate Program litigation, and has counseled drug manufacturers before the House Energy \u0026amp; Commerce and Senate Finance committees in drug-pricing investigations and inquiries.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"john-shakow","email":"jshakow@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":179}]},"expertise":[{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1193,"guid":"1193.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Shakow","nick_name":"John","clerkships":[],"first_name":"John","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“John is extremely strong and extremely client-focused.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2022"},{"title":"“Top Ranked Lawyer,” Healthcare: Pharmaceutical/Medical Products Regulatory","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024"},{"title":"Recommended Key Lawyer: 2021, 2022, 2023","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Shortlist for Regulatory Attorney of the Year: Pricing \u0026 Reimbursement, 2017-2023","detail":"LMG Life Sciences"},{"title":"2016 Lifetime Achievement Award","detail":"Institute for International Research's Medicaid Drug Rebate Program"},{"title":"Life Sciences Star: Pricing and Reimbursement, 2012 to 2018","detail":"Guide to Leading Life Sciences Firms and Attorneys in North America"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/JohnShakow/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJohn Shakow\u0026nbsp;focuses on complex regulatory, commercial, investigation and litigation issues related to pharmaceutical government pricing and price reporting. A Chambers-ranked partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice and co-chair of the firm's Life Sciences \u0026amp; Healthcare Industry Group, John represents pharmaceutical and biotechnology manufacturers in every facet of government drug payor program compliance and liability mitigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn has over 25 years'\u0026nbsp;experience in helping pharmaceutical and biotechnology clients resolve commercial and organizational challenges while maintaining the integrity of their price-reporting compliance efforts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe counsels clients on their rights and obligations under Medicaid, Medicare,340B, VA/FSS and related programs, and regularly assists them in interactions with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and the Veterans Administration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn often conducts in-depth pricing assessments to develop and implement government price calculation and reporting policies, procedures, systems and methodologies. John has overseen\u0026nbsp;dozens of substantial\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ebona fide\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;service fee analysis projects for large and small drug manufacturers. He is experienced in managing the coordination and integration of pricing methodologies in major pharmaceutical mergers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn has significant pharmaceutical litigation and investigation experience. He regularly challenges government agencies' positions on drug pricing and reimbursement matters, and defends clients in federal and state investigations related to price reporting. John represents manufacturers in 340B, IRA, and Medicaid Drug Rebate Program litigation, and has counseled drug manufacturers before the House Energy \u0026amp; Commerce and Senate Finance committees in drug-pricing investigations and inquiries.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"“John is extremely strong and extremely client-focused.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2022"},{"title":"“Top Ranked Lawyer,” Healthcare: Pharmaceutical/Medical Products Regulatory","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024"},{"title":"Recommended Key Lawyer: 2021, 2022, 2023","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Shortlist for Regulatory Attorney of the Year: Pricing \u0026 Reimbursement, 2017-2023","detail":"LMG Life Sciences"},{"title":"2016 Lifetime Achievement Award","detail":"Institute for International Research's Medicaid Drug Rebate Program"},{"title":"Life Sciences Star: Pricing and Reimbursement, 2012 to 2018","detail":"Guide to Leading Life Sciences Firms and Attorneys in North America"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11649}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:46.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:46.000Z","searchable_text":"Shakow{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“John is extremely strong and extremely client-focused.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top Ranked Lawyer,” Healthcare: Pharmaceutical/Medical Products Regulatory\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended Key Lawyer: 2021, 2022, 2023\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Shortlist for Regulatory Attorney of the Year: Pricing \u0026amp; Reimbursement, 2017-2023\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LMG Life Sciences\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2016 Lifetime Achievement Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Institute for International Research's Medicaid Drug Rebate Program\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Life Sciences Star: Pricing and Reimbursement, 2012 to 2018\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Guide to Leading Life Sciences Firms and Attorneys in North America\"}{{ FIELD }}John Shakow focuses on complex regulatory, commercial, investigation and litigation issues related to pharmaceutical government pricing and price reporting. A Chambers-ranked partner in our FDA and Life Sciences practice and co-chair of the firm's Life Sciences \u0026amp; Healthcare Industry Group, John represents pharmaceutical and biotechnology manufacturers in every facet of government drug payor program compliance and liability mitigation.\nJohn has over 25 years' experience in helping pharmaceutical and biotechnology clients resolve commercial and organizational challenges while maintaining the integrity of their price-reporting compliance efforts.\nHe counsels clients on their rights and obligations under Medicaid, Medicare,340B, VA/FSS and related programs, and regularly assists them in interactions with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and the Veterans Administration.\nJohn often conducts in-depth pricing assessments to develop and implement government price calculation and reporting policies, procedures, systems and methodologies. John has overseen dozens of substantial bona fide service fee analysis projects for large and small drug manufacturers. He is experienced in managing the coordination and integration of pricing methodologies in major pharmaceutical mergers.\nJohn has significant pharmaceutical litigation and investigation experience. He regularly challenges government agencies' positions on drug pricing and reimbursement matters, and defends clients in federal and state investigations related to price reporting. John represents manufacturers in 340B, IRA, and Medicaid Drug Rebate Program litigation, and has counseled drug manufacturers before the House Energy \u0026amp; Commerce and Senate Finance committees in drug-pricing investigations and inquiries. John D Shakow Partner “John is extremely strong and extremely client-focused.” CHAMBERS USA, 2022 “Top Ranked Lawyer,” Healthcare: Pharmaceutical/Medical Products Regulatory CHAMBERS USA, 2021, 2022, 2023 and 2024 Recommended Key Lawyer: 2021, 2022, 2023 Legal 500 Shortlist for Regulatory Attorney of the Year: Pricing \u0026amp; Reimbursement, 2017-2023 LMG Life Sciences 2016 Lifetime Achievement Award Institute for International Research's Medicaid Drug Rebate Program Life Sciences Star: Pricing and Reimbursement, 2012 to 2018 Guide to Leading Life Sciences Firms and Attorneys in North America Swarthmore College  University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law 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 Central District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia Virginia District of Columbia Bar State Bar of Virginia","searchable_name":"John D. Shakow","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":448190,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3529,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSayf's practice focuses on the investment funds and asset management industry in the Middle East, particularly in relation to the structuring and establishment of various types of investment funds used to raise Middle East capital. In addition to his core investment funds practice, Sayf also leads on financial services regulatory matters and is a core member of the firm's real estate practice in the Middle East. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSayf mainly advises regional and global clients on various asset management and investment structuring matters. He advises clients on the structuring, formation and governance of various types of public and private, listed and unlisted investment funds, including private equity, venture capital, real estate and infrastructure, credit, equity and money market investment funds and also generally advises clients on innovative corporate, real estate\u0026nbsp;and other investment structures in the GCC region, with a particular focus on Saudi Arabia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Sayf continues to advise global and regional asset managers and placement agents on securities laws and the corporate and regulatory aspects of structuring and establishing regulated asset management and advisory businesses in the region.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLegal 500 EMEA ranked Sayf as a \u0026ldquo;Next Generation Partner\u0026rdquo; for Investment Fund Formation\u0026nbsp;and Management.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"sayf-shuqair","email":"sshuqair@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFund Formation - Private Equity and Venture Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eJadwa Investment Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of its first regional blind-pool private equity fund with a total size of SAR 1 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSaudi Fransi Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of a SAR 1.5 billion Shariah-compliant private equity fund to develop, own and operate data centers in Saudi Arabia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAshmore Investment Saudi Arabia\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of two parallel private equity funds with a size of SAR 1 billion to invest in the Saudi Arabian healthcare sector.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMerak Capital\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon the establishment of the first Saudi Arabian domiciled private equity fund that focuses on the gaming sector.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eArtal Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of a Saudi Arabian domiciled private equity fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFund Formation - Real Estate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSaudi Fransi Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of a SAR 4 billion real estate development fund for purposes of developing a portion of King Salman Park in Riyadh.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Arcapita\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of a SAR 1.8 billion Saudi Arabian domiciled logistics fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eJeddah Economic City\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the creation of a Shari\u0026rsquo;ah-compliant US$2.23 billion fund to finance the completion of Kingdom Tower in Jeddah, which will be the world\u0026rsquo;s tallest tower.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmirates NBD Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eArcapita\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of a USD 200 million Shariah compliant real estate fund to invest in the Saudi Arabian logistics sector.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDerayah Financial Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon the structuring of multiple income generating and development real estate funds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSEDCO Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the formation of a Saudi Arabian income-producing real estate fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFund Formation - Publicly Listed REITs and CEITFs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRiyad Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of Riyad REIT, the first REIT to be approved by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority and listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eJadwa Investment Company, SEDCO Capital, Alkhabeer Capital and others\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon the establishment various REITs approved by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority and listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAlkhabeer Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the formation of the first closed-ended traded fund approved by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority and listed on the Saudi Arabian Stock Exchange. Also advised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAlkhabeer Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of two-subsequent closed-ended investment traded funds that are listed on the Saudi Arabian Stock Exchange.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFund Formation - Credit Funds\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRiyad Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to establish a Saudi Arabian domiciled credit fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAl Rajhi Capital\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eto establish Al Rajhi International Corporate Credit Fund, a Shari\u0026rsquo;ah compliant Saudi Arabian domiciled fund investing in credit opportunities internationally.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSidra Capital\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon the establishment of a Saudi Arabian domiciled direct financing fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMerak Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in establishing a Saudi Arabian domiciled direct financing fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFund Formation - Fixed Income and Money Market\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFranklin Templeton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the structuring and establishment of its first Saudi Arabian domiciled fixed income fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAl Jazira Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to enter into a joint venture with Guidance Investments and ATEL Capital Group establish a Saudi Arabian equipment leasing and financing fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSamba Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of a first-of-its kind SAR 2 billion public Saudi Arabian fund to invest in sovereign Sukuk.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSEDCO Capital\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDerayah Financial Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon the structuring and establishment of various fixed income and money market funds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRegulated Entities\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent various clients including\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Franklin Templeton, Ninety One, Arcapita, Sahm Capital,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGreenstone, Arch Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and others in establishing regulated entities licensed by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3187}]},"expertise":[{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":31,"guid":"31.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":78,"guid":"78.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Shuqair","nick_name":"Sayf","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Sayf","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Rising Star - Investment Fund Formation and Management, United Arab Emirates","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA 2023"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Sayf Shuqair is a lawyer in the King \u0026 Spalding Dubai Office. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSayf's practice focuses on the investment funds and asset management industry in the Middle East, particularly in relation to the structuring and establishment of various types of investment funds used to raise Middle East capital. In addition to his core investment funds practice, Sayf also leads on financial services regulatory matters and is a core member of the firm's real estate practice in the Middle East. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSayf mainly advises regional and global clients on various asset management and investment structuring matters. He advises clients on the structuring, formation and governance of various types of public and private, listed and unlisted investment funds, including private equity, venture capital, real estate and infrastructure, credit, equity and money market investment funds and also generally advises clients on innovative corporate, real estate\u0026nbsp;and other investment structures in the GCC region, with a particular focus on Saudi Arabia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Sayf continues to advise global and regional asset managers and placement agents on securities laws and the corporate and regulatory aspects of structuring and establishing regulated asset management and advisory businesses in the region.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLegal 500 EMEA ranked Sayf as a \u0026ldquo;Next Generation Partner\u0026rdquo; for Investment Fund Formation\u0026nbsp;and Management.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFund Formation - Private Equity and Venture Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eJadwa Investment Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of its first regional blind-pool private equity fund with a total size of SAR 1 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSaudi Fransi Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of a SAR 1.5 billion Shariah-compliant private equity fund to develop, own and operate data centers in Saudi Arabia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAshmore Investment Saudi Arabia\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of two parallel private equity funds with a size of SAR 1 billion to invest in the Saudi Arabian healthcare sector.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMerak Capital\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon the establishment of the first Saudi Arabian domiciled private equity fund that focuses on the gaming sector.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eArtal Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of a Saudi Arabian domiciled private equity fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFund Formation - Real Estate\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSaudi Fransi Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of a SAR 4 billion real estate development fund for purposes of developing a portion of King Salman Park in Riyadh.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Arcapita\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of a SAR 1.8 billion Saudi Arabian domiciled logistics fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eJeddah Economic City\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the creation of a Shari\u0026rsquo;ah-compliant US$2.23 billion fund to finance the completion of Kingdom Tower in Jeddah, which will be the world\u0026rsquo;s tallest tower.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmirates NBD Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eArcapita\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of a USD 200 million Shariah compliant real estate fund to invest in the Saudi Arabian logistics sector.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDerayah Financial Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon the structuring of multiple income generating and development real estate funds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSEDCO Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the formation of a Saudi Arabian income-producing real estate fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFund Formation - Publicly Listed REITs and CEITFs\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRiyad Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of Riyad REIT, the first REIT to be approved by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority and listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eJadwa Investment Company, SEDCO Capital, Alkhabeer Capital and others\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon the establishment various REITs approved by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority and listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAlkhabeer Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the formation of the first closed-ended traded fund approved by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority and listed on the Saudi Arabian Stock Exchange. Also advised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAlkhabeer Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of two-subsequent closed-ended investment traded funds that are listed on the Saudi Arabian Stock Exchange.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFund Formation - Credit Funds\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRiyad Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to establish a Saudi Arabian domiciled credit fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAl Rajhi Capital\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eto establish Al Rajhi International Corporate Credit Fund, a Shari\u0026rsquo;ah compliant Saudi Arabian domiciled fund investing in credit opportunities internationally.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSidra Capital\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon the establishment of a Saudi Arabian domiciled direct financing fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMerak Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in establishing a Saudi Arabian domiciled direct financing fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFund Formation - Fixed Income and Money Market\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFranklin Templeton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the structuring and establishment of its first Saudi Arabian domiciled fixed income fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAl Jazira Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to enter into a joint venture with Guidance Investments and ATEL Capital Group establish a Saudi Arabian equipment leasing and financing fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSamba Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the establishment of a first-of-its kind SAR 2 billion public Saudi Arabian fund to invest in sovereign Sukuk.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSEDCO Capital\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDerayah Financial Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon the structuring and establishment of various fixed income and money market funds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRegulated Entities\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent various clients including\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Franklin Templeton, Ninety One, Arcapita, Sahm Capital,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGreenstone, Arch Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and others in establishing regulated entities licensed by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Rising Star - Investment Fund Formation and Management, United Arab Emirates","detail":"Legal 500 EMEA 2023"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4335}]},"capability_group_id":1},"created_at":"2026-05-11T15:39:52.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-11T15:39:52.000Z","searchable_text":"Shuqair{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star - Investment Fund Formation and Management, United Arab Emirates\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 EMEA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Fund Formation - Private Equity and Venture Capital\nRepresent Jadwa Investment Company on the establishment of its first regional blind-pool private equity fund with a total size of SAR 1 billion.{{ FIELD }}Represent Saudi Fransi Capital on the establishment of a SAR 1.5 billion Shariah-compliant private equity fund to develop, own and operate data centers in Saudi Arabia.{{ FIELD }}Represent Ashmore Investment Saudi Arabia on the establishment of two parallel private equity funds with a size of SAR 1 billion to invest in the Saudi Arabian healthcare sector.{{ FIELD }}Represent Merak Capital on the establishment of the first Saudi Arabian domiciled private equity fund that focuses on the gaming sector.{{ FIELD }}Represent Artal Capital on the establishment of a Saudi Arabian domiciled private equity fund.{{ FIELD }}Fund Formation - Real Estate\nRepresent Saudi Fransi Capital on the establishment of a SAR 4 billion real estate development fund for purposes of developing a portion of King Salman Park in Riyadh.{{ FIELD }}Represent Arcapita on the establishment of a SAR 1.8 billion Saudi Arabian domiciled logistics fund.{{ FIELD }}Represent Jeddah Economic City on the creation of a Shari’ah-compliant US$2.23 billion fund to finance the completion of Kingdom Tower in Jeddah, which will be the world’s tallest tower.{{ FIELD }}Represent Emirates NBD Capital and Arcapita on the establishment of a USD 200 million Shariah compliant real estate fund to invest in the Saudi Arabian logistics sector.{{ FIELD }}Represent Derayah Financial Company on the structuring of multiple income generating and development real estate funds.{{ FIELD }}Represent SEDCO Capital on the formation of a Saudi Arabian income-producing real estate fund.{{ FIELD }}Fund Formation - Publicly Listed REITs and CEITFs\nRepresent Riyad Capital on the establishment of Riyad REIT, the first REIT to be approved by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority and listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange.{{ FIELD }}Represent Jadwa Investment Company, SEDCO Capital, Alkhabeer Capital and others on the establishment various REITs approved by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority and listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange.{{ FIELD }}Represent Alkhabeer Capital on the formation of the first closed-ended traded fund approved by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority and listed on the Saudi Arabian Stock Exchange. Also advised Alkhabeer Capital on the establishment of two-subsequent closed-ended investment traded funds that are listed on the Saudi Arabian Stock Exchange.{{ FIELD }}Fund Formation - Credit Funds\nRepresent Riyad Capital to establish a Saudi Arabian domiciled credit fund.{{ FIELD }}Represent Al Rajhi Capital to establish Al Rajhi International Corporate Credit Fund, a Shari’ah compliant Saudi Arabian domiciled fund investing in credit opportunities internationally.{{ FIELD }}Represent Sidra Capital on the establishment of a Saudi Arabian domiciled direct financing fund.{{ FIELD }}Represent Merak Capital in establishing a Saudi Arabian domiciled direct financing fund.{{ FIELD }}Fund Formation - Fixed Income and Money Market\nRepresent Franklin Templeton on the structuring and establishment of its first Saudi Arabian domiciled fixed income fund.{{ FIELD }}Represent Al Jazira Capital to enter into a joint venture with Guidance Investments and ATEL Capital Group establish a Saudi Arabian equipment leasing and financing fund.{{ FIELD }}Represent Samba Capital on the establishment of a first-of-its kind SAR 2 billion public Saudi Arabian fund to invest in sovereign Sukuk.{{ FIELD }}Represent SEDCO Capital and Derayah Financial Company on the structuring and establishment of various fixed income and money market funds.{{ FIELD }}Regulated Entities\nRepresent various clients including Franklin Templeton, Ninety One, Arcapita, Sahm Capital, Greenstone, Arch Capital and others in establishing regulated entities licensed by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority.{{ FIELD }}Sayf's practice focuses on the investment funds and asset management industry in the Middle East, particularly in relation to the structuring and establishment of various types of investment funds used to raise Middle East capital. In addition to his core investment funds practice, Sayf also leads on financial services regulatory matters and is a core member of the firm's real estate practice in the Middle East. \nSayf mainly advises regional and global clients on various asset management and investment structuring matters. He advises clients on the structuring, formation and governance of various types of public and private, listed and unlisted investment funds, including private equity, venture capital, real estate and infrastructure, credit, equity and money market investment funds and also generally advises clients on innovative corporate, real estate and other investment structures in the GCC region, with a particular focus on Saudi Arabia.\nIn addition, Sayf continues to advise global and regional asset managers and placement agents on securities laws and the corporate and regulatory aspects of structuring and establishing regulated asset management and advisory businesses in the region.\nLegal 500 EMEA ranked Sayf as a “Next Generation Partner” for Investment Fund Formation and Management. Sayf Shuqair lawyer Partner Rising Star - Investment Fund Formation and Management, United Arab Emirates Legal 500 EMEA 2023 University of Kent  Fund Formation - Private Equity and Venture Capital\nRepresent Jadwa Investment Company on the establishment of its first regional blind-pool private equity fund with a total size of SAR 1 billion. Represent Saudi Fransi Capital on the establishment of a SAR 1.5 billion Shariah-compliant private equity fund to develop, own and operate data centers in Saudi Arabia. Represent Ashmore Investment Saudi Arabia on the establishment of two parallel private equity funds with a size of SAR 1 billion to invest in the Saudi Arabian healthcare sector. Represent Merak Capital on the establishment of the first Saudi Arabian domiciled private equity fund that focuses on the gaming sector. Represent Artal Capital on the establishment of a Saudi Arabian domiciled private equity fund. Fund Formation - Real Estate\nRepresent Saudi Fransi Capital on the establishment of a SAR 4 billion real estate development fund for purposes of developing a portion of King Salman Park in Riyadh. Represent Arcapita on the establishment of a SAR 1.8 billion Saudi Arabian domiciled logistics fund. Represent Jeddah Economic City on the creation of a Shari’ah-compliant US$2.23 billion fund to finance the completion of Kingdom Tower in Jeddah, which will be the world’s tallest tower. Represent Emirates NBD Capital and Arcapita on the establishment of a USD 200 million Shariah compliant real estate fund to invest in the Saudi Arabian logistics sector. Represent Derayah Financial Company on the structuring of multiple income generating and development real estate funds. Represent SEDCO Capital on the formation of a Saudi Arabian income-producing real estate fund. Fund Formation - Publicly Listed REITs and CEITFs\nRepresent Riyad Capital on the establishment of Riyad REIT, the first REIT to be approved by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority and listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange. Represent Jadwa Investment Company, SEDCO Capital, Alkhabeer Capital and others on the establishment various REITs approved by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority and listed on the Saudi Stock Exchange. Represent Alkhabeer Capital on the formation of the first closed-ended traded fund approved by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority and listed on the Saudi Arabian Stock Exchange. Also advised Alkhabeer Capital on the establishment of two-subsequent closed-ended investment traded funds that are listed on the Saudi Arabian Stock Exchange. Fund Formation - Credit Funds\nRepresent Riyad Capital to establish a Saudi Arabian domiciled credit fund. Represent Al Rajhi Capital to establish Al Rajhi International Corporate Credit Fund, a Shari’ah compliant Saudi Arabian domiciled fund investing in credit opportunities internationally. Represent Sidra Capital on the establishment of a Saudi Arabian domiciled direct financing fund. Represent Merak Capital in establishing a Saudi Arabian domiciled direct financing fund. Fund Formation - Fixed Income and Money Market\nRepresent Franklin Templeton on the structuring and establishment of its first Saudi Arabian domiciled fixed income fund. Represent Al Jazira Capital to enter into a joint venture with Guidance Investments and ATEL Capital Group establish a Saudi Arabian equipment leasing and financing fund. Represent Samba Capital on the establishment of a first-of-its kind SAR 2 billion public Saudi Arabian fund to invest in sovereign Sukuk. Represent SEDCO Capital and Derayah Financial Company on the structuring and establishment of various fixed income and money market funds. Regulated Entities\nRepresent various clients including Franklin Templeton, Ninety One, Arcapita, Sahm Capital, Greenstone, Arch Capital and others in establishing regulated entities licensed by the Saudi Arabian Capital Market Authority.","searchable_name":"Sayf Shuqair","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":447572,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5046,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJesse Snyder is a partner\u0026nbsp;in the Washington, D.C., office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Technology, Appellate, and Administrative Law practice groups.\u0026nbsp;Jesse litigates prime time technology disputes,\u0026nbsp;including those involving AI, data privacy,\u0026nbsp;cybersecurity, intellectual property, appeals,\u0026nbsp;strategic counseling, and bespoke cross-disciplinary solutions for clients facing significant risk. No matter the issue, Jesse is always present\u0026nbsp;to help\u0026nbsp;his clients navigate\u0026nbsp;their\u0026nbsp;toughest challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJesse helps\u0026nbsp;his clients traverse\u0026nbsp;scores of pressing fronts: novel\u0026nbsp;disputes, government-facing advocacy, compliance, governance, licensing, national security, international trade, as well as practical business-minded matters to drive ROI and to galvanize KPIs. In addition to his well-established\u0026nbsp;appellate and administrative law practice, Jesse has served as lead counsel\u0026nbsp;in numerous litigations, including\u0026nbsp;high-stakes disputes touching on data privacy and cybersecurity, intellectual property, pixel technology, and generative AI.\u0026nbsp;What's more, Jesse regularly\u0026nbsp;counsels clients in highly scrutinized industries on the development and implementation of cybersecurity, privacy, and generative AI compliance programs and protocols. Moreover, Jesse has been called upon to provide forensic analysis, technical advice, and legal defense\u0026nbsp;to various clients facing exigent online attacks as well as\u0026nbsp;illicit hacking events. He also\u0026nbsp;routinely\u0026nbsp;advises clients on AI algorithm and large language model\u0026nbsp;development, data mapping,\u0026nbsp;as well as various considerations and strategies when implementing AI into existing and nascent processes. In addition, Jesse takes pride in his dedicated practice aimed at\u0026nbsp;advancing\u0026nbsp;the talents of entrepreneurs to compete and to succeed, thereby providing steady advice and pragmatic guidance\u0026nbsp;to help propel his clients forward to achieve\u0026nbsp;their business objectives.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn view\u0026nbsp;of his achievements in these areas, Jesse was nominated by his clients and received recognition by the BTI Consulting Group\u0026nbsp;as a 2025 Client Service All-Star, \"the gold standard used by corporate counsel and law firms alike to identify the attorneys delivering the absolute\u0026nbsp;best levels of client service -- better than all others.\"\u0026nbsp; During 2025 in particular, BTI noted that \"only two\u0026nbsp;attorneys earned their organic recognition from multiple clients,\" and Jesse was\u0026nbsp;one of\u0026nbsp;those two.\u0026nbsp;Building further, the University of Mississippi School of Law's Center for Air and Space Law invited Jesse to be\u0026nbsp;a 2025 and 2026 guest lecturer on cybersecurity and AI. The Sedona Conference also chose Jesse to serve on the 2026 working group on AI and trade secrets, working to build industry consensus around\u0026nbsp;these areas of growing\u0026nbsp;importance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring law school, Jesse\u0026nbsp;served as editor in chief of the flagship law review publication, graduated in\u0026nbsp;the highest percentile of his class, and was inducted into the National Order of Scribes.\u0026nbsp;He is a published author in 24\u0026nbsp;different law reviews, covering a variety of topics ranging from the Antiterrorism Act and\u0026nbsp;First Amendment to patent law\u0026nbsp;and Twenty-first Amendment.\u0026nbsp;He also serves as an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eex officio\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;member of Texas A\u0026amp;M\u0026rsquo;s faculty committee on clerkship placements.\u0026nbsp;Before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Jesse served as a term law clerk to three federal judges: the Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Honorable Jorge A. Solis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore attending law school, Jesse amassed experience as an engineer at Stryker Corporation and as a commissioned military officer serving in the Air Force during the attacks on September 11, 2001. His medical-device experience covers a wide array of technology platforms for use in endoscopic procedures. And as a graduate of the Air Force Academy, Jesse is a proud combat veteran of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Multinational Corps-Iraq, and Combined Joint Task Force 7. During his service, he\u0026nbsp;received multiple medals and awards. In addition, as an extension of his sustained commitment to public service, Jesse\u0026nbsp;pioneered the firm's Armed Forces Attorney Coalition, a group whose purpose is to\u0026nbsp;promote\u0026nbsp;veteran interests\u0026nbsp;in the legal profession as well as\u0026nbsp;more broadly. Jesse also carries an abiding\u0026nbsp;dedication\u0026nbsp;to pro bono legal services, as demonstrated by his past multiyear recognition as a member of the North Carolina\u0026nbsp;Pro Bono Honor Society. Jesse is an avid runner, and he has been so for over 35\u0026nbsp;years.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jesse-snyder","email":"jsnyder@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eJesse Snyder serves as lead counsel for litigations involving an industry-leading AI company offering products and services for legal departments worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse Snyder is lead counsel to an industry-leading jet propulsion system manufacturer for the U.S. military, advising on AI, IP, privacy, trade, antitrust, and compliance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to a pioneering and disrupting aerospace defense contractor designing pilot training devices for flight school, including achieving an agency corrective action through a successful bid protest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to one of the largest national defense aerospace companies on AI governance and compliance, data mapping, and cybersecurity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to an industry-leading space company pioneering human habitation in low-Earth orbit, advising on litigation, data security, and AI matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to numerous large-scale AI companies on governance, compliance, and international trade with an emphasis on national security.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to a prominent AI-enabled cybersecurity company on privacy, security, international trade, and intellectual property.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to numerous startups on research, design, development, and patenting of AI technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to an AI-enabled pharmaceutical company on the development and patenting of cannabis-plant-material compounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse represented Google in the pathmarking copyright dispute against Oracle over use of APIs when coding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse delivered a complete defense victory for GW Pharma in a patent dispute over one of the few FDA-approved drugs containing cannabis plant materials. S\u003cem\u003eee Canopy Growth Corp. v. GW Pharma Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 22-1603 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse represented Equifax on various fronts during the 2017 data incident, including advising on congressional oversight, regulatory enforcement, state attorneys general litigation, and private lawsuits.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3270}]},"expertise":[{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":826,"guid":"826.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":116,"guid":"116.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":115,"guid":"115.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1472,"guid":"1472.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Snyder","nick_name":"Jesse","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, the Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","years_held":"2016–2017"},{"name":"Law Clerk, the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","years_held":"2015–2016"},{"name":"Law Clerk, the Honorable Jorge A. Solis, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas","years_held":"2012–2013"}],"first_name":"Jesse","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1980,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"summa cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2012-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"2025, 2026 Guest Lecturer on AI, IP, and Cybersecurity","detail":"University of Mississippi School of Law"},{"title":"2026 Sedona Working Group Member on AI and Trade Secrets","detail":"The Sedona Conference"},{"title":"2025 Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI Consulting Group"},{"title":"24 Scholarly Publications","detail":"Harvard, NYU, Virginia, British Journal of American Legal Studies, and More"},{"title":"Federal Clerkship","detail":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},{"title":"Federal Clerkship","detail":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},{"title":"Federal Clerkship","detail":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas"},{"title":"Past Member of the North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society","detail":"North Carolina State Bar"},{"title":"National Order of Scribes","detail":"The American Society of Legal Writers"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Jesse Snyder is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of King \u0026 Spalding. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJesse Snyder is a partner\u0026nbsp;in the Washington, D.C., office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Technology, Appellate, and Administrative Law practice groups.\u0026nbsp;Jesse litigates prime time technology disputes,\u0026nbsp;including those involving AI, data privacy,\u0026nbsp;cybersecurity, intellectual property, appeals,\u0026nbsp;strategic counseling, and bespoke cross-disciplinary solutions for clients facing significant risk. No matter the issue, Jesse is always present\u0026nbsp;to help\u0026nbsp;his clients navigate\u0026nbsp;their\u0026nbsp;toughest challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJesse helps\u0026nbsp;his clients traverse\u0026nbsp;scores of pressing fronts: novel\u0026nbsp;disputes, government-facing advocacy, compliance, governance, licensing, national security, international trade, as well as practical business-minded matters to drive ROI and to galvanize KPIs. In addition to his well-established\u0026nbsp;appellate and administrative law practice, Jesse has served as lead counsel\u0026nbsp;in numerous litigations, including\u0026nbsp;high-stakes disputes touching on data privacy and cybersecurity, intellectual property, pixel technology, and generative AI.\u0026nbsp;What's more, Jesse regularly\u0026nbsp;counsels clients in highly scrutinized industries on the development and implementation of cybersecurity, privacy, and generative AI compliance programs and protocols. Moreover, Jesse has been called upon to provide forensic analysis, technical advice, and legal defense\u0026nbsp;to various clients facing exigent online attacks as well as\u0026nbsp;illicit hacking events. He also\u0026nbsp;routinely\u0026nbsp;advises clients on AI algorithm and large language model\u0026nbsp;development, data mapping,\u0026nbsp;as well as various considerations and strategies when implementing AI into existing and nascent processes. In addition, Jesse takes pride in his dedicated practice aimed at\u0026nbsp;advancing\u0026nbsp;the talents of entrepreneurs to compete and to succeed, thereby providing steady advice and pragmatic guidance\u0026nbsp;to help propel his clients forward to achieve\u0026nbsp;their business objectives.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn view\u0026nbsp;of his achievements in these areas, Jesse was nominated by his clients and received recognition by the BTI Consulting Group\u0026nbsp;as a 2025 Client Service All-Star, \"the gold standard used by corporate counsel and law firms alike to identify the attorneys delivering the absolute\u0026nbsp;best levels of client service -- better than all others.\"\u0026nbsp; During 2025 in particular, BTI noted that \"only two\u0026nbsp;attorneys earned their organic recognition from multiple clients,\" and Jesse was\u0026nbsp;one of\u0026nbsp;those two.\u0026nbsp;Building further, the University of Mississippi School of Law's Center for Air and Space Law invited Jesse to be\u0026nbsp;a 2025 and 2026 guest lecturer on cybersecurity and AI. The Sedona Conference also chose Jesse to serve on the 2026 working group on AI and trade secrets, working to build industry consensus around\u0026nbsp;these areas of growing\u0026nbsp;importance.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring law school, Jesse\u0026nbsp;served as editor in chief of the flagship law review publication, graduated in\u0026nbsp;the highest percentile of his class, and was inducted into the National Order of Scribes.\u0026nbsp;He is a published author in 24\u0026nbsp;different law reviews, covering a variety of topics ranging from the Antiterrorism Act and\u0026nbsp;First Amendment to patent law\u0026nbsp;and Twenty-first Amendment.\u0026nbsp;He also serves as an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eex officio\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;member of Texas A\u0026amp;M\u0026rsquo;s faculty committee on clerkship placements.\u0026nbsp;Before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Jesse served as a term law clerk to three federal judges: the Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Honorable Jorge A. Solis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore attending law school, Jesse amassed experience as an engineer at Stryker Corporation and as a commissioned military officer serving in the Air Force during the attacks on September 11, 2001. His medical-device experience covers a wide array of technology platforms for use in endoscopic procedures. And as a graduate of the Air Force Academy, Jesse is a proud combat veteran of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Multinational Corps-Iraq, and Combined Joint Task Force 7. During his service, he\u0026nbsp;received multiple medals and awards. In addition, as an extension of his sustained commitment to public service, Jesse\u0026nbsp;pioneered the firm's Armed Forces Attorney Coalition, a group whose purpose is to\u0026nbsp;promote\u0026nbsp;veteran interests\u0026nbsp;in the legal profession as well as\u0026nbsp;more broadly. Jesse also carries an abiding\u0026nbsp;dedication\u0026nbsp;to pro bono legal services, as demonstrated by his past multiyear recognition as a member of the North Carolina\u0026nbsp;Pro Bono Honor Society. Jesse is an avid runner, and he has been so for over 35\u0026nbsp;years.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eJesse Snyder serves as lead counsel for litigations involving an industry-leading AI company offering products and services for legal departments worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse Snyder is lead counsel to an industry-leading jet propulsion system manufacturer for the U.S. military, advising on AI, IP, privacy, trade, antitrust, and compliance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to a pioneering and disrupting aerospace defense contractor designing pilot training devices for flight school, including achieving an agency corrective action through a successful bid protest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to one of the largest national defense aerospace companies on AI governance and compliance, data mapping, and cybersecurity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to an industry-leading space company pioneering human habitation in low-Earth orbit, advising on litigation, data security, and AI matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to numerous large-scale AI companies on governance, compliance, and international trade with an emphasis on national security.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to a prominent AI-enabled cybersecurity company on privacy, security, international trade, and intellectual property.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to numerous startups on research, design, development, and patenting of AI technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse is lead counsel to an AI-enabled pharmaceutical company on the development and patenting of cannabis-plant-material compounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse represented Google in the pathmarking copyright dispute against Oracle over use of APIs when coding.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse delivered a complete defense victory for GW Pharma in a patent dispute over one of the few FDA-approved drugs containing cannabis plant materials. S\u003cem\u003eee Canopy Growth Corp. v. GW Pharma Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 22-1603 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2023).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJesse represented Equifax on various fronts during the 2017 data incident, including advising on congressional oversight, regulatory enforcement, state attorneys general litigation, and private lawsuits.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"2025, 2026 Guest Lecturer on AI, IP, and Cybersecurity","detail":"University of Mississippi School of Law"},{"title":"2026 Sedona Working Group Member on AI and Trade Secrets","detail":"The Sedona Conference"},{"title":"2025 Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI Consulting Group"},{"title":"24 Scholarly Publications","detail":"Harvard, NYU, Virginia, British Journal of American Legal Studies, and More"},{"title":"Federal Clerkship","detail":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit"},{"title":"Federal Clerkship","detail":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit"},{"title":"Federal Clerkship","detail":"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas"},{"title":"Past Member of the North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society","detail":"North Carolina State Bar"},{"title":"National Order of Scribes","detail":"The American Society of Legal Writers"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11370}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-15T20:49:35.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-15T20:49:35.000Z","searchable_text":"Snyder{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2025, 2026 Guest Lecturer on AI, IP, and Cybersecurity\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Mississippi School of Law\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2026 Sedona Working Group Member on AI and Trade Secrets\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Sedona Conference\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2025 Client Service All-Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI Consulting Group\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"24 Scholarly Publications\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Harvard, NYU, Virginia, British Journal of American Legal Studies, and More\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Federal Clerkship\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Federal Clerkship\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Federal Clerkship\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Past Member of the North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"North Carolina State Bar\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"National Order of Scribes\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Society of Legal Writers\"}{{ FIELD }}Jesse Snyder serves as lead counsel for litigations involving an industry-leading AI company offering products and services for legal departments worldwide.{{ FIELD }}Jesse Snyder is lead counsel to an industry-leading jet propulsion system manufacturer for the U.S. military, advising on AI, IP, privacy, trade, antitrust, and compliance.{{ FIELD }}Jesse is lead counsel to a pioneering and disrupting aerospace defense contractor designing pilot training devices for flight school, including achieving an agency corrective action through a successful bid protest.{{ FIELD }}Jesse is lead counsel to one of the largest national defense aerospace companies on AI governance and compliance, data mapping, and cybersecurity.{{ FIELD }}Jesse is lead counsel to an industry-leading space company pioneering human habitation in low-Earth orbit, advising on litigation, data security, and AI matters.{{ FIELD }}Jesse is lead counsel to numerous large-scale AI companies on governance, compliance, and international trade with an emphasis on national security.{{ FIELD }}Jesse is lead counsel to a prominent AI-enabled cybersecurity company on privacy, security, international trade, and intellectual property.{{ FIELD }}Jesse is lead counsel to numerous startups on research, design, development, and patenting of AI technology.{{ FIELD }}Jesse is lead counsel to an AI-enabled pharmaceutical company on the development and patenting of cannabis-plant-material compounds.{{ FIELD }}Jesse represented Google in the pathmarking copyright dispute against Oracle over use of APIs when coding.{{ FIELD }}Jesse delivered a complete defense victory for GW Pharma in a patent dispute over one of the few FDA-approved drugs containing cannabis plant materials. See Canopy Growth Corp. v. GW Pharma Ltd., No. 22-1603 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2023).{{ FIELD }}Jesse represented Equifax on various fronts during the 2017 data incident, including advising on congressional oversight, regulatory enforcement, state attorneys general litigation, and private lawsuits.{{ FIELD }}Jesse Snyder is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of King \u0026amp; Spalding and a member of the firm’s Technology, Appellate, and Administrative Law practice groups. Jesse litigates prime time technology disputes, including those involving AI, data privacy, cybersecurity, intellectual property, appeals, strategic counseling, and bespoke cross-disciplinary solutions for clients facing significant risk. No matter the issue, Jesse is always present to help his clients navigate their toughest challenges. \nJesse helps his clients traverse scores of pressing fronts: novel disputes, government-facing advocacy, compliance, governance, licensing, national security, international trade, as well as practical business-minded matters to drive ROI and to galvanize KPIs. In addition to his well-established appellate and administrative law practice, Jesse has served as lead counsel in numerous litigations, including high-stakes disputes touching on data privacy and cybersecurity, intellectual property, pixel technology, and generative AI. What's more, Jesse regularly counsels clients in highly scrutinized industries on the development and implementation of cybersecurity, privacy, and generative AI compliance programs and protocols. Moreover, Jesse has been called upon to provide forensic analysis, technical advice, and legal defense to various clients facing exigent online attacks as well as illicit hacking events. He also routinely advises clients on AI algorithm and large language model development, data mapping, as well as various considerations and strategies when implementing AI into existing and nascent processes. In addition, Jesse takes pride in his dedicated practice aimed at advancing the talents of entrepreneurs to compete and to succeed, thereby providing steady advice and pragmatic guidance to help propel his clients forward to achieve their business objectives.  \nIn view of his achievements in these areas, Jesse was nominated by his clients and received recognition by the BTI Consulting Group as a 2025 Client Service All-Star, \"the gold standard used by corporate counsel and law firms alike to identify the attorneys delivering the absolute best levels of client service -- better than all others.\"  During 2025 in particular, BTI noted that \"only two attorneys earned their organic recognition from multiple clients,\" and Jesse was one of those two. Building further, the University of Mississippi School of Law's Center for Air and Space Law invited Jesse to be a 2025 and 2026 guest lecturer on cybersecurity and AI. The Sedona Conference also chose Jesse to serve on the 2026 working group on AI and trade secrets, working to build industry consensus around these areas of growing importance. \nDuring law school, Jesse served as editor in chief of the flagship law review publication, graduated in the highest percentile of his class, and was inducted into the National Order of Scribes. He is a published author in 24 different law reviews, covering a variety of topics ranging from the Antiterrorism Act and First Amendment to patent law and Twenty-first Amendment. He also serves as an ex officio member of Texas A\u0026amp;M’s faculty committee on clerkship placements. Before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Jesse served as a term law clerk to three federal judges: the Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Honorable Jorge A. Solis of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.\nBefore attending law school, Jesse amassed experience as an engineer at Stryker Corporation and as a commissioned military officer serving in the Air Force during the attacks on September 11, 2001. His medical-device experience covers a wide array of technology platforms for use in endoscopic procedures. And as a graduate of the Air Force Academy, Jesse is a proud combat veteran of Operations Iraqi Freedom, Multinational Corps-Iraq, and Combined Joint Task Force 7. During his service, he received multiple medals and awards. In addition, as an extension of his sustained commitment to public service, Jesse pioneered the firm's Armed Forces Attorney Coalition, a group whose purpose is to promote veteran interests in the legal profession as well as more broadly. Jesse also carries an abiding dedication to pro bono legal services, as demonstrated by his past multiyear recognition as a member of the North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society. Jesse is an avid runner, and he has been so for over 35 years. Jesse Snyder lawyer Partner 2025, 2026 Guest Lecturer on AI, IP, and Cybersecurity University of Mississippi School of Law 2026 Sedona Working Group Member on AI and Trade Secrets The Sedona Conference 2025 Client Service All-Star BTI Consulting Group 24 Scholarly Publications Harvard, NYU, Virginia, British Journal of American Legal Studies, and More Federal Clerkship U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Federal Clerkship U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Federal Clerkship U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Past Member of the North Carolina Pro Bono Honor Society North Carolina State Bar National Order of Scribes The American Society of Legal Writers United States Air Force Academy  Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas District of Columbia North Carolina Texas North Carolina State Bar D.C. Bar Association Texas State Bar Assoication Buncombe County Bar Law Clerk, the Honorable Eugene E. Siler, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Law Clerk, the Honorable Jimmie V. Reyna, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Law Clerk, the Honorable Jorge A. Solis, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Jesse Snyder serves as lead counsel for litigations involving an industry-leading AI company offering products and services for legal departments worldwide. Jesse Snyder is lead counsel to an industry-leading jet propulsion system manufacturer for the U.S. military, advising on AI, IP, privacy, trade, antitrust, and compliance. Jesse is lead counsel to a pioneering and disrupting aerospace defense contractor designing pilot training devices for flight school, including achieving an agency corrective action through a successful bid protest. Jesse is lead counsel to one of the largest national defense aerospace companies on AI governance and compliance, data mapping, and cybersecurity. Jesse is lead counsel to an industry-leading space company pioneering human habitation in low-Earth orbit, advising on litigation, data security, and AI matters. Jesse is lead counsel to numerous large-scale AI companies on governance, compliance, and international trade with an emphasis on national security. Jesse is lead counsel to a prominent AI-enabled cybersecurity company on privacy, security, international trade, and intellectual property. Jesse is lead counsel to numerous startups on research, design, development, and patenting of AI technology. Jesse is lead counsel to an AI-enabled pharmaceutical company on the development and patenting of cannabis-plant-material compounds. Jesse represented Google in the pathmarking copyright dispute against Oracle over use of APIs when coding. Jesse delivered a complete defense victory for GW Pharma in a patent dispute over one of the few FDA-approved drugs containing cannabis plant materials. See Canopy Growth Corp. v. GW Pharma Ltd., No. 22-1603 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 24, 2023). Jesse represented Equifax on various fronts during the 2017 data incident, including advising on congressional oversight, regulatory enforcement, state attorneys general litigation, and private lawsuits.","searchable_name":"Jesse Snyder","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":443994,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6954,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBen is a versatile litigator and former Silicon Valley in-house counsel focused on complex litigation, appellate and critical-issue advocacy, and regulatory investigations. Ben joins King \u0026amp; Spalding from Google, where he helped design and execute the company\u0026rsquo;s AI regulatory strategy. He has extensive experience helping clients inside and outside the technology sector navigate issues of administrative law, antitrust, consumer protection, privacy, and securities. Ben draws on his in-house experience to drive comprehensive client solutions that address legal, business, and reputational risk.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen was one of Google\u0026rsquo;s first AI regulatory lawyers. There, he led cross-functional teams responding to AI inquiries from regulators around the world, and, working closely with senior executives and business leaders, he helped develop and manage the company\u0026rsquo;s overarching AI regulatory strategy. Beyond AI, Ben directed defense strategy on litigation and regulatory matters arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act 5, state unfair and deceptive acts statutes, the federal securities laws, and global privacy laws. He also managed strategic regulatory compliance enhancements, working closely with business units like marketing, human resources, and finance to deliver compliance readiness on-time and on-budget.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore Google, Ben was a partner at a litigation boutique in Washington, D.C. There, in addition to trial court work, Ben argued numerous times in the federal courts of appeals, and was regularly tapped to draft appellate briefs, case-dispositive motions, and federal agency comments. He authored or co-authored winning briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States and in trial and appellate courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen served as a law clerk for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has been named \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e and \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003efor his work.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"benjamin-softness","email":"bsoftness@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended AT\u0026amp;T\u0026rsquo;s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, \u003cem\u003eUnited States v. AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), \u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;g \u003c/em\u003e310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFounding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants\u0026rsquo; failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in \u003cem\u003ePetersen Energ\u0026iacute;a Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored respondent\u0026rsquo;s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, \u003cem\u003eApple v. Pepper\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for the win.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored winning brief in \u003cem\u003eStuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; for victory).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored petitioners\u0026rsquo; winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in \u003cem\u003eGlobal Tel*Link v. FCC,\u003c/em\u003e 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBriefed and argued \u003cem\u003eSanders v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing \u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady\u0026rsquo;s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Softness","nick_name":"Benjamin","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. A Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","years_held":"2013 - 2014"},{"name":"Intern, Hon. Richard J. Leon, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia","years_held":"2011 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Benjamin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2282,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"summa cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2013-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"Global Competition Review, 2019"},{"title":"Legal Lion","detail":"Law360, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjamin-softness-7b16322/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBen is a versatile litigator and former Silicon Valley in-house counsel focused on complex litigation, appellate and critical-issue advocacy, and regulatory investigations. Ben joins King \u0026amp; Spalding from Google, where he helped design and execute the company\u0026rsquo;s AI regulatory strategy. He has extensive experience helping clients inside and outside the technology sector navigate issues of administrative law, antitrust, consumer protection, privacy, and securities. Ben draws on his in-house experience to drive comprehensive client solutions that address legal, business, and reputational risk.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen was one of Google\u0026rsquo;s first AI regulatory lawyers. There, he led cross-functional teams responding to AI inquiries from regulators around the world, and, working closely with senior executives and business leaders, he helped develop and manage the company\u0026rsquo;s overarching AI regulatory strategy. Beyond AI, Ben directed defense strategy on litigation and regulatory matters arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act 5, state unfair and deceptive acts statutes, the federal securities laws, and global privacy laws. He also managed strategic regulatory compliance enhancements, working closely with business units like marketing, human resources, and finance to deliver compliance readiness on-time and on-budget.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore Google, Ben was a partner at a litigation boutique in Washington, D.C. There, in addition to trial court work, Ben argued numerous times in the federal courts of appeals, and was regularly tapped to draft appellate briefs, case-dispositive motions, and federal agency comments. He authored or co-authored winning briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States and in trial and appellate courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen served as a law clerk for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has been named \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e and \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003efor his work.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended AT\u0026amp;T\u0026rsquo;s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, \u003cem\u003eUnited States v. AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), \u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;g \u003c/em\u003e310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFounding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants\u0026rsquo; failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in \u003cem\u003ePetersen Energ\u0026iacute;a Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored respondent\u0026rsquo;s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, \u003cem\u003eApple v. Pepper\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for the win.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored winning brief in \u003cem\u003eStuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; for victory).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored petitioners\u0026rsquo; winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in \u003cem\u003eGlobal Tel*Link v. FCC,\u003c/em\u003e 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBriefed and argued \u003cem\u003eSanders v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing \u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady\u0026rsquo;s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"Global Competition Review, 2019"},{"title":"Legal Lion","detail":"Law360, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12616}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:27.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:27.000Z","searchable_text":"Softness{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Competition Review, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal Lion\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws{{ FIELD }}Represented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws{{ FIELD }}Represented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals{{ FIELD }}Defended AT\u0026amp;T’s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, United States v. AT\u0026amp;T, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), aff’g 310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018).{{ FIELD }}Assisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case{{ FIELD }}Founding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants’ failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in Petersen Energía Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic.{{ FIELD }}Co-authored respondent’s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, Apple v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a Global Competition Review “Litigator of the Week” for the win.{{ FIELD }}Co-authored winning brief in Stuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named Law360 “Legal Lion” for victory).{{ FIELD }}Co-authored petitioners’ winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in Global Tel*Link v. FCC, 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017).{{ FIELD }}Briefed and argued Sanders v. United States, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing pro bono client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as amicus curiae. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady’s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.{{ FIELD }}Ben is a versatile litigator and former Silicon Valley in-house counsel focused on complex litigation, appellate and critical-issue advocacy, and regulatory investigations. Ben joins King \u0026amp; Spalding from Google, where he helped design and execute the company’s AI regulatory strategy. He has extensive experience helping clients inside and outside the technology sector navigate issues of administrative law, antitrust, consumer protection, privacy, and securities. Ben draws on his in-house experience to drive comprehensive client solutions that address legal, business, and reputational risk.\nBen was one of Google’s first AI regulatory lawyers. There, he led cross-functional teams responding to AI inquiries from regulators around the world, and, working closely with senior executives and business leaders, he helped develop and manage the company’s overarching AI regulatory strategy. Beyond AI, Ben directed defense strategy on litigation and regulatory matters arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act 5, state unfair and deceptive acts statutes, the federal securities laws, and global privacy laws. He also managed strategic regulatory compliance enhancements, working closely with business units like marketing, human resources, and finance to deliver compliance readiness on-time and on-budget.\nBefore Google, Ben was a partner at a litigation boutique in Washington, D.C. There, in addition to trial court work, Ben argued numerous times in the federal courts of appeals, and was regularly tapped to draft appellate briefs, case-dispositive motions, and federal agency comments. He authored or co-authored winning briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States and in trial and appellate courts across the country.\nBen served as a law clerk for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has been named “Litigator of the Week” by Global Competition Review and “Legal Lion” by Law360 for his work. Partner Litigator of the Week Global Competition Review, 2019 Legal Lion Law360, 2020 Amherst College  University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia California District of Columbia New York Bar Association of San Francisco Law Clerk, Hon. A Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Intern, Hon. Richard J. Leon, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Represented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws Represented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws Represented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals Defended AT\u0026amp;T’s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, United States v. AT\u0026amp;T, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), aff’g 310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018). Assisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case Founding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants’ failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in Petersen Energía Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic. Co-authored respondent’s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, Apple v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a Global Competition Review “Litigator of the Week” for the win. Co-authored winning brief in Stuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named Law360 “Legal Lion” for victory). Co-authored petitioners’ winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in Global Tel*Link v. FCC, 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Briefed and argued Sanders v. United States, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing pro bono client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as amicus curiae. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady’s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.","searchable_name":"Benjamin Softness","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442766,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5387,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAs a data, privacy and security, health care, and employee benefits partner at King \u0026amp; Spalding LLP, Adam Solander provides counsel on data breach and cybersecurity issues across various industries, particularly health care. Adam represents clients with respect to employee benefits regulatory and compliance issues including designing, implementing, and maintaining employee benefit plans. He also advises clients on issues related to managed care laws and telemedicine.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdam has experience helping clients preparing for, responding to, and recovering from data, privacy and security incidents. He is a Certified CSF Practitioner, a designation given by the Health Information Trust Alliance (HITRUST). This organization provides training to develop and maintain effective security programs for health care and life sciences companies that comply with security laws, regulations, and standards, including HITECH, HIPAA, PCI, JCAHO, CMS, ISO, NIST, and various other federal, state, and business requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Adam was a member of a nationally recognized law firm where he was a part of their health care and life sciences practice group. Much of his experience is centered around assisting health care clients with HIPAA compliance, ERISA, managed care laws, telemedicine, and privacy and data security. \u0026nbsp;He also assisted private equity companies with evaluating privacy and security and employee benefits compliance risk in connection with potential investments.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, he served as Health Policy Counsel at the ERISA Industry Committee. There, he counseled Fortune 500 companies on healthcare legislation, including ACA, the HITECH Act, and ERISA. He also has experience advocating on behalf of trade associations and advocacy groups to Congress and Executive branch.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"adam-solander","email":"asolander@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":28,"guid":"28.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Solander","nick_name":"Adam","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Adam","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":1562,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2007-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"C.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named to Washington DC Rising Stars list","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2016-2018"},{"title":"Received Readers’ Choice Award","detail":"JD Supra, 2016"},{"title":"Received Burton Award for Legal Writing","detail":"Burton Awards Program in association with the Library of Congress, 2014"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/adamsolander/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAs a data, privacy and security, health care, and employee benefits partner at King \u0026amp; Spalding LLP, Adam Solander provides counsel on data breach and cybersecurity issues across various industries, particularly health care. Adam represents clients with respect to employee benefits regulatory and compliance issues including designing, implementing, and maintaining employee benefit plans. He also advises clients on issues related to managed care laws and telemedicine.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdam has experience helping clients preparing for, responding to, and recovering from data, privacy and security incidents. He is a Certified CSF Practitioner, a designation given by the Health Information Trust Alliance (HITRUST). This organization provides training to develop and maintain effective security programs for health care and life sciences companies that comply with security laws, regulations, and standards, including HITECH, HIPAA, PCI, JCAHO, CMS, ISO, NIST, and various other federal, state, and business requirements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Adam was a member of a nationally recognized law firm where he was a part of their health care and life sciences practice group. Much of his experience is centered around assisting health care clients with HIPAA compliance, ERISA, managed care laws, telemedicine, and privacy and data security. \u0026nbsp;He also assisted private equity companies with evaluating privacy and security and employee benefits compliance risk in connection with potential investments.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, he served as Health Policy Counsel at the ERISA Industry Committee. There, he counseled Fortune 500 companies on healthcare legislation, including ACA, the HITECH Act, and ERISA. He also has experience advocating on behalf of trade associations and advocacy groups to Congress and Executive branch.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Named to Washington DC Rising Stars list","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2016-2018"},{"title":"Received Readers’ Choice Award","detail":"JD Supra, 2016"},{"title":"Received Burton Award for Legal Writing","detail":"Burton Awards Program in association with the Library of Congress, 2014"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6393}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:44.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Solander{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to Washington DC Rising Stars list\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2016-2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Received Readers’ Choice Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JD Supra, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Received Burton Award for Legal Writing\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Burton Awards Program in association with the Library of Congress, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}As a data, privacy and security, health care, and employee benefits partner at King \u0026amp; Spalding LLP, Adam Solander provides counsel on data breach and cybersecurity issues across various industries, particularly health care. Adam represents clients with respect to employee benefits regulatory and compliance issues including designing, implementing, and maintaining employee benefit plans. He also advises clients on issues related to managed care laws and telemedicine.\nAdam has experience helping clients preparing for, responding to, and recovering from data, privacy and security incidents. He is a Certified CSF Practitioner, a designation given by the Health Information Trust Alliance (HITRUST). This organization provides training to develop and maintain effective security programs for health care and life sciences companies that comply with security laws, regulations, and standards, including HITECH, HIPAA, PCI, JCAHO, CMS, ISO, NIST, and various other federal, state, and business requirements.\nPrior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Adam was a member of a nationally recognized law firm where he was a part of their health care and life sciences practice group. Much of his experience is centered around assisting health care clients with HIPAA compliance, ERISA, managed care laws, telemedicine, and privacy and data security.  He also assisted private equity companies with evaluating privacy and security and employee benefits compliance risk in connection with potential investments. \nPreviously, he served as Health Policy Counsel at the ERISA Industry Committee. There, he counseled Fortune 500 companies on healthcare legislation, including ACA, the HITECH Act, and ERISA. He also has experience advocating on behalf of trade associations and advocacy groups to Congress and Executive branch. Partner Named to Washington DC Rising Stars list Super Lawyers, 2016-2018 Received Readers’ Choice Award JD Supra, 2016 Received Burton Award for Legal Writing Burton Awards Program in association with the Library of Congress, 2014 West Virginia University West Virginia University College of Law Pennsylvania State University Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law West Virginia University West Virginia University College of Law District of Columbia District of Columbia Bar Association Member, American Health Lawyers Association","searchable_name":"Adam C. Solander","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447640,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1522,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRonni Solomon co-leads our E-Discovery practice and focuses exclusively on e-discovery issues.\u0026nbsp; She has been ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003efor over 10 years as one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s top lawyers in e-discovery litigation practice.\u0026nbsp; According to\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e, Ronni \u0026ldquo;is a subject matter expert that knows how to put the complexities of e-discovery into really practical terms for her clients.\u0026rdquo; Chambers stated that \u0026ldquo;She is very responsive and very well known in the field.\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp;Further, Ronni \u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;maintains longstanding relationships as e-discovery counsel to a number of major clients across several industry sectors, and is frequently sought out to advise on significant litigation, including large class actions.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;indicates that \u0026ldquo;Ronni is a leading light in the e-discovery space since the sector was in its nonage, and continues to maintain long-term relationships with companies\u0026rdquo; and designated Ronni as a Leading Lawyer.\u0026nbsp; She was also recognized as a \u0026ldquo;Thought Leader Global Elite\u0026rdquo; in the e-discovery section of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Litigation, one of only three lawyers to receive that distinction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho's Who Legal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;noted that Ronni is \"held in high esteem by sources, who consider her a top name for handling e-discovery proceedings . . . \"\u0026nbsp; Ronni is also an adjunct professor on e-discovery at the University of Georgia School of Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRonni has significant experience managing e-discovery in crisis litigation that spans multiple regulatory, investigatory and civil matters and helping clients ensure that e-discovery does not become a costly sideshow.\u0026nbsp; A certified Project Management Professional (PMP), Ronni uses her experience and skills to ensure that e-discovery activities are run cost-efficiently, defensibly and consistently.\u0026nbsp; Ronni also serves as National E-Discovery Counsel for large corporations and works with clients on information governance and defensible deletion issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRonni is actively engaged in e-discovery thought leadership.\u0026nbsp; She was a member of the Steering Committee of Working Group 1 of The Sedona Conference on Best Practices for Electronic Discovery and Records Management.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; She sits on the Advisory Board of the Georgetown Law Advanced E-Discovery Institute.\u0026nbsp; She also is Editor-in-Chief of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInternational Legal Holds\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003epublished in August 2022 by Working Group 6 of the Sedona Conference, International Electronic Information Management, Discovery and Disclosure, which focuses on international issues relating to disclosure, cross-border discovery, and privacy.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRonni co-authored a chapter, \u0026ldquo;Predictive Coding from the Defense Perspective:\u0026nbsp; Issues and Challenges,\u0026rdquo; for a 2016 ABA book titled Perspectives on Predictive Coding and Other Advanced Search Methods for the Legal Practitioner. She also co-authored a chapter of the Federal Judges\u0026rsquo; Guide to Discovery titled \u0026ldquo;The Roles of Rules 26(f) and 16(b) in Active Judicial Management of Discovery Challenges,\u0026rdquo; published by the Electronic Discovery Institute (EDI).\u0026nbsp; She was Co-Senior Editor of The Sedona Conference\u0026rsquo;s Social Media Primer; the Steering Committee Liaison of the Sedona Conference\u0026rsquo;s Commentary on BYOD: Principles and Guidance for Developing Policies and Meeting Discovery Obligations paper; and she assisted in drafting a model Rule 502(d) order that appeared in the Fordham Law Journal.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe was appointed by U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten to be on a committee to provide recommendations regarding amending local rules to address e-discovery issues, was co-chair of the Electronic Discovery Subcommittee of the Pretrial Practice and Discovery Committee of the Litigation Section of the American Bar Association and is the former Director of the Atlanta Chapter of Women in E-Discovery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Ronni was a corporate discovery specialist for one of the largest e-discovery companies in the industry. In that role, she advised in-house counsel of large corporations on electronic discovery strategies. She applies the knowledge she gained on the vendor side to help clients select the most efficient e-discovery tools and strategies, significantly reducing their total vendor and review costs.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"ronni-solomon","email":"rsolomon@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eCo-Lead E-Discovery Partner defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the 2017 data breach matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead E-Discovery Partner defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Motors\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the Ignition Switch matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational E-Discovery Counsel for\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Progressive Insurance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHas served as National E-Discovery Counsel to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUPS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;since April 2009. Has saved UPS over 50% on its document review fees and over $750,000 by negotiating e discovery vendor contracts and reviewing vendor invoices. The cost-savings UPS achieved as a result of its partnership with King \u0026amp; Spalding was featured in Corporate Counsel magazine\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":176}]},"expertise":[{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Solomon","nick_name":"Ronni","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Ronni","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2619,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1994-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Among the foremost [US] e-discovery lawyers” - Commercial Litigation – E-Discovery","detail":"Who’s Who Legal: Global Elite Thought Leader  (2023)"},{"title":"\"A subject matter expert that put[s] the complexities of e-discovery into really practical terms for her clients.” ","detail":"Chambers Global"},{"title":"Leading Individual","detail":"Legal 500"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/ronni-solomon-24b6671/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRonni Solomon co-leads our E-Discovery practice and focuses exclusively on e-discovery issues.\u0026nbsp; She has been ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003efor over 10 years as one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s top lawyers in e-discovery litigation practice.\u0026nbsp; According to\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e, Ronni \u0026ldquo;is a subject matter expert that knows how to put the complexities of e-discovery into really practical terms for her clients.\u0026rdquo; Chambers stated that \u0026ldquo;She is very responsive and very well known in the field.\u0026rdquo; \u0026nbsp;Further, Ronni \u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;maintains longstanding relationships as e-discovery counsel to a number of major clients across several industry sectors, and is frequently sought out to advise on significant litigation, including large class actions.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;indicates that \u0026ldquo;Ronni is a leading light in the e-discovery space since the sector was in its nonage, and continues to maintain long-term relationships with companies\u0026rdquo; and designated Ronni as a Leading Lawyer.\u0026nbsp; She was also recognized as a \u0026ldquo;Thought Leader Global Elite\u0026rdquo; in the e-discovery section of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Litigation, one of only three lawyers to receive that distinction.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWho's Who Legal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;noted that Ronni is \"held in high esteem by sources, who consider her a top name for handling e-discovery proceedings . . . \"\u0026nbsp; Ronni is also an adjunct professor on e-discovery at the University of Georgia School of Law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRonni has significant experience managing e-discovery in crisis litigation that spans multiple regulatory, investigatory and civil matters and helping clients ensure that e-discovery does not become a costly sideshow.\u0026nbsp; A certified Project Management Professional (PMP), Ronni uses her experience and skills to ensure that e-discovery activities are run cost-efficiently, defensibly and consistently.\u0026nbsp; Ronni also serves as National E-Discovery Counsel for large corporations and works with clients on information governance and defensible deletion issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRonni is actively engaged in e-discovery thought leadership.\u0026nbsp; She was a member of the Steering Committee of Working Group 1 of The Sedona Conference on Best Practices for Electronic Discovery and Records Management.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; She sits on the Advisory Board of the Georgetown Law Advanced E-Discovery Institute.\u0026nbsp; She also is Editor-in-Chief of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eInternational Legal Holds\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003epublished in August 2022 by Working Group 6 of the Sedona Conference, International Electronic Information Management, Discovery and Disclosure, which focuses on international issues relating to disclosure, cross-border discovery, and privacy.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRonni co-authored a chapter, \u0026ldquo;Predictive Coding from the Defense Perspective:\u0026nbsp; Issues and Challenges,\u0026rdquo; for a 2016 ABA book titled Perspectives on Predictive Coding and Other Advanced Search Methods for the Legal Practitioner. She also co-authored a chapter of the Federal Judges\u0026rsquo; Guide to Discovery titled \u0026ldquo;The Roles of Rules 26(f) and 16(b) in Active Judicial Management of Discovery Challenges,\u0026rdquo; published by the Electronic Discovery Institute (EDI).\u0026nbsp; She was Co-Senior Editor of The Sedona Conference\u0026rsquo;s Social Media Primer; the Steering Committee Liaison of the Sedona Conference\u0026rsquo;s Commentary on BYOD: Principles and Guidance for Developing Policies and Meeting Discovery Obligations paper; and she assisted in drafting a model Rule 502(d) order that appeared in the Fordham Law Journal.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe was appointed by U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten to be on a committee to provide recommendations regarding amending local rules to address e-discovery issues, was co-chair of the Electronic Discovery Subcommittee of the Pretrial Practice and Discovery Committee of the Litigation Section of the American Bar Association and is the former Director of the Atlanta Chapter of Women in E-Discovery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Ronni was a corporate discovery specialist for one of the largest e-discovery companies in the industry. In that role, she advised in-house counsel of large corporations on electronic discovery strategies. She applies the knowledge she gained on the vendor side to help clients select the most efficient e-discovery tools and strategies, significantly reducing their total vendor and review costs.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eCo-Lead E-Discovery Partner defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the 2017 data breach matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead E-Discovery Partner defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeneral Motors\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the Ignition Switch matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational E-Discovery Counsel for\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Progressive Insurance\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHas served as National E-Discovery Counsel to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUPS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;since April 2009. Has saved UPS over 50% on its document review fees and over $750,000 by negotiating e discovery vendor contracts and reviewing vendor invoices. The cost-savings UPS achieved as a result of its partnership with King \u0026amp; Spalding was featured in Corporate Counsel magazine\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Among the foremost [US] e-discovery lawyers” - Commercial Litigation – E-Discovery","detail":"Who’s Who Legal: Global Elite Thought Leader  (2023)"},{"title":"\"A subject matter expert that put[s] the complexities of e-discovery into really practical terms for her clients.” ","detail":"Chambers Global"},{"title":"Leading Individual","detail":"Legal 500"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4297}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-20T13:55:08.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-20T13:55:08.000Z","searchable_text":"Solomon{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Among the foremost [US] e-discovery lawyers” - Commercial Litigation – E-Discovery\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who Legal: Global Elite Thought Leader  (2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"A subject matter expert that put[s] the complexities of e-discovery into really practical terms for her clients.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Individual\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}Co-Lead E-Discovery Partner defending Equifax in the 2017 data breach matters{{ FIELD }}Lead E-Discovery Partner defending General Motors in the Ignition Switch matters{{ FIELD }}National E-Discovery Counsel for Progressive Insurance{{ FIELD }}Has served as National E-Discovery Counsel to UPS since April 2009. Has saved UPS over 50% on its document review fees and over $750,000 by negotiating e discovery vendor contracts and reviewing vendor invoices. The cost-savings UPS achieved as a result of its partnership with King \u0026amp; Spalding was featured in Corporate Counsel magazine{{ FIELD }}Ronni Solomon co-leads our E-Discovery practice and focuses exclusively on e-discovery issues.  She has been ranked in Chambers USA and Chambers Global for over 10 years as one of the nation’s top lawyers in e-discovery litigation practice.  According to Chambers, Ronni “is a subject matter expert that knows how to put the complexities of e-discovery into really practical terms for her clients.” Chambers stated that “She is very responsive and very well known in the field.”  Further, Ronni  “maintains longstanding relationships as e-discovery counsel to a number of major clients across several industry sectors, and is frequently sought out to advise on significant litigation, including large class actions.”\nLegal 500 indicates that “Ronni is a leading light in the e-discovery space since the sector was in its nonage, and continues to maintain long-term relationships with companies” and designated Ronni as a Leading Lawyer.  She was also recognized as a “Thought Leader Global Elite” in the e-discovery section of Who’s Who Legal: Litigation, one of only three lawyers to receive that distinction. Who's Who Legal noted that Ronni is \"held in high esteem by sources, who consider her a top name for handling e-discovery proceedings . . . \"  Ronni is also an adjunct professor on e-discovery at the University of Georgia School of Law.\nRonni has significant experience managing e-discovery in crisis litigation that spans multiple regulatory, investigatory and civil matters and helping clients ensure that e-discovery does not become a costly sideshow.  A certified Project Management Professional (PMP), Ronni uses her experience and skills to ensure that e-discovery activities are run cost-efficiently, defensibly and consistently.  Ronni also serves as National E-Discovery Counsel for large corporations and works with clients on information governance and defensible deletion issues.\nRonni is actively engaged in e-discovery thought leadership.  She was a member of the Steering Committee of Working Group 1 of The Sedona Conference on Best Practices for Electronic Discovery and Records Management.   She sits on the Advisory Board of the Georgetown Law Advanced E-Discovery Institute.  She also is Editor-in-Chief of International Legal Holds published in August 2022 by Working Group 6 of the Sedona Conference, International Electronic Information Management, Discovery and Disclosure, which focuses on international issues relating to disclosure, cross-border discovery, and privacy.  \nRonni co-authored a chapter, “Predictive Coding from the Defense Perspective:  Issues and Challenges,” for a 2016 ABA book titled Perspectives on Predictive Coding and Other Advanced Search Methods for the Legal Practitioner. She also co-authored a chapter of the Federal Judges’ Guide to Discovery titled “The Roles of Rules 26(f) and 16(b) in Active Judicial Management of Discovery Challenges,” published by the Electronic Discovery Institute (EDI).  She was Co-Senior Editor of The Sedona Conference’s Social Media Primer; the Steering Committee Liaison of the Sedona Conference’s Commentary on BYOD: Principles and Guidance for Developing Policies and Meeting Discovery Obligations paper; and she assisted in drafting a model Rule 502(d) order that appeared in the Fordham Law Journal.\nShe was appointed by U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Batten to be on a committee to provide recommendations regarding amending local rules to address e-discovery issues, was co-chair of the Electronic Discovery Subcommittee of the Pretrial Practice and Discovery Committee of the Litigation Section of the American Bar Association and is the former Director of the Atlanta Chapter of Women in E-Discovery.\nPreviously, Ronni was a corporate discovery specialist for one of the largest e-discovery companies in the industry. In that role, she advised in-house counsel of large corporations on electronic discovery strategies. She applies the knowledge she gained on the vendor side to help clients select the most efficient e-discovery tools and strategies, significantly reducing their total vendor and review costs. Ronni D Solomon Partner Among the foremost [US] e-discovery lawyers” - Commercial Litigation – E-Discovery Who’s Who Legal: Global Elite Thought Leader  (2023) \"A subject matter expert that put[s] the complexities of e-discovery into really practical terms for her clients.”  Chambers Global Leading Individual Legal 500 SUNY at Binghamton  Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Florida Georgia Co-Lead E-Discovery Partner defending Equifax in the 2017 data breach matters Lead E-Discovery Partner defending General Motors in the Ignition Switch matters National E-Discovery Counsel for Progressive Insurance Has served as National E-Discovery Counsel to UPS since April 2009. Has saved UPS over 50% on its document review fees and over $750,000 by negotiating e discovery vendor contracts and reviewing vendor invoices. The cost-savings UPS achieved as a result of its partnership with King \u0026amp; Spalding was featured in Corporate Counsel magazine","searchable_name":"Ronni D. Solomon","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442367,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":888,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Spigel focuses on advising clients on the antitrust issues related to successfully executing their business strategy. As a partner and co-head of our global Antitrust practice, clients routinely seek Jeff\u0026rsquo;s practical and business-friendly advice to guide them through their strategic transactions, criminal grand jury and civil DOJ, FTC, State AG and antitrust investigations and litigation. Working with our Brussels antitrust lawyers, Jeff also defends clients in multi-jurisdictional investigations that coordinate with the U.S., including the European Commission and the UK\u0026rsquo;s CMA.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff represents clients in responding to a range of civil and criminal antitrust investigations in the U.S. and abroad, obtaining Hart-Scott-Rodino clearance and coordinating approvals of proposed transactions in foreign jurisdictions. He also advises clients on pursuing or defending against antitrust claims and counsels on strategic antitrust issues such as those arising from benchmarking, compliance and audits, competitor collaborations, exclusivity and foreclosure, resale price maintenance, Robinson-Patman price discrimination, refusals to deal, and tying and predatory bundling issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith significant experience in the healthcare sector, Jeff frequently advises healthcare clients on strategic transactions, messenger model networks, financially- and/or clinically-integrated networks, Group Purchasing Organizations and claims by commercial payors, competitors, or the government.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff\u0026rsquo;s antitrust experience also includes advising clients in a broad range of industries such as building materials, chemicals, communications, consumer products, energy (oil, gas, power, and renewables), entertainment, financial, metals, paper, pharmaceutical, retail, technology, and transportation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn behalf of his clients, Jeff appears regularly before the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, and he coordinates with foreign counsel in dealing with competition authorities in jurisdictions around the globe, including before the European Commission. In addition, he represents clients on unfair and deceptive trade practice matters before the Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and state attorneys general.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA regular author and speaker, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e have identified Jeff as a recognized practitioner and leading antitrust lawyer. In addition, \u003cem\u003eNightingale Healthcare News\u003c/em\u003e named him one of the \u0026ldquo;Outstanding Healthcare Antitrust Lawyers\u0026rdquo; in the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jeffrey-spigel","email":"jspigel@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAgricultural/Food\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefending a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading food company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DOJ and State AG antitrust investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eViserion Grain, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, in DOJ\u0026rsquo;s approval of its acquisition of 11 grain elevator facilities from Zen-Noh Grain Corporation (\u0026ldquo;ZGC\u0026rdquo;). These facilities were required to be divested to remedy the DOJ\u0026rsquo;s challenge of ZGC\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of multiple grain facilities from Bunge North America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRockstar\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading energy drink maker, in an FTC investigation of its $3.85 billion acquisition by PepsiCo Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a leading provider of natural gas processing and treatment and compression products and services in a DOJ merger investigation of a merger with a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eConocoPhillips\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the sale of its Canadian oil, sand, and gas assets to Cenovus in a $13.3 billion transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eone of the leading operators and builders of offshore supply vessels\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of an acquisition of a leading provider of repair services and construction of offshore and military vessels.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading manufacturer of drill bits\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;used in mining and oil and gas exploration in a DOJ investigation of its acquisition by a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major global energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ criminal antitrust investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eWeatherford Internationa\u003c/strong\u003el in the sale of its pipeline business to Baker Hughes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMarubeni-Itochu Tubulars\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its acquisition of the casing and tubing business of Oil States International.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTransocean Ltd\u003c/strong\u003e. in connection with its $2.7 billion acquisition of Ocean Rig UDW, Inc., in the offshore oil and gas drilling sector and successfully obtained antitrust clearances in several jurisdictions around the world.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLS Power\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining antitrust clearances for various acquisitions of electric power-generating assets from several independent power producers around the U.S. and provided continued antitrust advice on subsequent potential transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest integrated petroleum companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an industry-wide investigation of gasoline prices by the FTC and Congress.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMirant Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ antitrust investigation of its merger with RRI Energy. The transaction closed without DOJ action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntertainment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCox Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of Axios Media.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCarmike Cinemas\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of its merger with AMC Theatres. Successfully negotiated a settlement with the DOJ. (\u003cem\u003eUnited States of America v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFinancial Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading payment processor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition by a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein antitrust litigation filed against it, TransUnion and Experian alleging violations of federal and California antitrust laws. (\u003cem\u003eAdams v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., E.D. Calif. (2:23-cv-01773).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTSYS\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading global payments provider, in merger clearances of its $54 billion all-stock merger of equals with Global Payments, a worldwide provider of payment technology and software solutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBank of America\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC consumer protection investigation and litigation of Countrywide Financial Corporation related to Countrywide\u0026rsquo;s mortgage loan servicing practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHealthcare/Life Sciences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a leading manufacturer of dental bone grafting products in a DOJ merger investigation of an acquisition by a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;regarding Lafayette General Health System\u0026rsquo;s merger into Ochsner.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the formation of a joint venture with LSU to acquire University Health Hospitals from BRFHH.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in forming JOAs with CHRISTUS Louisiana, Lafayette General Health, Slidell Memorial Hospital, St. Tammany Parish Hospital, and Terrebonne General Medical Center.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of Rush Health Systems, which added seven hospitals to extend Ochsner\u0026rsquo;s reach to east Mississippi/west Alabama region.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePiedmont Healthcare, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the acquisition of four hospitals in North Georgia and Macon from HCA Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePiedmont Healthcare\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisition of University Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHouston Methodist\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its acquisition of two CHRISTUS hospitals in the metropolitan Houston area.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSt. Joseph\u0026rsquo;s Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC investigation of its formation of a JOA with Emory Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Cente\u003c/strong\u003er\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e(UTSW)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its formation of a JOA with Texas Health Resources.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKing\u0026rsquo;s Daughter Hospital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition by Scott \u0026amp; White Healthcare, which ultimately received clearance from the FTC under a failing firm defense.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e1,000-plus member, exclusive clinically-integrated physician network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC price fixing investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented physician clients and their messenger model network in an FTC civil price fixing and concerted refusal to deal investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHospital Corporation of America\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Sections 1 and 2 Sherman Act (tying) federal antitrust action against a competing hospital system.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Palmyra Park Medical Center, Inc. v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., et al.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea branded pharmaceutical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DOJ and FTC antitrust investigations of a proposed patent settlement and the use of authorized generics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eManufacturing/Chemical/Paper\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuikrete Holdings, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition of Forterra Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eWestRock,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;which is a leading manufacturer of containerboard and paperboard, in DOJ and other competition authorities\u0026rsquo; investigations of strategic transactions, including WestRock\u0026rsquo;s $16 billion merger with MeadWestvaco, its $2.28 billion acquisition of MultiPackaging Solution, its $4.9 billion acquisition of KapStone, and its sale of its partitions business to Sonoco.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSchweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(now known as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMativ\u003c/strong\u003e) in a DOJ investigation of its merger of equals with Neenah, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eH.I.G. CAPITAL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and its subsidiary\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDCL Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as the divestiture buyer of Sun Chemical\u0026rsquo;s DIC Corporation Bushy Park assets in front of the Federal Trade Commission, European Commission and the Japanese Fair Trade Commission as part of a settlement regarding DIC\u0026rsquo;s acquisition by BASF\u0026rsquo;s pigment business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented global chemical company\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKraton Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its merger with DL Chemical Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of DL Holdings Co., Ltd. (formerly Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eForterra Brick\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the combination of its brick business with Boral Brick as part of the formation of a new joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eForterra Building Products\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of U.S. Pipe.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLafarge\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on numerous strategic transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUCAR International\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e(now\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrafTech)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a federal grand jury price fixing investigation of graphite electrodes.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(United States v. UCAR International Inc.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRetail\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a leading home furnishing company in an FTC merger investigation of a leading e-commerce platform.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading branded apparel company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of an acquisition of a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHanesBrands, Inc.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;one of the leading providers of licensed athletic apparel and related services, in its collaboration with Fanatics, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading manufacturer and retailer of recreational boats\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC investigation of the acquisition of a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Belk Stores\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisitions of the Parisian, Proffitt\u0026rsquo;s and McCrae\u0026rsquo;s department store chains from Saks Fifth Avenue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMcLane Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Section 1 Sherman Act in an action in federal District Court in Connecticut.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Loretta N. Bansavich D/B/A/Lori\u0026rsquo;s Mobil v. McLane Company, Inc.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTechnology\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein numerous strategic transactions, including the acquisitions of LawLogix Edge and LawLogix Guardian software solutions, Midigator Holdings, LLC, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions, Appriss Insights, a trusted and comprehensive source of risk and criminal justice data intelligence, Health e(fx), a leading and experienced provider of Affordable Care Act digital services, Teletrack, a U.S. leader in alternative credit data and Kount, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMailchimp\u003c/strong\u003e, a world-class, global customer engagement and marketing platform, in a DOJ investigation of its $12 billion acquisition by Mountain View, CA-based Intuit Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCox Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of Logicworks, which provides cloud management, automation, migration, and operations services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRed Ventures\u003c/strong\u003e, whose portfolio includes\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHealthline\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading digital health company in its $675 million acquisition of Healthgrades.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSharecare\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading digital health company, in its $3.9 billion SPAC merger with Falcon Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBrookfield Infrastructure Group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its $1.1 billion acquisition of 31 Data Centers in 10 Countries on 4 Continents from AT\u0026amp;T.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChoicePoint\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of ChoicePoint\u0026rsquo;s acquisition by Reed Elsevier.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSprint\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of its $35 billion merger with Nextel.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":22,"guid":"22.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1114,"guid":"1114.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":14,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":15,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":17,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Spigel","nick_name":"Jeff","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jeffrey","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized practitioner and leading antitrust lawyer","detail":"Chambers USA, Legal 500 and Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Named one of the “Outstanding Healthcare Antitrust Lawyers” in the U.S.","detail":"Nightingale Healthcare News"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-spigel-06a0914/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Spigel focuses on advising clients on the antitrust issues related to successfully executing their business strategy. As a partner and co-head of our global Antitrust practice, clients routinely seek Jeff\u0026rsquo;s practical and business-friendly advice to guide them through their strategic transactions, criminal grand jury and civil DOJ, FTC, State AG and antitrust investigations and litigation. Working with our Brussels antitrust lawyers, Jeff also defends clients in multi-jurisdictional investigations that coordinate with the U.S., including the European Commission and the UK\u0026rsquo;s CMA.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff represents clients in responding to a range of civil and criminal antitrust investigations in the U.S. and abroad, obtaining Hart-Scott-Rodino clearance and coordinating approvals of proposed transactions in foreign jurisdictions. He also advises clients on pursuing or defending against antitrust claims and counsels on strategic antitrust issues such as those arising from benchmarking, compliance and audits, competitor collaborations, exclusivity and foreclosure, resale price maintenance, Robinson-Patman price discrimination, refusals to deal, and tying and predatory bundling issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith significant experience in the healthcare sector, Jeff frequently advises healthcare clients on strategic transactions, messenger model networks, financially- and/or clinically-integrated networks, Group Purchasing Organizations and claims by commercial payors, competitors, or the government.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff\u0026rsquo;s antitrust experience also includes advising clients in a broad range of industries such as building materials, chemicals, communications, consumer products, energy (oil, gas, power, and renewables), entertainment, financial, metals, paper, pharmaceutical, retail, technology, and transportation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOn behalf of his clients, Jeff appears regularly before the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, and he coordinates with foreign counsel in dealing with competition authorities in jurisdictions around the globe, including before the European Commission. In addition, he represents clients on unfair and deceptive trade practice matters before the Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and state attorneys general.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA regular author and speaker, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e have identified Jeff as a recognized practitioner and leading antitrust lawyer. In addition, \u003cem\u003eNightingale Healthcare News\u003c/em\u003e named him one of the \u0026ldquo;Outstanding Healthcare Antitrust Lawyers\u0026rdquo; in the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eAgricultural/Food\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefending a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading food company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DOJ and State AG antitrust investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eViserion Grain, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, in DOJ\u0026rsquo;s approval of its acquisition of 11 grain elevator facilities from Zen-Noh Grain Corporation (\u0026ldquo;ZGC\u0026rdquo;). These facilities were required to be divested to remedy the DOJ\u0026rsquo;s challenge of ZGC\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of multiple grain facilities from Bunge North America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRockstar\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading energy drink maker, in an FTC investigation of its $3.85 billion acquisition by PepsiCo Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a leading provider of natural gas processing and treatment and compression products and services in a DOJ merger investigation of a merger with a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eConocoPhillips\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the sale of its Canadian oil, sand, and gas assets to Cenovus in a $13.3 billion transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eone of the leading operators and builders of offshore supply vessels\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of an acquisition of a leading provider of repair services and construction of offshore and military vessels.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading manufacturer of drill bits\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;used in mining and oil and gas exploration in a DOJ investigation of its acquisition by a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major global energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ criminal antitrust investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eWeatherford Internationa\u003c/strong\u003el in the sale of its pipeline business to Baker Hughes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMarubeni-Itochu Tubulars\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its acquisition of the casing and tubing business of Oil States International.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTransocean Ltd\u003c/strong\u003e. in connection with its $2.7 billion acquisition of Ocean Rig UDW, Inc., in the offshore oil and gas drilling sector and successfully obtained antitrust clearances in several jurisdictions around the world.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLS Power\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining antitrust clearances for various acquisitions of electric power-generating assets from several independent power producers around the U.S. and provided continued antitrust advice on subsequent potential transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest integrated petroleum companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an industry-wide investigation of gasoline prices by the FTC and Congress.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMirant Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ antitrust investigation of its merger with RRI Energy. The transaction closed without DOJ action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEntertainment\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCox Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of Axios Media.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCarmike Cinemas\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of its merger with AMC Theatres. Successfully negotiated a settlement with the DOJ. (\u003cem\u003eUnited States of America v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFinancial Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading payment processor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition by a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein antitrust litigation filed against it, TransUnion and Experian alleging violations of federal and California antitrust laws. (\u003cem\u003eAdams v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e., E.D. Calif. (2:23-cv-01773).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTSYS\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading global payments provider, in merger clearances of its $54 billion all-stock merger of equals with Global Payments, a worldwide provider of payment technology and software solutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBank of America\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC consumer protection investigation and litigation of Countrywide Financial Corporation related to Countrywide\u0026rsquo;s mortgage loan servicing practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eHealthcare/Life Sciences\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a leading manufacturer of dental bone grafting products in a DOJ merger investigation of an acquisition by a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;regarding Lafayette General Health System\u0026rsquo;s merger into Ochsner.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the formation of a joint venture with LSU to acquire University Health Hospitals from BRFHH.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in forming JOAs with CHRISTUS Louisiana, Lafayette General Health, Slidell Memorial Hospital, St. Tammany Parish Hospital, and Terrebonne General Medical Center.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOchsner Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of Rush Health Systems, which added seven hospitals to extend Ochsner\u0026rsquo;s reach to east Mississippi/west Alabama region.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePiedmont Healthcare, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the acquisition of four hospitals in North Georgia and Macon from HCA Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePiedmont Healthcare\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisition of University Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHouston Methodist\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its acquisition of two CHRISTUS hospitals in the metropolitan Houston area.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSt. Joseph\u0026rsquo;s Health System\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC investigation of its formation of a JOA with Emory Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUniversity of Texas Southwestern Medical Cente\u003c/strong\u003er\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e(UTSW)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its formation of a JOA with Texas Health Resources.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKing\u0026rsquo;s Daughter Hospital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition by Scott \u0026amp; White Healthcare, which ultimately received clearance from the FTC under a failing firm defense.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e1,000-plus member, exclusive clinically-integrated physician network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC price fixing investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented physician clients and their messenger model network in an FTC civil price fixing and concerted refusal to deal investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHospital Corporation of America\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Sections 1 and 2 Sherman Act (tying) federal antitrust action against a competing hospital system.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Palmyra Park Medical Center, Inc. v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., et al.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea branded pharmaceutical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DOJ and FTC antitrust investigations of a proposed patent settlement and the use of authorized generics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eManufacturing/Chemical/Paper\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuikrete Holdings, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition of Forterra Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eWestRock,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;which is a leading manufacturer of containerboard and paperboard, in DOJ and other competition authorities\u0026rsquo; investigations of strategic transactions, including WestRock\u0026rsquo;s $16 billion merger with MeadWestvaco, its $2.28 billion acquisition of MultiPackaging Solution, its $4.9 billion acquisition of KapStone, and its sale of its partitions business to Sonoco.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSchweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(now known as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMativ\u003c/strong\u003e) in a DOJ investigation of its merger of equals with Neenah, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eH.I.G. CAPITAL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and its subsidiary\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDCL Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as the divestiture buyer of Sun Chemical\u0026rsquo;s DIC Corporation Bushy Park assets in front of the Federal Trade Commission, European Commission and the Japanese Fair Trade Commission as part of a settlement regarding DIC\u0026rsquo;s acquisition by BASF\u0026rsquo;s pigment business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented global chemical company\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKraton Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its merger with DL Chemical Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of DL Holdings Co., Ltd. (formerly Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eForterra Brick\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the combination of its brick business with Boral Brick as part of the formation of a new joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eForterra Building Products\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of U.S. Pipe.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLafarge\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on numerous strategic transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUCAR International\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e(now\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrafTech)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a federal grand jury price fixing investigation of graphite electrodes.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(United States v. UCAR International Inc.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRetail\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a leading home furnishing company in an FTC merger investigation of a leading e-commerce platform.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading branded apparel company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of an acquisition of a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHanesBrands, Inc.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;one of the leading providers of licensed athletic apparel and related services, in its collaboration with Fanatics, Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea leading manufacturer and retailer of recreational boats\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC investigation of the acquisition of a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Belk Stores\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisitions of the Parisian, Proffitt\u0026rsquo;s and McCrae\u0026rsquo;s department store chains from Saks Fifth Avenue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMcLane Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Section 1 Sherman Act in an action in federal District Court in Connecticut.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Loretta N. Bansavich D/B/A/Lori\u0026rsquo;s Mobil v. McLane Company, Inc.)\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTechnology\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein numerous strategic transactions, including the acquisitions of LawLogix Edge and LawLogix Guardian software solutions, Midigator Holdings, LLC, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions, Appriss Insights, a trusted and comprehensive source of risk and criminal justice data intelligence, Health e(fx), a leading and experienced provider of Affordable Care Act digital services, Teletrack, a U.S. leader in alternative credit data and Kount, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMailchimp\u003c/strong\u003e, a world-class, global customer engagement and marketing platform, in a DOJ investigation of its $12 billion acquisition by Mountain View, CA-based Intuit Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCox Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its acquisition of Logicworks, which provides cloud management, automation, migration, and operations services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRed Ventures\u003c/strong\u003e, whose portfolio includes\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHealthline\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading digital health company in its $675 million acquisition of Healthgrades.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSharecare\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading digital health company, in its $3.9 billion SPAC merger with Falcon Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBrookfield Infrastructure Group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its $1.1 billion acquisition of 31 Data Centers in 10 Countries on 4 Continents from AT\u0026amp;T.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChoicePoint\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an FTC merger investigation of ChoicePoint\u0026rsquo;s acquisition by Reed Elsevier.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSprint\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of its $35 billion merger with Nextel.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized practitioner and leading antitrust lawyer","detail":"Chambers USA, Legal 500 and Super Lawyers"},{"title":"Named one of the “Outstanding Healthcare Antitrust Lawyers” in the U.S.","detail":"Nightingale Healthcare News"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1194}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:37.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:37.000Z","searchable_text":"Spigel{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized practitioner and leading antitrust lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Legal 500 and Super Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named one of the “Outstanding Healthcare Antitrust Lawyers” in the U.S.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Nightingale Healthcare News\"}{{ FIELD }}Agricultural/Food\nDefending a leading food company in DOJ and State AG antitrust investigations.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Viserion Grain, LLC, in DOJ’s approval of its acquisition of 11 grain elevator facilities from Zen-Noh Grain Corporation (“ZGC”). These facilities were required to be divested to remedy the DOJ’s challenge of ZGC’s acquisition of multiple grain facilities from Bunge North America.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Rockstar, a leading energy drink maker, in an FTC investigation of its $3.85 billion acquisition by PepsiCo Inc.{{ FIELD }}Energy\nSuccessfully represented a leading provider of natural gas processing and treatment and compression products and services in a DOJ merger investigation of a merger with a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented ConocoPhillips on the sale of its Canadian oil, sand, and gas assets to Cenovus in a $13.3 billion transaction.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented one of the leading operators and builders of offshore supply vessels in a DOJ investigation of an acquisition of a leading provider of repair services and construction of offshore and military vessels.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a leading manufacturer of drill bits used in mining and oil and gas exploration in a DOJ investigation of its acquisition by a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a major global energy company in a DOJ criminal antitrust investigation.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Weatherford International in the sale of its pipeline business to Baker Hughes.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Marubeni-Itochu Tubulars on its acquisition of the casing and tubing business of Oil States International.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Transocean Ltd. in connection with its $2.7 billion acquisition of Ocean Rig UDW, Inc., in the offshore oil and gas drilling sector and successfully obtained antitrust clearances in several jurisdictions around the world.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented LS Power in obtaining antitrust clearances for various acquisitions of electric power-generating assets from several independent power producers around the U.S. and provided continued antitrust advice on subsequent potential transactions.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented one of the world’s largest integrated petroleum companies in an industry-wide investigation of gasoline prices by the FTC and Congress.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Mirant Corporation in a DOJ antitrust investigation of its merger with RRI Energy. The transaction closed without DOJ action.{{ FIELD }}Entertainment\nSuccessfully represented Cox Enterprises in its acquisition of Axios Media.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Carmike Cinemas in a DOJ investigation of its merger with AMC Theatres. Successfully negotiated a settlement with the DOJ. (United States of America v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.).{{ FIELD }}Financial Services\nSuccessfully represented a leading payment processor in a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition by a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Defending Equifax in antitrust litigation filed against it, TransUnion and Experian alleging violations of federal and California antitrust laws. (Adams v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al., E.D. Calif. (2:23-cv-01773).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented TSYS, a leading global payments provider, in merger clearances of its $54 billion all-stock merger of equals with Global Payments, a worldwide provider of payment technology and software solutions.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Bank of America in an FTC consumer protection investigation and litigation of Countrywide Financial Corporation related to Countrywide’s mortgage loan servicing practices.{{ FIELD }}Healthcare/Life Sciences\nSuccessfully represented a leading manufacturer of dental bone grafting products in a DOJ merger investigation of an acquisition by a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Ochsner Health System regarding Lafayette General Health System’s merger into Ochsner.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Ochsner Health System in the formation of a joint venture with LSU to acquire University Health Hospitals from BRFHH.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Ochsner Health System in forming JOAs with CHRISTUS Louisiana, Lafayette General Health, Slidell Memorial Hospital, St. Tammany Parish Hospital, and Terrebonne General Medical Center.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Ochsner Health System in its acquisition of Rush Health Systems, which added seven hospitals to extend Ochsner’s reach to east Mississippi/west Alabama region.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Piedmont Healthcare, Inc. in the acquisition of four hospitals in North Georgia and Macon from HCA Healthcare.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Piedmont Healthcare in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisition of University Healthcare.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Houston Methodist in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its acquisition of two CHRISTUS hospitals in the metropolitan Houston area.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented St. Joseph’s Health System in an FTC investigation of its formation of a JOA with Emory Healthcare.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW) in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its formation of a JOA with Texas Health Resources.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented King’s Daughter Hospital in its acquisition by Scott \u0026amp; White Healthcare, which ultimately received clearance from the FTC under a failing firm defense.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a 1,000-plus member, exclusive clinically-integrated physician network in an FTC price fixing investigation.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented physician clients and their messenger model network in an FTC civil price fixing and concerted refusal to deal investigation.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Hospital Corporation of America in a Sections 1 and 2 Sherman Act (tying) federal antitrust action against a competing hospital system. (Palmyra Park Medical Center, Inc. v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., et al.).{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a branded pharmaceutical manufacturer in DOJ and FTC antitrust investigations of a proposed patent settlement and the use of authorized generics.{{ FIELD }}Manufacturing/Chemical/Paper\nSuccessfully represented Quikrete Holdings, Inc. in a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition of Forterra Inc.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented WestRock, which is a leading manufacturer of containerboard and paperboard, in DOJ and other competition authorities’ investigations of strategic transactions, including WestRock’s $16 billion merger with MeadWestvaco, its $2.28 billion acquisition of MultiPackaging Solution, its $4.9 billion acquisition of KapStone, and its sale of its partitions business to Sonoco.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc. (now known as Mativ) in a DOJ investigation of its merger of equals with Neenah, Inc.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented H.I.G. CAPITAL and its subsidiary DCL Corporation as the divestiture buyer of Sun Chemical’s DIC Corporation Bushy Park assets in front of the Federal Trade Commission, European Commission and the Japanese Fair Trade Commission as part of a settlement regarding DIC’s acquisition by BASF’s pigment business.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented global chemical company Kraton Corporation in its merger with DL Chemical Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of DL Holdings Co., Ltd. (formerly Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd.).{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Forterra Brick on the combination of its brick business with Boral Brick as part of the formation of a new joint venture.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Forterra Building Products in its acquisition of U.S. Pipe.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Lafarge on numerous strategic transactions.{{ FIELD }}Defended UCAR International (now GrafTech) in a federal grand jury price fixing investigation of graphite electrodes. (United States v. UCAR International Inc.).{{ FIELD }}Retail\nSuccessfully represented a leading home furnishing company in an FTC merger investigation of a leading e-commerce platform.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a leading branded apparel company in an FTC merger investigation of an acquisition of a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented HanesBrands, Inc., one of the leading providers of licensed athletic apparel and related services, in its collaboration with Fanatics, Inc.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a leading manufacturer and retailer of recreational boats in an FTC investigation of the acquisition of a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented The Belk Stores in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisitions of the Parisian, Proffitt’s and McCrae’s department store chains from Saks Fifth Avenue.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented McLane Company in a Section 1 Sherman Act in an action in federal District Court in Connecticut. (Loretta N. Bansavich D/B/A/Lori’s Mobil v. McLane Company, Inc.).{{ FIELD }}Technology\nSuccessfully represented Equifax in numerous strategic transactions, including the acquisitions of LawLogix Edge and LawLogix Guardian software solutions, Midigator Holdings, LLC, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions, Appriss Insights, a trusted and comprehensive source of risk and criminal justice data intelligence, Health e(fx), a leading and experienced provider of Affordable Care Act digital services, Teletrack, a U.S. leader in alternative credit data and Kount, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Mailchimp, a world-class, global customer engagement and marketing platform, in a DOJ investigation of its $12 billion acquisition by Mountain View, CA-based Intuit Inc.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Cox Enterprises in its acquisition of Logicworks, which provides cloud management, automation, migration, and operations services.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Red Ventures, whose portfolio includes Healthline, a leading digital health company in its $675 million acquisition of Healthgrades.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Sharecare, a leading digital health company, in its $3.9 billion SPAC merger with Falcon Capital.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Brookfield Infrastructure Group in its $1.1 billion acquisition of 31 Data Centers in 10 Countries on 4 Continents from AT\u0026amp;T.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented ChoicePoint in an FTC merger investigation of ChoicePoint’s acquisition by Reed Elsevier.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Sprint in a DOJ investigation of its $35 billion merger with Nextel.{{ FIELD }}Jeff Spigel focuses on advising clients on the antitrust issues related to successfully executing their business strategy. As a partner and co-head of our global Antitrust practice, clients routinely seek Jeff’s practical and business-friendly advice to guide them through their strategic transactions, criminal grand jury and civil DOJ, FTC, State AG and antitrust investigations and litigation. Working with our Brussels antitrust lawyers, Jeff also defends clients in multi-jurisdictional investigations that coordinate with the U.S., including the European Commission and the UK’s CMA.\nJeff represents clients in responding to a range of civil and criminal antitrust investigations in the U.S. and abroad, obtaining Hart-Scott-Rodino clearance and coordinating approvals of proposed transactions in foreign jurisdictions. He also advises clients on pursuing or defending against antitrust claims and counsels on strategic antitrust issues such as those arising from benchmarking, compliance and audits, competitor collaborations, exclusivity and foreclosure, resale price maintenance, Robinson-Patman price discrimination, refusals to deal, and tying and predatory bundling issues.\nWith significant experience in the healthcare sector, Jeff frequently advises healthcare clients on strategic transactions, messenger model networks, financially- and/or clinically-integrated networks, Group Purchasing Organizations and claims by commercial payors, competitors, or the government.\nJeff’s antitrust experience also includes advising clients in a broad range of industries such as building materials, chemicals, communications, consumer products, energy (oil, gas, power, and renewables), entertainment, financial, metals, paper, pharmaceutical, retail, technology, and transportation.\nOn behalf of his clients, Jeff appears regularly before the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, and he coordinates with foreign counsel in dealing with competition authorities in jurisdictions around the globe, including before the European Commission. In addition, he represents clients on unfair and deceptive trade practice matters before the Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and state attorneys general.\nA regular author and speaker, Chambers USA, Legal 500 and Super Lawyers have identified Jeff as a recognized practitioner and leading antitrust lawyer. In addition, Nightingale Healthcare News named him one of the “Outstanding Healthcare Antitrust Lawyers” in the U.S. Partner Recognized practitioner and leading antitrust lawyer Chambers USA, Legal 500 and Super Lawyers Named one of the “Outstanding Healthcare Antitrust Lawyers” in the U.S. Nightingale Healthcare News Emory University Emory University School of Law University of Miami University of Miami School of Law Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia Tennessee The District of Columbia Bar American Health Lawyers Association American Bar Association Section of Antitrust Law Agricultural/Food\nDefending a leading food company in DOJ and State AG antitrust investigations. Successfully represented Viserion Grain, LLC, in DOJ’s approval of its acquisition of 11 grain elevator facilities from Zen-Noh Grain Corporation (“ZGC”). These facilities were required to be divested to remedy the DOJ’s challenge of ZGC’s acquisition of multiple grain facilities from Bunge North America. Successfully represented Rockstar, a leading energy drink maker, in an FTC investigation of its $3.85 billion acquisition by PepsiCo Inc. Energy\nSuccessfully represented a leading provider of natural gas processing and treatment and compression products and services in a DOJ merger investigation of a merger with a competitor. Successfully represented ConocoPhillips on the sale of its Canadian oil, sand, and gas assets to Cenovus in a $13.3 billion transaction. Successfully represented one of the leading operators and builders of offshore supply vessels in a DOJ investigation of an acquisition of a leading provider of repair services and construction of offshore and military vessels. Successfully represented a leading manufacturer of drill bits used in mining and oil and gas exploration in a DOJ investigation of its acquisition by a competitor. Successfully represented a major global energy company in a DOJ criminal antitrust investigation. Successfully represented Weatherford International in the sale of its pipeline business to Baker Hughes. Successfully represented Marubeni-Itochu Tubulars on its acquisition of the casing and tubing business of Oil States International. Successfully represented Transocean Ltd. in connection with its $2.7 billion acquisition of Ocean Rig UDW, Inc., in the offshore oil and gas drilling sector and successfully obtained antitrust clearances in several jurisdictions around the world. Successfully represented LS Power in obtaining antitrust clearances for various acquisitions of electric power-generating assets from several independent power producers around the U.S. and provided continued antitrust advice on subsequent potential transactions. Successfully represented one of the world’s largest integrated petroleum companies in an industry-wide investigation of gasoline prices by the FTC and Congress. Successfully represented Mirant Corporation in a DOJ antitrust investigation of its merger with RRI Energy. The transaction closed without DOJ action. Entertainment\nSuccessfully represented Cox Enterprises in its acquisition of Axios Media. Successfully represented Carmike Cinemas in a DOJ investigation of its merger with AMC Theatres. Successfully negotiated a settlement with the DOJ. (United States of America v. AMC Entertainment Holdings, Inc.). Financial Services\nSuccessfully represented a leading payment processor in a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition by a competitor. Defending Equifax in antitrust litigation filed against it, TransUnion and Experian alleging violations of federal and California antitrust laws. (Adams v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al., E.D. Calif. (2:23-cv-01773). Successfully represented TSYS, a leading global payments provider, in merger clearances of its $54 billion all-stock merger of equals with Global Payments, a worldwide provider of payment technology and software solutions. Successfully represented Bank of America in an FTC consumer protection investigation and litigation of Countrywide Financial Corporation related to Countrywide’s mortgage loan servicing practices. Healthcare/Life Sciences\nSuccessfully represented a leading manufacturer of dental bone grafting products in a DOJ merger investigation of an acquisition by a competitor. Successfully represented Ochsner Health System regarding Lafayette General Health System’s merger into Ochsner. Successfully represented Ochsner Health System in the formation of a joint venture with LSU to acquire University Health Hospitals from BRFHH. Successfully represented Ochsner Health System in forming JOAs with CHRISTUS Louisiana, Lafayette General Health, Slidell Memorial Hospital, St. Tammany Parish Hospital, and Terrebonne General Medical Center. Successfully represented Ochsner Health System in its acquisition of Rush Health Systems, which added seven hospitals to extend Ochsner’s reach to east Mississippi/west Alabama region. Successfully represented Piedmont Healthcare, Inc. in the acquisition of four hospitals in North Georgia and Macon from HCA Healthcare. Successfully represented Piedmont Healthcare in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisition of University Healthcare. Successfully represented Houston Methodist in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its acquisition of two CHRISTUS hospitals in the metropolitan Houston area. Successfully represented St. Joseph’s Health System in an FTC investigation of its formation of a JOA with Emory Healthcare. Successfully represented University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center (UTSW) in an FTC and Texas AG investigation of its formation of a JOA with Texas Health Resources. Successfully represented King’s Daughter Hospital in its acquisition by Scott \u0026amp; White Healthcare, which ultimately received clearance from the FTC under a failing firm defense. Successfully represented a 1,000-plus member, exclusive clinically-integrated physician network in an FTC price fixing investigation. Successfully represented physician clients and their messenger model network in an FTC civil price fixing and concerted refusal to deal investigation. Successfully represented Hospital Corporation of America in a Sections 1 and 2 Sherman Act (tying) federal antitrust action against a competing hospital system. (Palmyra Park Medical Center, Inc. v. Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital, Inc., et al.). Successfully defended a branded pharmaceutical manufacturer in DOJ and FTC antitrust investigations of a proposed patent settlement and the use of authorized generics. Manufacturing/Chemical/Paper\nSuccessfully represented Quikrete Holdings, Inc. in a DOJ merger investigation of its acquisition of Forterra Inc. Successfully represented WestRock, which is a leading manufacturer of containerboard and paperboard, in DOJ and other competition authorities’ investigations of strategic transactions, including WestRock’s $16 billion merger with MeadWestvaco, its $2.28 billion acquisition of MultiPackaging Solution, its $4.9 billion acquisition of KapStone, and its sale of its partitions business to Sonoco. Successfully represented Schweitzer-Mauduit International, Inc. (now known as Mativ) in a DOJ investigation of its merger of equals with Neenah, Inc. Successfully represented H.I.G. CAPITAL and its subsidiary DCL Corporation as the divestiture buyer of Sun Chemical’s DIC Corporation Bushy Park assets in front of the Federal Trade Commission, European Commission and the Japanese Fair Trade Commission as part of a settlement regarding DIC’s acquisition by BASF’s pigment business. Successfully represented global chemical company Kraton Corporation in its merger with DL Chemical Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of DL Holdings Co., Ltd. (formerly Daelim Industrial Co., Ltd.). Successfully represented Forterra Brick on the combination of its brick business with Boral Brick as part of the formation of a new joint venture. Successfully represented Forterra Building Products in its acquisition of U.S. Pipe. Successfully represented Lafarge on numerous strategic transactions. Defended UCAR International (now GrafTech) in a federal grand jury price fixing investigation of graphite electrodes. (United States v. UCAR International Inc.). Retail\nSuccessfully represented a leading home furnishing company in an FTC merger investigation of a leading e-commerce platform. Successfully represented a leading branded apparel company in an FTC merger investigation of an acquisition of a competitor. Successfully represented HanesBrands, Inc., one of the leading providers of licensed athletic apparel and related services, in its collaboration with Fanatics, Inc. Successfully represented a leading manufacturer and retailer of recreational boats in an FTC investigation of the acquisition of a competitor. Successfully represented The Belk Stores in an FTC merger investigation of its acquisitions of the Parisian, Proffitt’s and McCrae’s department store chains from Saks Fifth Avenue. Successfully represented McLane Company in a Section 1 Sherman Act in an action in federal District Court in Connecticut. (Loretta N. Bansavich D/B/A/Lori’s Mobil v. McLane Company, Inc.). Technology\nSuccessfully represented Equifax in numerous strategic transactions, including the acquisitions of LawLogix Edge and LawLogix Guardian software solutions, Midigator Holdings, LLC, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions, Appriss Insights, a trusted and comprehensive source of risk and criminal justice data intelligence, Health e(fx), a leading and experienced provider of Affordable Care Act digital services, Teletrack, a U.S. leader in alternative credit data and Kount, a leading provider of post-transaction fraud mitigation solutions. Successfully represented Mailchimp, a world-class, global customer engagement and marketing platform, in a DOJ investigation of its $12 billion acquisition by Mountain View, CA-based Intuit Inc. Successfully represented Cox Enterprises in its acquisition of Logicworks, which provides cloud management, automation, migration, and operations services. Successfully represented Red Ventures, whose portfolio includes Healthline, a leading digital health company in its $675 million acquisition of Healthgrades. Successfully represented Sharecare, a leading digital health company, in its $3.9 billion SPAC merger with Falcon Capital. Successfully represented Brookfield Infrastructure Group in its $1.1 billion acquisition of 31 Data Centers in 10 Countries on 4 Continents from AT\u0026amp;T. Successfully represented ChoicePoint in an FTC merger investigation of ChoicePoint’s acquisition by Reed Elsevier. Successfully represented Sprint in a DOJ investigation of its $35 billion merger with Nextel.","searchable_name":"Jeffrey S. Spigel (Jeff)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445553,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3527,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndrew Stakelum is an energy disputes partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Houston Office. His focus on the energy industry includes the oil and gas, renewables, and refining sectors. A key aspect of Andrew\u0026rsquo;s energy practice involves helping clients navigate the highly regulated environments in which they operate.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOffshore Energy.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp; Andrew represents maritime and offshore energy clients in disputes that range from traditional blue water matters to disputes involving the decommissioning of offshore energy infrastructure. His matters frequently involve disputes among working interest owners, vessel owners and charterers, and governmental authorities. He advises clients and has litigated claims under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, and their implementing regulations.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOnshore Energy.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Andrew represents a wide range of onshore energy clients in traditional oil and gas and renewables disputes. These matters involve disputes among operators and service companies, landowners, working interest owners and governmental authorities. These claims include environmental, reservoir, and other property and economic damages. Andrew frequently litigates disputes in Louisiana, where he is also licensed and experienced in applying Louisiana\u0026rsquo;s civil law regime.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy Infrastructure and Decommissioning.\u0026nbsp; \u003c/strong\u003eAndrew represents owners and contractors in a range of energy infrastructure and decommissioning disputes. This includes disputes involving the construction of greenfield and brownfield energy projects, as well as decommissioning projects. These matters have involved pipeline systems, offshore supply vessels, renewable diesel plants, offshore platforms and production facilities, petrochemical facilities, and crude oil refineries.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"andrew-stakelum","email":"astakelum@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOffshore Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented oil and gas companies in the recovery of security proceeds related to the performance of \u0026ldquo;boomerang\u0026rdquo; decommissioning obligations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented oil and gas companies as creditors in multiple energy bankruptcy cases\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented oil and gas company in dispute involving early termination rights under an offshore drilling contract\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended oil and gas company alleged to have wrongfully redelivered a tanker vessel in breach of the vessel charter\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended oil and gas company in Puerto Rico against mass tort claims arising out of tank farm explosion during vessel discharge operations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of Louisiana\u0026rsquo;s largest private land owners in pursuing claims against a responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented offshore platform owner in lawsuit to recover lost and deferred production from the owner of a commercial vessel that allied with a platform\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended oilfield contractors against whistleblower allegations of offshore regulatory violations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOnshore Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended services company against breach of warranty and negligence claims arising out of the hydraulic fracturing of wells in the Willison and Delaware Basins\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended services company against the attempted confirmation of a purported $18 billion foreign arbitral award involving historical oilfield concessions in the Middle East\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended multiple oil and gas companies against allegations that historical oilfield operations contaminated soil and groundwater with chlorides and heavy metals\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented multiple oil and gas companies in disputes involving joint operating agreements, including issues related to preferential rights, withdrawal and surrender rights, and audit rights\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended oil and gas company against allegations that historical oil and gas operations along Louisiana\u0026rsquo;s coast contributed to coastal erosion\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented multiple oil and gas companies in disputes involving legacy well abandonment and facility abandonment liabilities\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented multiple oil and gas and mining companies as creditors in multiple energy bankruptcy cases\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy Infrastructure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended shipyard against warranty claims relates to the construction of a fleet of high-spec offshore supply vessels\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented owner of Texas refinery in dispute involving fraud and cost-overruns\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented oil and gas company in dispute with purchaser of various pipeline systems in Louisiana\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended contractor in the construction of a petrochemical facility in Louisiana in dispute involving delay claims\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented owner of petrochemical facility in Texas in dispute involving defect and delay claims\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented owner of renewable diesel plant in Kansas in dispute involving delay and defect claims\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented contractor in the construction of a pipeline system in Louisiana involving delay and defect claims\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1143,"guid":"1143.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1237,"guid":"1237.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":131,"guid":"131.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Stakelum","nick_name":"Andrew","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Andrew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2113,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2006-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"M.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/andrew-stakelum-a78a60b/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndrew Stakelum is an energy disputes partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Houston Office. His focus on the energy industry includes the oil and gas, renewables, and refining sectors. A key aspect of Andrew\u0026rsquo;s energy practice involves helping clients navigate the highly regulated environments in which they operate.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOffshore Energy.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp; Andrew represents maritime and offshore energy clients in disputes that range from traditional blue water matters to disputes involving the decommissioning of offshore energy infrastructure. His matters frequently involve disputes among working interest owners, vessel owners and charterers, and governmental authorities. He advises clients and has litigated claims under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, and their implementing regulations.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOnshore Energy.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Andrew represents a wide range of onshore energy clients in traditional oil and gas and renewables disputes. These matters involve disputes among operators and service companies, landowners, working interest owners and governmental authorities. These claims include environmental, reservoir, and other property and economic damages. Andrew frequently litigates disputes in Louisiana, where he is also licensed and experienced in applying Louisiana\u0026rsquo;s civil law regime.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy Infrastructure and Decommissioning.\u0026nbsp; \u003c/strong\u003eAndrew represents owners and contractors in a range of energy infrastructure and decommissioning disputes. This includes disputes involving the construction of greenfield and brownfield energy projects, as well as decommissioning projects. These matters have involved pipeline systems, offshore supply vessels, renewable diesel plants, offshore platforms and production facilities, petrochemical facilities, and crude oil refineries.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOffshore Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented oil and gas companies in the recovery of security proceeds related to the performance of \u0026ldquo;boomerang\u0026rdquo; decommissioning obligations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented oil and gas companies as creditors in multiple energy bankruptcy cases\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented oil and gas company in dispute involving early termination rights under an offshore drilling contract\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended oil and gas company alleged to have wrongfully redelivered a tanker vessel in breach of the vessel charter\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended oil and gas company in Puerto Rico against mass tort claims arising out of tank farm explosion during vessel discharge operations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of Louisiana\u0026rsquo;s largest private land owners in pursuing claims against a responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented offshore platform owner in lawsuit to recover lost and deferred production from the owner of a commercial vessel that allied with a platform\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended oilfield contractors against whistleblower allegations of offshore regulatory violations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOnshore Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended services company against breach of warranty and negligence claims arising out of the hydraulic fracturing of wells in the Willison and Delaware Basins\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended services company against the attempted confirmation of a purported $18 billion foreign arbitral award involving historical oilfield concessions in the Middle East\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended multiple oil and gas companies against allegations that historical oilfield operations contaminated soil and groundwater with chlorides and heavy metals\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented multiple oil and gas companies in disputes involving joint operating agreements, including issues related to preferential rights, withdrawal and surrender rights, and audit rights\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended oil and gas company against allegations that historical oil and gas operations along Louisiana\u0026rsquo;s coast contributed to coastal erosion\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented multiple oil and gas companies in disputes involving legacy well abandonment and facility abandonment liabilities\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented multiple oil and gas and mining companies as creditors in multiple energy bankruptcy cases\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy Infrastructure\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended shipyard against warranty claims relates to the construction of a fleet of high-spec offshore supply vessels\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented owner of Texas refinery in dispute involving fraud and cost-overruns\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented oil and gas company in dispute with purchaser of various pipeline systems in Louisiana\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended contractor in the construction of a petrochemical facility in Louisiana in dispute involving delay claims\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented owner of petrochemical facility in Texas in dispute involving defect and delay claims\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented owner of renewable diesel plant in Kansas in dispute involving delay and defect claims\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented contractor in the construction of a pipeline system in Louisiana involving delay and defect claims\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9758},{"id":9758}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-03T19:57:08.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T19:57:08.000Z","searchable_text":"Stakelum{{ FIELD }}Offshore Energy\nRepresented oil and gas companies in the recovery of security proceeds related to the performance of “boomerang” decommissioning obligations{{ FIELD }}Represented oil and gas companies as creditors in multiple energy bankruptcy cases{{ FIELD }}Represented oil and gas company in dispute involving early termination rights under an offshore drilling contract{{ FIELD }}Defended oil and gas company alleged to have wrongfully redelivered a tanker vessel in breach of the vessel charter{{ FIELD }}Defended oil and gas company in Puerto Rico against mass tort claims arising out of tank farm explosion during vessel discharge operations{{ FIELD }}Represented one of Louisiana’s largest private land owners in pursuing claims against a responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990{{ FIELD }}Represented offshore platform owner in lawsuit to recover lost and deferred production from the owner of a commercial vessel that allied with a platform{{ FIELD }}Defended oilfield contractors against whistleblower allegations of offshore regulatory violations{{ FIELD }}Onshore Energy\nDefended services company against breach of warranty and negligence claims arising out of the hydraulic fracturing of wells in the Willison and Delaware Basins{{ FIELD }}Defended services company against the attempted confirmation of a purported $18 billion foreign arbitral award involving historical oilfield concessions in the Middle East{{ FIELD }}Defended multiple oil and gas companies against allegations that historical oilfield operations contaminated soil and groundwater with chlorides and heavy metals{{ FIELD }}Represented multiple oil and gas companies in disputes involving joint operating agreements, including issues related to preferential rights, withdrawal and surrender rights, and audit rights{{ FIELD }}Defended oil and gas company against allegations that historical oil and gas operations along Louisiana’s coast contributed to coastal erosion{{ FIELD }}Represented multiple oil and gas companies in disputes involving legacy well abandonment and facility abandonment liabilities{{ FIELD }}Represented multiple oil and gas and mining companies as creditors in multiple energy bankruptcy cases{{ FIELD }}Energy Infrastructure\nDefended shipyard against warranty claims relates to the construction of a fleet of high-spec offshore supply vessels{{ FIELD }}Represented owner of Texas refinery in dispute involving fraud and cost-overruns{{ FIELD }}Represented oil and gas company in dispute with purchaser of various pipeline systems in Louisiana{{ FIELD }}Defended contractor in the construction of a petrochemical facility in Louisiana in dispute involving delay claims{{ FIELD }}Represented owner of petrochemical facility in Texas in dispute involving defect and delay claims{{ FIELD }}Represented owner of renewable diesel plant in Kansas in dispute involving delay and defect claims{{ FIELD }}Represented contractor in the construction of a pipeline system in Louisiana involving delay and defect claims{{ FIELD }}Andrew Stakelum is an energy disputes partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Houston Office. His focus on the energy industry includes the oil and gas, renewables, and refining sectors. A key aspect of Andrew’s energy practice involves helping clients navigate the highly regulated environments in which they operate.\nOffshore Energy.  Andrew represents maritime and offshore energy clients in disputes that range from traditional blue water matters to disputes involving the decommissioning of offshore energy infrastructure. His matters frequently involve disputes among working interest owners, vessel owners and charterers, and governmental authorities. He advises clients and has litigated claims under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, and their implementing regulations.  \nOnshore Energy.  Andrew represents a wide range of onshore energy clients in traditional oil and gas and renewables disputes. These matters involve disputes among operators and service companies, landowners, working interest owners and governmental authorities. These claims include environmental, reservoir, and other property and economic damages. Andrew frequently litigates disputes in Louisiana, where he is also licensed and experienced in applying Louisiana’s civil law regime.\nEnergy Infrastructure and Decommissioning.  Andrew represents owners and contractors in a range of energy infrastructure and decommissioning disputes. This includes disputes involving the construction of greenfield and brownfield energy projects, as well as decommissioning projects. These matters have involved pipeline systems, offshore supply vessels, renewable diesel plants, offshore platforms and production facilities, petrochemical facilities, and crude oil refineries. Partner University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law Tulane University Tulane University Law School U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Louisiana Texas Offshore Energy\nRepresented oil and gas companies in the recovery of security proceeds related to the performance of “boomerang” decommissioning obligations Represented oil and gas companies as creditors in multiple energy bankruptcy cases Represented oil and gas company in dispute involving early termination rights under an offshore drilling contract Defended oil and gas company alleged to have wrongfully redelivered a tanker vessel in breach of the vessel charter Defended oil and gas company in Puerto Rico against mass tort claims arising out of tank farm explosion during vessel discharge operations Represented one of Louisiana’s largest private land owners in pursuing claims against a responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 Represented offshore platform owner in lawsuit to recover lost and deferred production from the owner of a commercial vessel that allied with a platform Defended oilfield contractors against whistleblower allegations of offshore regulatory violations Onshore Energy\nDefended services company against breach of warranty and negligence claims arising out of the hydraulic fracturing of wells in the Willison and Delaware Basins Defended services company against the attempted confirmation of a purported $18 billion foreign arbitral award involving historical oilfield concessions in the Middle East Defended multiple oil and gas companies against allegations that historical oilfield operations contaminated soil and groundwater with chlorides and heavy metals Represented multiple oil and gas companies in disputes involving joint operating agreements, including issues related to preferential rights, withdrawal and surrender rights, and audit rights Defended oil and gas company against allegations that historical oil and gas operations along Louisiana’s coast contributed to coastal erosion Represented multiple oil and gas companies in disputes involving legacy well abandonment and facility abandonment liabilities Represented multiple oil and gas and mining companies as creditors in multiple energy bankruptcy cases Energy Infrastructure\nDefended shipyard against warranty claims relates to the construction of a fleet of high-spec offshore supply vessels Represented owner of Texas refinery in dispute involving fraud and cost-overruns Represented oil and gas company in dispute with purchaser of various pipeline systems in Louisiana Defended contractor in the construction of a petrochemical facility in Louisiana in dispute involving delay claims Represented owner of petrochemical facility in Texas in dispute involving defect and delay claims Represented owner of renewable diesel plant in Kansas in dispute involving delay and defect claims Represented contractor in the construction of a pipeline system in Louisiana involving delay and defect claims","searchable_name":"Andrew M. Stakelum","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":446161,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3412,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star)\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken\u0026rsquo;s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kenneth-steinthal","email":"ksteinthal@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 917 825 7293","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Copyright Litigations/Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings \u0026hellip; (\u003c/em\u003eknown as the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeb V\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings). Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels\u0026rsquo; positions and adopting much of Google\u0026rsquo;s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018\u0026ndash;2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit\u0026rsquo;s rejection of the publishers\u0026rsquo; core appeal positions while granting the services\u0026rsquo; request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB\u0026rsquo;s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFour Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Orchard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(known as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePB IV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;). Ken is lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporation for Public Broadcasting\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNPR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;PBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;PB III\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken\u0026rsquo;s clients\u0026rsquo; determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken\u0026rsquo;s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePeloton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton\u0026rsquo;s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers\u0026rsquo; Association (\u0026ldquo;NMPA\u0026rdquo;) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (\u0026ldquo;RMLC\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRMLC,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016\u0026ndash;2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eESPN v. BMI\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI\u0026rsquo;s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePandora\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit\u0026rsquo;s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora\u0026rsquo;s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to \u0026ldquo;partially\u0026rdquo; withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora\u0026rsquo;s position.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMobiTV\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP\u0026rsquo;s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eReal Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo!\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken co-defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo! Music\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Napster II\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al\u003c/em\u003e). Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBertelsmann\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEMI Music v. Multiply Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI\u0026rsquo;s label and publisher catalogues asserting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMultiply\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMusicNet\u003c/strong\u003e, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eColeman, et al. v. ESPN\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN\u0026rsquo;s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN\u0026rsquo;s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN\u0026rsquo;s assertion of the \u0026ldquo;fair use\u0026rdquo; defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers\u0026rsquo; summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eABC Television Network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;had infringed the publishers\u0026rsquo; rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called \u0026ldquo;one time uses\u0026rdquo; of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports \u0026ldquo;bio-pic\u0026rdquo; segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther \u0026ldquo;Rate Court\u0026rdquo; Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eASCAP/BMI licensees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe local television industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the early 1980s (\u003cem\u003eBuffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al\u003c/em\u003e.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (\u003cem\u003eNCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al\u003c/em\u003e.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken has been granted \u0026ldquo;rights of audience\u0026rdquo; in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eiJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebaazee.com\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(the \u0026ldquo;eBay of India,\u0026rdquo; in which News Corp\u0026rsquo;s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColumbia Pictures\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Airlines.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Plaintiff claimed American\u0026rsquo;s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFilm Finances and production/distribution entities.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLeague\u003c/em\u003e. Ken assisted in representing the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNASL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;cross ownership\u0026rdquo; ban, which would have prevented \u0026ldquo;cross-owners\u0026rdquo; such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eN.Y. Islanders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAirborne defendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter alia\u003c/em\u003e, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea national title insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNNN\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBritannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edefendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFirst Aviation and its principals.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants\u0026rsquo; verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePIA v. UBS Securities, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUBS,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;stemming from UBS\u0026rsquo; termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million \u0026ldquo;kitchen sink\u0026rdquo; action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRitz Carlton.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrupo Industrial Alfa\u0026rsquo;s steel company, Hylsa, SA,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of \u0026ldquo;HYL Process\u0026rdquo; steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Steinthal","nick_name":"Kenneth","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Kenneth","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2022"},{"title":"IP Trailblazers","detail":"National Law Journal, 2016"},{"title":"1 of 5 Media \u0026 Entertainment MVPs","detail":"Law360, 2015"},{"title":"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers","detail":"The Daily Journal"},{"title":"Leading IP Attorneys: California","detail":"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)"},{"title":"Legal 500 USA ","detail":"multiple years through 2022"},{"title":"Northern California Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"2026 Lawdragon 500","detail":"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyers"},{"title":"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel ","detail":"Hollywood Reporter"},{"title":"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist ","detail":"AAI, 2014"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star)\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken\u0026rsquo;s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Copyright Litigations/Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings \u0026hellip; (\u003c/em\u003eknown as the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeb V\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings). Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels\u0026rsquo; positions and adopting much of Google\u0026rsquo;s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018\u0026ndash;2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit\u0026rsquo;s rejection of the publishers\u0026rsquo; core appeal positions while granting the services\u0026rsquo; request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB\u0026rsquo;s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFour Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Orchard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(known as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePB IV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;). Ken is lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporation for Public Broadcasting\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNPR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;PBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;PB III\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken\u0026rsquo;s clients\u0026rsquo; determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken\u0026rsquo;s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePeloton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton\u0026rsquo;s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers\u0026rsquo; Association (\u0026ldquo;NMPA\u0026rdquo;) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (\u0026ldquo;RMLC\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRMLC,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016\u0026ndash;2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eESPN v. BMI\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI\u0026rsquo;s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePandora\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit\u0026rsquo;s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora\u0026rsquo;s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to \u0026ldquo;partially\u0026rdquo; withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora\u0026rsquo;s position.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMobiTV\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP\u0026rsquo;s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eReal Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo!\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken co-defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo! Music\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Napster II\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al\u003c/em\u003e). Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBertelsmann\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEMI Music v. Multiply Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI\u0026rsquo;s label and publisher catalogues asserting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMultiply\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMusicNet\u003c/strong\u003e, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eColeman, et al. v. ESPN\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN\u0026rsquo;s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN\u0026rsquo;s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN\u0026rsquo;s assertion of the \u0026ldquo;fair use\u0026rdquo; defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers\u0026rsquo; summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eABC Television Network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;had infringed the publishers\u0026rsquo; rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called \u0026ldquo;one time uses\u0026rdquo; of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports \u0026ldquo;bio-pic\u0026rdquo; segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther \u0026ldquo;Rate Court\u0026rdquo; Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eASCAP/BMI licensees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe local television industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the early 1980s (\u003cem\u003eBuffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al\u003c/em\u003e.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (\u003cem\u003eNCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al\u003c/em\u003e.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken has been granted \u0026ldquo;rights of audience\u0026rdquo; in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eiJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebaazee.com\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(the \u0026ldquo;eBay of India,\u0026rdquo; in which News Corp\u0026rsquo;s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColumbia Pictures\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Airlines.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Plaintiff claimed American\u0026rsquo;s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFilm Finances and production/distribution entities.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLeague\u003c/em\u003e. Ken assisted in representing the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNASL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;cross ownership\u0026rdquo; ban, which would have prevented \u0026ldquo;cross-owners\u0026rdquo; such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eN.Y. Islanders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAirborne defendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter alia\u003c/em\u003e, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea national title insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNNN\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBritannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edefendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFirst Aviation and its principals.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants\u0026rsquo; verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePIA v. UBS Securities, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUBS,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;stemming from UBS\u0026rsquo; termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million \u0026ldquo;kitchen sink\u0026rdquo; action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRitz Carlton.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrupo Industrial Alfa\u0026rsquo;s steel company, Hylsa, SA,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of \u0026ldquo;HYL Process\u0026rdquo; steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2022"},{"title":"IP Trailblazers","detail":"National Law Journal, 2016"},{"title":"1 of 5 Media \u0026 Entertainment MVPs","detail":"Law360, 2015"},{"title":"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers","detail":"The Daily Journal"},{"title":"Leading IP Attorneys: California","detail":"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)"},{"title":"Legal 500 USA ","detail":"multiple years through 2022"},{"title":"Northern California Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"2026 Lawdragon 500","detail":"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyers"},{"title":"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel ","detail":"Hollywood Reporter"},{"title":"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist ","detail":"AAI, 2014"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4405},{"id":4405}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-25T16:42:53.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-25T16:42:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Steinthal{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"IP Trailblazers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Daily Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading IP Attorneys: California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026amp; Entertainment\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 USA \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"multiple years through 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Northern California Super Lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2026 Lawdragon 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Hollywood Reporter\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"AAI, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}Representative Copyright Litigations/Matters\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings … (known as the Web V proceedings). Ken leads the representation of Google in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels’ positions and adopting much of Google’s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.{{ FIELD }}In re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords. Ken leads the representation of Google in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018–2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the publishers’ core appeal positions while granting the services’ request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial. Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB’s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.{{ FIELD }}Four Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al. Ken led the defense of The Orchard (a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the “mechanical” reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities (known as “PB IV”). Ken is lead counsel for Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR and PBS in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior PB III proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\nDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including Netflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken’s clients’ determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken’s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\nDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. Ken led the defense of Peloton in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton’s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\nSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”). Ken was lead counsel for the RMLC, the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016–2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\nESPN v. BMI. Ken was lead counsel for ESPN in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI’s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\nPandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP. Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on Pandora’s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit’s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora’s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to “partially” withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora’s position.\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc. Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client MobiTV’s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP’s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc. Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of Real Networks and Yahoo! leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\nArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media. Ken co-defended Yahoo! Music (f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\n“Napster II” (UMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al). Ken led the defense of Bertelsmann against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\nEMI Music v. Multiply Inc. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI’s label and publisher catalogues asserting Multiply did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\nSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc. Ken led the defense of MusicNet, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\nColeman, et al. v. ESPN. Ken led the defense of ESPN against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN’s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN’s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN’s assertion of the “fair use” defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers’ summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\nAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the ABC Television Network had infringed the publishers’ rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called “one time uses” of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports “bio-pic” segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\nOther “Rate Court” Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI. Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other ASCAP/BMI licensees engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\nAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI. Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by the local television industry in the early 1980s (Buffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (NCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\nInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters. Ken has been granted “rights of audience” in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Representative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\niJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending baazee.com (the “eBay of India,” in which News Corp’s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\nPersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by Columbia Pictures of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\nRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by American Airlines. Plaintiff claimed American’s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\nEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients Film Finances and production/distribution entities. After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\nNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football League. Ken assisted in representing the NASL in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL’s “cross ownership” ban, which would have prevented “cross-owners” such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\nNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for the N.Y. Islanders hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.{{ FIELD }}Representative Other Engagements\nDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the Airborne defendants in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging, inter alia, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\nIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation. Ken was lead trial counsel for a national title insurance company in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL §17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\nNNN Britannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for defendants in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL §17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\nRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against First Aviation and its principals. The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants’ verdict.\nPIA v. UBS Securities, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against UBS, stemming from UBS’ termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant’s favor.\nOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million “kitchen sink” action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client Ritz Carlton. The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\nIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co. Ken was lead trial counsel for Grupo Industrial Alfa’s steel company, Hylsa, SA, in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of “HYL Process” steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.{{ FIELD }}Kenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by National Law Journal as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by Law360 as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by Legal 500 as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of Legal 500, Chambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star) and the Daily Journal’s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. \nKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken’s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\nIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice’s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions. Partner “He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.” CHAMBERS USA 2022 IP Trailblazers National Law Journal, 2016 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs Law360, 2015 Top 10 Copyright Lawyers The Daily Journal Leading IP Attorneys: California The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021) Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026amp; Entertainment Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022) Legal 500 USA  multiple years through 2022 Northern California Super Lawyer  Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021) 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel  Hollywood Reporter Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist  AAI, 2014 Williams College  Fordham University Fordham University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California California New York Representative Copyright Litigations/Matters\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings … (known as the Web V proceedings). Ken leads the representation of Google in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels’ positions and adopting much of Google’s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing. In re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords. Ken leads the representation of Google in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018–2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the publishers’ core appeal positions while granting the services’ request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial. Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB’s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate. Four Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al. Ken led the defense of The Orchard (a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the “mechanical” reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities (known as “PB IV”). Ken is lead counsel for Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR and PBS in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior PB III proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\nDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including Netflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken’s clients’ determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken’s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\nDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. Ken led the defense of Peloton in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton’s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\nSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”). Ken was lead counsel for the RMLC, the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016–2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\nESPN v. BMI. Ken was lead counsel for ESPN in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI’s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\nPandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP. Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on Pandora’s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit’s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora’s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to “partially” withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora’s position.\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc. Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client MobiTV’s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP’s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc. Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of Real Networks and Yahoo! leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\nArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media. Ken co-defended Yahoo! Music (f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\n“Napster II” (UMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al). Ken led the defense of Bertelsmann against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\nEMI Music v. Multiply Inc. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI’s label and publisher catalogues asserting Multiply did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\nSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc. Ken led the defense of MusicNet, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\nColeman, et al. v. ESPN. Ken led the defense of ESPN against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN’s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN’s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN’s assertion of the “fair use” defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers’ summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\nAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the ABC Television Network had infringed the publishers’ rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called “one time uses” of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports “bio-pic” segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\nOther “Rate Court” Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI. Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other ASCAP/BMI licensees engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\nAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI. Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by the local television industry in the early 1980s (Buffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (NCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\nInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters. Ken has been granted “rights of audience” in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial. Representative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\niJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending baazee.com (the “eBay of India,” in which News Corp’s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\nPersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by Columbia Pictures of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\nRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by American Airlines. Plaintiff claimed American’s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\nEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients Film Finances and production/distribution entities. After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\nNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football League. Ken assisted in representing the NASL in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL’s “cross ownership” ban, which would have prevented “cross-owners” such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\nNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for the N.Y. Islanders hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis. Representative Other Engagements\nDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the Airborne defendants in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging, inter alia, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\nIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation. Ken was lead trial counsel for a national title insurance company in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL §17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\nNNN Britannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for defendants in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL §17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\nRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against First Aviation and its principals. The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants’ verdict.\nPIA v. UBS Securities, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against UBS, stemming from UBS’ termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant’s favor.\nOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million “kitchen sink” action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client Ritz Carlton. The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\nIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co. Ken was lead trial counsel for Grupo Industrial Alfa’s steel company, Hylsa, SA, in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of “HYL Process” steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.","searchable_name":"Kenneth L. Steinthal","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}