{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":null,"value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"17","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"id":445534,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7306,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNatalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation,\u0026rdquo; ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003elisted in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, selected to the Texas\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;list, and named \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex\u0026mdash;and often high-profile\u0026mdash;business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie\u0026rsquo;s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn an IP case covered by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client\u0026rsquo;s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, the trial court judge stated, \u0026ldquo;Counsel\u0026rsquo;s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie\u0026rsquo;s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor\u0026mdash;someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"natalie-arbaugh","email":"narbaugh@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for \u003cstrong\u003einternational luxury fashion brand owners\u003c/strong\u003e, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms\u0026mdash;through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003esoftware solutions company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client\u0026rsquo;s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor\u0026rsquo;s customers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of \u003cstrong\u003ea global petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading bank consulting and software services company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee\u0026rsquo;s transfer and use of thousands of client\u0026rsquo;s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client\u0026rsquo;s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client\u0026rsquo;s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Dress Infringement. Represented a \u003cstrong\u003ecooler and drink ware manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark Infringement. Successfully defended the \u003cstrong\u003eyellow pages and a marketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQui Tam Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTexas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented \u003cstrong\u003ea whistleblower\u003c/strong\u003e in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFalse Claims Act. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded human services provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Action and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003eedible bouquet client\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003ehotel chain\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003eleading watch manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of \u0026ldquo;Made in America\u0026rdquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Commercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003edisaster recovery and business continuity company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client\u0026rsquo;s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading global semiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecollege\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHarassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal communications company\u003c/strong\u003e against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAge Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGender Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecounty\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003emarketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA Collective Action. Defended a l\u003cstrong\u003eeading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReported Decisions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages\u0026nbsp;and judgment of over US$42M for defendants\u0026rsquo; willful infringement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoach Inc. v. Sassy Couture\u003c/em\u003e, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eINEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP\u003c/em\u003e; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Arbaugh","nick_name":"Natalie","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Justice Deborah Hankinson, Texas Supreme Court","years_held":"2001 - 2002"}],"first_name":"Natalie","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":176,"law_schools":[{"id":1852,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2001-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023–2025"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Trademark Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 "},{"title":"Recognized for Plaintiff","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026"},{"title":"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024"},{"title":"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation","detail":"D Magazine, 2014–2022"},{"title":"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” ","detail":"Texas Monthly, January 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNatalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation,\u0026rdquo; ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003elisted in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, selected to the Texas\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;list, and named \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex\u0026mdash;and often high-profile\u0026mdash;business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie\u0026rsquo;s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn an IP case covered by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client\u0026rsquo;s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, the trial court judge stated, \u0026ldquo;Counsel\u0026rsquo;s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie\u0026rsquo;s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor\u0026mdash;someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for \u003cstrong\u003einternational luxury fashion brand owners\u003c/strong\u003e, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms\u0026mdash;through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003esoftware solutions company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client\u0026rsquo;s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor\u0026rsquo;s customers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of \u003cstrong\u003ea global petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading bank consulting and software services company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee\u0026rsquo;s transfer and use of thousands of client\u0026rsquo;s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client\u0026rsquo;s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client\u0026rsquo;s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Dress Infringement. Represented a \u003cstrong\u003ecooler and drink ware manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark Infringement. Successfully defended the \u003cstrong\u003eyellow pages and a marketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQui Tam Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTexas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented \u003cstrong\u003ea whistleblower\u003c/strong\u003e in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFalse Claims Act. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded human services provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Action and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003eedible bouquet client\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003ehotel chain\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003eleading watch manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of \u0026ldquo;Made in America\u0026rdquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Commercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003edisaster recovery and business continuity company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client\u0026rsquo;s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading global semiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecollege\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHarassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal communications company\u003c/strong\u003e against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAge Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGender Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecounty\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003emarketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA Collective Action. Defended a l\u003cstrong\u003eeading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReported Decisions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages\u0026nbsp;and judgment of over US$42M for defendants\u0026rsquo; willful infringement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoach Inc. v. Sassy Couture\u003c/em\u003e, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eINEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP\u003c/em\u003e; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023–2025"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Trademark Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 "},{"title":"Recognized for Plaintiff","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026"},{"title":"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024"},{"title":"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation","detail":"D Magazine, 2014–2022"},{"title":"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” ","detail":"Texas Monthly, January 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13341}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:57.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:57.000Z","searchable_text":"Arbaugh{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2023–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Trademark Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Plaintiff\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D Magazine, 2014–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Monthly, January 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation{{ FIELD }}Trademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for international luxury fashion brand owners, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms—through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a software solutions company, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client’s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor’s customers.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a global petrochemical company, obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant’s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a leading bank consulting and software services company, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee’s transfer and use of thousands of client’s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client’s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client’s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Trade Dress Infringement. Represented a cooler and drink ware manufacturer in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.{{ FIELD }}Trademark Infringement. Successfully defended the yellow pages and a marketing company against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.{{ FIELD }}Qui Tam Litigation{{ FIELD }}Texas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented a whistleblower in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world’s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.{{ FIELD }}False Claims Act. Defended a publicly traded human services provider in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.{{ FIELD }}Class Action and Collective Action Litigation{{ FIELD }}Representing an edible bouquet client in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.{{ FIELD }}Represented a hotel chain in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading watch manufacturer in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of “Made in America” claims.{{ FIELD }}Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Other Commercial Litigation{{ FIELD }}Regularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a disaster recovery and business continuity company, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Fraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a Fortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client’s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a leading global semiconductor company in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Employment and Collective Action Litigation{{ FIELD }}Reverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a college against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Harassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a global communications company against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Age Discrimination. Successfully defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.{{ FIELD }}Gender Discrimination. Successfully defended a county against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Pregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a marketing company against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}FLSA. Defended a global insurance company against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.{{ FIELD }}FLSA Collective Action. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled.{{ FIELD }}Reported Decisions{{ FIELD }}Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc. Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages and judgment of over US$42M for defendants’ willful infringement){{ FIELD }}Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al., No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims){{ FIELD }}Coach Inc. v. Sassy Couture, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting){{ FIELD }}INEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets){{ FIELD }}Kathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.){{ FIELD }}Natalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of Benchmark Litigation’s “Top 250 Women in Litigation,” ranked by Chambers USA, listed in The Best Lawyers in America®, selected to the Texas Super Lawyers list, and named “Winning Woman” by Texas Lawyer. \nNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex—and often high-profile—business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation. \nNatalie’s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General’s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a “Litigation Department of the Year” finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a “Winning Woman” by Texas Lawyer. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\nIn an IP case covered by Law360, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client’s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys’ fees, the trial court judge stated, “Counsel’s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.”\nThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie’s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor—someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.  Partner Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds Chambers USA, 2023–2025 Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025 Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026 Recognized for Trademark Law The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026 Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026 Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation”  Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026 Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026  Recognized for Plaintiff Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026 Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas”  Super Lawyers, 2017–2024 “Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation D Magazine, 2014–2022 “Top Women Attorneys in Texas”  Texas Monthly, January 2020 Southern Methodist University Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law Texas Member of Trade Secrets Committee, AIPLA, 2015–present Member of Board of Directors, Texas General Counsel Forum, DFW Chapter, 2011–Present Dallas Association of Young Lawyers Lifetime Fellow Law Clerk, Honorable Justice Deborah Hankinson, Texas Supreme Court Trade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation Trademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for international luxury fashion brand owners, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms—through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution. Trade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues. Trade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a software solutions company, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client’s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor’s customers. Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a global petrochemical company, obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant’s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms. Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a leading bank consulting and software services company, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee’s transfer and use of thousands of client’s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client’s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client’s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms. Trade Dress Infringement. Represented a cooler and drink ware manufacturer in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company. Trademark Infringement. Successfully defended the yellow pages and a marketing company against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff. Qui Tam Litigation Texas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented a whistleblower in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world’s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas. False Claims Act. Defended a publicly traded human services provider in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages. Class Action and Collective Action Litigation Representing an edible bouquet client in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Represented a hotel chain in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs. Represented a leading watch manufacturer in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of “Made in America” claims. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms. Other Commercial Litigation Regularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation. Breach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial. Breach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a disaster recovery and business continuity company, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms. Fraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a Fortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client’s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed. Breach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a leading global semiconductor company in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms. Employment and Collective Action Litigation Reverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a college against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client. Harassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a global communications company against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client. Age Discrimination. Successfully defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement. Gender Discrimination. Successfully defended a county against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client. Pregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a marketing company against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client. FLSA. Defended a global insurance company against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement. FLSA Collective Action. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled. Reported Decisions Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc. Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages and judgment of over US$42M for defendants’ willful infringement) Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al., No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims) Coach Inc. v. Sassy Couture, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting) INEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets) Kathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)","searchable_name":"Natalie L. Arbaugh","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":176,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442768,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5372,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"melvin-bailey","email":"mbailey@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bailey","nick_name":"Mel","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Melvin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":1896,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1987-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Super Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)"},{"title":"Texas Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in Dallas","detail":"Dallas D Magazine"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2017-2018"},{"title":"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy","detail":"2017"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/mel-bailey-10aa2033/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Super Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)"},{"title":"Texas Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in Dallas","detail":"Dallas D Magazine"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2017-2018"},{"title":"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy","detail":"2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6358}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:46.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:46.000Z","searchable_text":"Bailey{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in Dallas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Dallas D Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017-2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Mel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.\nMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation. Partner Super Lawyer Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018) Texas Lawyer Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018) Best Lawyers in Dallas Dallas D Magazine Best Lawyers in America 2017-2018 International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy 2017 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Texas Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers Member, International Association of Defense Counsel Fellow, Litigation of Trial Counsel Member, The Trial Lawyer Honorary Society Former Member, American Board Trial Advocates Member, Diversity Law Institute Member, Trial Law Institute Inactive  Member, American Board of Trial Advocates IADC Trial Academy Faculty, Stanford University","searchable_name":"Melvin D. Bailey (Mel)","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":447228,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7274,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the \u0026ldquo;v.\u0026rdquo; In particular,\u0026nbsp;he\u0026nbsp;has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to\u0026nbsp;rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will\u0026nbsp;served as Associate General Counsel\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot and\u0026nbsp;was a member of the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Legal Senior Leadership Team.\u0026nbsp;As leader of\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he\u0026nbsp;was responsible for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s most significant commercial and business litigation,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;challenged core aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business. During his\u0026nbsp;21-year tenure\u0026nbsp;with The Home Depot,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;led the successful defense\u0026nbsp;of several hundred class\u0026nbsp;actions, created and led the company\u0026rsquo;s recovery litigation program,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations\u0026nbsp;and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized thought leader in complex litigation,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term\u0026mdash;one of the few in-house\u0026nbsp;counsel\u0026nbsp;to do so. He received the\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Business Chronicle\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works,\u0026nbsp;Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions,\u0026nbsp;ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee\u0026nbsp;Winston\u0026nbsp;College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding\u0026nbsp;Adjunct\u0026nbsp;Professor Award in 2025.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026nbsp;chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform,\u0026nbsp;which was\u0026nbsp;instrumental in passing Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will\u0026nbsp;played\u0026nbsp;varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"william-barnette-2","email":"wbarnette@kslaw.com ","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k)\u0026nbsp;plan,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCano v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;e.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBerger v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarino v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGoldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009)\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVarnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWillard v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScott v. Am. Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of individual smoking and health jury trials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: OSB Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppeals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDrafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWoodfield v. Bowman\u003c/em\u003e, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eon remand\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTransunion v. Ramirez\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFacebook v. Duguid\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUnited States PTO v. Booking.com BV\u003c/em\u003e, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInvestigations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Representation while in-house counsel\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":502,"guid":"502.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":18,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":19,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Barnette","nick_name":"Will","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Sol Gothard, Louisiana","years_held":"1995 - 1996"}],"first_name":"William","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1136,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020"},{"title":"Chairman-Class Actions Section","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present "},{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25"},{"title":"General Counsel Pro Bono Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2020"},{"title":"Store Support Excellence Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2024"},{"title":"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award","detail":"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016"},{"title":"Member","detail":"American Law Institute, 2025-present"},{"title":"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award","detail":"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow","detail":"2024-present"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow ","detail":"2019-2023"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the \u0026ldquo;v.\u0026rdquo; In particular,\u0026nbsp;he\u0026nbsp;has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to\u0026nbsp;rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will\u0026nbsp;served as Associate General Counsel\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot and\u0026nbsp;was a member of the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Legal Senior Leadership Team.\u0026nbsp;As leader of\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he\u0026nbsp;was responsible for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s most significant commercial and business litigation,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;challenged core aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business. During his\u0026nbsp;21-year tenure\u0026nbsp;with The Home Depot,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;led the successful defense\u0026nbsp;of several hundred class\u0026nbsp;actions, created and led the company\u0026rsquo;s recovery litigation program,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations\u0026nbsp;and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized thought leader in complex litigation,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term\u0026mdash;one of the few in-house\u0026nbsp;counsel\u0026nbsp;to do so. He received the\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Business Chronicle\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works,\u0026nbsp;Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions,\u0026nbsp;ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee\u0026nbsp;Winston\u0026nbsp;College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding\u0026nbsp;Adjunct\u0026nbsp;Professor Award in 2025.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026nbsp;chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform,\u0026nbsp;which was\u0026nbsp;instrumental in passing Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will\u0026nbsp;played\u0026nbsp;varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k)\u0026nbsp;plan,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCano v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;e.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBerger v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarino v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGoldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009)\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVarnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWillard v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScott v. Am. Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of individual smoking and health jury trials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: OSB Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppeals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDrafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWoodfield v. Bowman\u003c/em\u003e, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eon remand\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTransunion v. Ramirez\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFacebook v. Duguid\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUnited States PTO v. Booking.com BV\u003c/em\u003e, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInvestigations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Representation while in-house counsel\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020"},{"title":"Chairman-Class Actions Section","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present "},{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25"},{"title":"General Counsel Pro Bono Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2020"},{"title":"Store Support Excellence Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2024"},{"title":"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award","detail":"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016"},{"title":"Member","detail":"American Law Institute, 2025-present"},{"title":"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award","detail":"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow","detail":"2024-present"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow ","detail":"2019-2023"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13228}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-31T22:04:40.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-31T22:04:40.000Z","searchable_text":"Barnette{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Board of Directors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Class Actions Section\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Board of Directors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"General Counsel Pro Bono Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Home Depot, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Store Support Excellence Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Home Depot, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Member\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Law Institute, 2025-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2024-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2019-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.){{ FIELD }}Representing national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.){{ FIELD }}Won reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)* {{ FIELD }}Won three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k) plan, Cano v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25); Pizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024); Lanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions, In re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials, In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber, e.g., Kitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers, e.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25); Berger v. Home Depot, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014); Chochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013); Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008); O’Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services, e.g., Marino v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents, e.g., Goldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009) * {{ FIELD }}Won series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices, e.g., Varnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15); Willard v. Home Depot, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)* {{ FIELD }}Defense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation, Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998) {{ FIELD }}Won dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal, Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of individual smoking and health jury trials, e.g., Eiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005) {{ FIELD }}Recovery {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board, In re: OSB Litig., No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services, In re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig., MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)* {{ FIELD }}Appeals {{ FIELD }}Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068{{ FIELD }}Argued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Home Depot v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)* {{ FIELD }}Argued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute, Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999) {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards, In re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Frederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)* {{ FIELD }}Managed drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, Transunion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021); Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020); United States PTO v. Booking.com BV, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)* {{ FIELD }}Investigations {{ FIELD }}Successfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act {{ FIELD }}*Representation while in-house counsel {{ FIELD }}Will Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm’s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade, and winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the “v.” In particular, he has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations. \nPrior to rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will served as Associate General Counsel for The Home Depot and was a member of the company’s Legal Senior Leadership Team. As leader of The Home Depot’s commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he was responsible for the company’s most significant commercial and business litigation, which frequently challenged core aspects of the company’s business. During his 21-year tenure with The Home Depot, Will led the successful defense of several hundred class actions, created and led the company’s recovery litigation program, and successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\nA recognized thought leader in complex litigation, Will argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term—one of the few in-house counsel to do so. He received the Atlanta Business Chronicle’s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works, Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction and There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions, ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He frequently lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award in 2025. \nWill chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, which was instrumental in passing Georgia’s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will played varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute. Partner Chairman-Board of Directors Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020 Chairman-Class Actions Section State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present  Chairman-Board of Directors Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25 General Counsel Pro Bono Award The Home Depot, 2020 Store Support Excellence Award The Home Depot, 2024 Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016 Member American Law Institute, 2025-present Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025 Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow 2024-present Litigation Counsel of America Fellow  2019-2023 Sewanee: The University of the South  Loyola University New Orleans Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Supreme Court of the United States Georgia Louisiana Chairman, State Bar of Georgia, Class Actions Section, 2024-present Member, American Law Institute, 2025-present Member, Board of Directors, Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2017-present; Vice-Chairman, 2022-23; Chairman; 2023-25 Member, In-House Counsel Advisory Board, Emory Law Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims, 2017-present Member, Lawyers Club of Atlanta, 2002-present Member, State Bar of Georgia, 2000-present Member, Louisiana State Bar Association, 1995-present Member, Executive Committee of Board of Directors of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2013-2021; Secretary (2017); Treasurer (2018); Vice-President (2019); President (2020) Member, Georgia Senate Study Committee on Legal Reform, 2019-2020 Member, American Bar Association House of Delegates, 1998-2002 Law Clerk, Hon. Sol Gothard, Louisiana Representing national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.) Representing national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.) Won reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*  Won three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k) plan, Cano v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25); Pizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024); Lanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*  Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions, In re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*  Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials, In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*  Won series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber, e.g., Kitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*  Won series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers, e.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25); Berger v. Home Depot, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014); Chochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013); Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008); O’Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*  Won series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services, e.g., Marino v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*  Won series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents, e.g., Goldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009) *  Won series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices, e.g., Varnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15); Willard v. Home Depot, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*  Defense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation, Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)  Won dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal, Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*  Won series of individual smoking and health jury trials, e.g., Eiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)  Recovery  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board, In re: OSB Litig., No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services, In re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig., MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*  Appeals  Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 Argued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Home Depot v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*  Argued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute, Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)  Managed successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*  Managed successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards, In re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*  Managed successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*  Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Frederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*  Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*  Managed drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, Transunion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021); Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020); United States PTO v. Booking.com BV, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*  Investigations  Successfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act  *Representation while in-house counsel ","searchable_name":"William P. Barnette (Will)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442360,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":852,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.\u0026nbsp; Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: \u003cstrong\u003eBrown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences,\u0026nbsp;Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s office in Miami.\u0026nbsp; He serves as Managing Partner of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Miami office.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"w-randall-bassett","email":"rbassett@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3D22-0320.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":5}]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bassett","nick_name":"Randy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"W. Randall","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2010–2016"},{"title":"Chambers USA","detail":"2010–2015"},{"title":"Legal 500","detail":"2010–2016"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/wrandallbassett/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":126,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.\u0026nbsp; Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: \u003cstrong\u003eBrown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences,\u0026nbsp;Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s office in Miami.\u0026nbsp; He serves as Managing Partner of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Miami office.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3D22-0320.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2010–2016"},{"title":"Chambers USA","detail":"2010–2015"},{"title":"Legal 500","detail":"2010–2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5463}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:28.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:28.000Z","searchable_text":"Bassett{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for United Parcel Service in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for R.J. Reynolds in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA, No. 3D22-0320.{{ FIELD }}Randy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.  Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.\nRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: Brown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences, Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and United Parcel Service, Inc.\nRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\nRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding’s office in Miami.  He serves as Managing Partner of the firm’s Miami office. W Randall Bassett Partner Best Lawyers in America 2010–2016 Chambers USA 2010–2015 Legal 500 2010–2016 The Citadel  University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Florida Georgia Hawaii American Bar Association Litigation Counsel of America American Bar Fellow State Bar of Georgia Lawyers Club of Atlanta Defense Research Institute State Bar of Florida Georgia Defense Lawyers Association International Association of Defense Counsel International Society of Barristers Product Liability Advisory Council Served as lead trial counsel for United Parcel Service in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas. Served as lead trial counsel for R.J. Reynolds in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. Served as lead trial counsel for Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA, No. 3D22-0320.","searchable_name":"W. Randall Bassett (Randy)","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":446413,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":826,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability,\u0026nbsp;toxic tort, and other tort\u0026nbsp;cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability,\u0026rdquo; the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax\u0026reg; and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.\u0026nbsp; He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the \u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac \u003c/em\u003eMDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e recognized Andy as a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for that victory.\u0026nbsp; In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy\u0026rsquo;s client\u0026rsquo;s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.\u0026nbsp; Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled \u0026ldquo;Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants\u0026rsquo; counsel, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.\u0026nbsp; At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.\u0026nbsp; After excluding the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003eand in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He served for five years as the\u0026nbsp;Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"andrew-bayman","email":"abayman@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability\u0026rdquo; in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg;. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK\u0026rsquo;s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK\u0026rsquo;s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (\u003cem\u003eGlynn v. Merck)\u003c/em\u003e, in a case alleging that Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis drug Fosamax\u0026reg; caused the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax\u0026reg; atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMerck v. Albrecht\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServes as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGSK\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eantidepressant, Paxil\u0026reg;, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil\u0026reg; consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e\u0026shy; cigarette products, including to minors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAllergan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan\u0026rsquo;s product Juviderm\u0026reg;, a Class III medical device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national coordinating counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large consumer healthcare product manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major medical device manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a defense verdict for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNissan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Smith-Green v. Nissan).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuest Diagnostics Incorporated,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe country\u0026rsquo;s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":131}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1223,"guid":"1223.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bayman","nick_name":"Andy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Andrew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2442,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1989-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"T.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named Distinguished Leader","detail":"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Week","detail":"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024"},{"title":"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.","detail":"Benchmark, 2019"},{"title":"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2015"},{"title":"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” ","detail":"CHAMBER USA"},{"title":"Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation","detail":"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022"},{"title":"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022"},{"title":"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014"},{"title":"Named by The Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2006–2022"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability,\u0026nbsp;toxic tort, and other tort\u0026nbsp;cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability,\u0026rdquo; the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax\u0026reg; and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.\u0026nbsp; He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the \u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac \u003c/em\u003eMDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e recognized Andy as a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for that victory.\u0026nbsp; In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy\u0026rsquo;s client\u0026rsquo;s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.\u0026nbsp; Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled \u0026ldquo;Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants\u0026rsquo; counsel, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.\u0026nbsp; At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.\u0026nbsp; After excluding the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003eand in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He served for five years as the\u0026nbsp;Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability\u0026rdquo; in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg;. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK\u0026rsquo;s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK\u0026rsquo;s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (\u003cem\u003eGlynn v. Merck)\u003c/em\u003e, in a case alleging that Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis drug Fosamax\u0026reg; caused the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax\u0026reg; atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMerck v. Albrecht\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServes as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGSK\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eantidepressant, Paxil\u0026reg;, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil\u0026reg; consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e\u0026shy; cigarette products, including to minors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAllergan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan\u0026rsquo;s product Juviderm\u0026reg;, a Class III medical device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national coordinating counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large consumer healthcare product manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major medical device manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a defense verdict for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNissan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Smith-Green v. Nissan).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuest Diagnostics Incorporated,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe country\u0026rsquo;s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named Distinguished Leader","detail":"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Week","detail":"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024"},{"title":"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.","detail":"Benchmark, 2019"},{"title":"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2015"},{"title":"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” ","detail":"CHAMBER USA"},{"title":"Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation","detail":"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022"},{"title":"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022"},{"title":"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014"},{"title":"Named by The Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2006–2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":719}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T21:41:51.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T21:41:51.000Z","searchable_text":"Bayman{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Distinguished Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBER USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Representing \\\"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named by The Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2006–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.{{ FIELD }}Acting as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs’ lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.{{ FIELD }}Represented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of “Innovator Liability” in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm’s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK’s antidepressant Paxil®. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK’s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK’s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Glynn v. Merck), in a case alleging that Merck’s osteoporosis drug Fosamax® caused the plaintiff’s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax® atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court. Merck v. Albrecht, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).{{ FIELD }}Serves as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that GSK’s antidepressant, Paxil®, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil® consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.{{ FIELD }}Acted as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e­ cigarette products, including to minors.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for Allergan in a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan’s product Juviderm®, a Class III medical device.{{ FIELD }}Acted as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.{{ FIELD }}Served as national coordinating counsel for a large consumer healthcare product manufacturer and has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major medical device manufacturer as national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a defense verdict for Nissan as trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system (Smith-Green v. Nissan).{{ FIELD }}Served as national trial counsel for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, the country’s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.{{ FIELD }}Acted as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.{{ FIELD }}Andy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability, toxic tort, and other tort cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of “Innovator Liability,” the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck’s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax® and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.\nAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.  He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\nAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.  The American Lawyer recognized Andy as a “Litigator of the Week” for that victory.  In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy’s client’s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.  He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.  Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association’s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled “Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.”\nHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants’ counsel, that the plaintiffs’ general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.  At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs’ testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.  After excluding the plaintiffs’ experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win. \nAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by Law360 and in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\nIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm’s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.  He served for five years as the Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding’s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally. Andrew T Bayman Partner Named Distinguished Leader DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024 Named Litigator of the Week THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024 “Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor” CHAMBERS USA Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star. Benchmark, 2019 Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP Law360 Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year” Best Lawyers, 2015 Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide) Chambers USA Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.”  CHAMBER USA Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\"  CHAMBERS USA “Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.” Chambers USA Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022 Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer” Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022 Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise”  Legal 500 An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.”  Legal 500 Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers Litigation Counsel of America, 2014 Named by The Best Lawyers in America 2006–2022 Miami University-Oxford  Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Federal Bar Association Acting as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions. Acting as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru. Acting as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault. Successfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs’ lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business. Represented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of “Innovator Liability” in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm’s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK’s antidepressant Paxil®. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK’s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK’s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018. Obtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Glynn v. Merck), in a case alleging that Merck’s osteoporosis drug Fosamax® caused the plaintiff’s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax® atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court. Merck v. Albrecht, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019). Serves as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that GSK’s antidepressant, Paxil®, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil® consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations. Acted as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation. Acting as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e­ cigarette products, including to minors. Achieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for Allergan in a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan’s product Juviderm®, a Class III medical device. Acted as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama. Served as national coordinating counsel for a large consumer healthcare product manufacturer and has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client. Represented a major medical device manufacturer as national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged. Achieved a defense verdict for Nissan as trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system (Smith-Green v. Nissan). Served as national trial counsel for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, the country’s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens. Acted as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.","searchable_name":"Andrew T. Bayman (Andy)","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":427654,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1263,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatt Blaschke focuses on complex litigation involving scientific or technical issues, as well as general litigation. As a partner in our Environmental and Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practices, Matt represents energy, pharmaceutical, consumer product and chemical industry clients in state and federal courts throughout the country.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatt\u0026rsquo;s experience ranges from large-scale multiparty litigation to individual product liability actions. He also advises clients on environmental laws and regulations, including the federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"matthew-blaschke","email":"mblaschke@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large energy company\u003c/strong\u003e in mass tort litigation arising from facility fire in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of national coordinating team of lawyers representing \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in product liability litigation throughout the country, including allegations that the antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg; causes congenital defects. Matt has prepared numerous cases for trial; deposed plaintiffs as well as third-party witnesses and treating physicians; developed and executed pretrial strategy; briefed dispositive and procedural motions; and coordinated discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGSK\u003c/strong\u003e before Pennsylvania appellate courts following summary judgment for GSK in product liability litigation including allegations that Paxil\u0026reg; caused congenital defects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultinational pharmaceuticals manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in personal injury action filed in Florida State Court. Matt coordinated removal of the action to federal court and then successfully moved to dismiss the action at the pleadings stage.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe Dow Chemical Company\u003c/strong\u003e (\"Dow\") in California product liability litigation in which plaintiffs allege that certain Dow products caused injuries to an employee at a manufacturing facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDow\u003c/strong\u003e in a commercial dispute in California involving product liability claims concerning a plastic resin formerly manufactured by Dow.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003econsumer product manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in enforcement actions brought by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreparation for trial in \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple mass tort lawsuits\u003c/strong\u003e alleging health and property claims, including drafting discovery, interviewing witnesses, and preparing fact witnesses for deposition testimony; also responsible for interviewing and preparing expert witnesses in fields of toxicology and municipal water delivery systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated as part of a multi-disciplinary team of attorneys and consultants conducting a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with the approval of a new medication. Matt assisted with Company by identifying and recommending steps to minimize product liability risk.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated in the defense of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea bellwether lawsuit\u003c/strong\u003e alleging health claims arising from exposure to dioxins, vinyl chloride, TCE and other soil and groundwater contaminants, including drafting \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e motions to exclude plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert witnesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended litigation arising under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eclient in the healthcare industry,\u003c/strong\u003e including developing case strategy with codefendant federal agency, drafting dispositive motions, and negotiations with opposing counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended litigation arising under state freedom of information laws for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea nuclear power trade group,\u003c/strong\u003e including drafting of dispositive motions, discovery responses, and settlement agreement to protect the confidentiality of client documents.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":107}]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Blaschke","nick_name":"Matt","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Matthew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatt Blaschke focuses on complex litigation involving scientific or technical issues, as well as general litigation. As a partner in our Environmental and Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practices, Matt represents energy, pharmaceutical, consumer product and chemical industry clients in state and federal courts throughout the country.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatt\u0026rsquo;s experience ranges from large-scale multiparty litigation to individual product liability actions. He also advises clients on environmental laws and regulations, including the federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large energy company\u003c/strong\u003e in mass tort litigation arising from facility fire in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of national coordinating team of lawyers representing \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in product liability litigation throughout the country, including allegations that the antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg; causes congenital defects. Matt has prepared numerous cases for trial; deposed plaintiffs as well as third-party witnesses and treating physicians; developed and executed pretrial strategy; briefed dispositive and procedural motions; and coordinated discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGSK\u003c/strong\u003e before Pennsylvania appellate courts following summary judgment for GSK in product liability litigation including allegations that Paxil\u0026reg; caused congenital defects.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultinational pharmaceuticals manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in personal injury action filed in Florida State Court. Matt coordinated removal of the action to federal court and then successfully moved to dismiss the action at the pleadings stage.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe Dow Chemical Company\u003c/strong\u003e (\"Dow\") in California product liability litigation in which plaintiffs allege that certain Dow products caused injuries to an employee at a manufacturing facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDow\u003c/strong\u003e in a commercial dispute in California involving product liability claims concerning a plastic resin formerly manufactured by Dow.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003econsumer product manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in enforcement actions brought by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePreparation for trial in \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple mass tort lawsuits\u003c/strong\u003e alleging health and property claims, including drafting discovery, interviewing witnesses, and preparing fact witnesses for deposition testimony; also responsible for interviewing and preparing expert witnesses in fields of toxicology and municipal water delivery systems.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated as part of a multi-disciplinary team of attorneys and consultants conducting a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with the approval of a new medication. Matt assisted with Company by identifying and recommending steps to minimize product liability risk.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated in the defense of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea bellwether lawsuit\u003c/strong\u003e alleging health claims arising from exposure to dioxins, vinyl chloride, TCE and other soil and groundwater contaminants, including drafting \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e motions to exclude plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert witnesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended litigation arising under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eclient in the healthcare industry,\u003c/strong\u003e including developing case strategy with codefendant federal agency, drafting dispositive motions, and negotiations with opposing counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended litigation arising under state freedom of information laws for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea nuclear power trade group,\u003c/strong\u003e including drafting of dispositive motions, discovery responses, and settlement agreement to protect the confidentiality of client documents.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":731}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:03:16.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:03:16.000Z","searchable_text":"Blaschke{{ FIELD }}Currently representing a large energy company in mass tort litigation arising from facility fire in California.{{ FIELD }}Member of national coordinating team of lawyers representing GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in product liability litigation throughout the country, including allegations that the antidepressant Paxil® causes congenital defects. Matt has prepared numerous cases for trial; deposed plaintiffs as well as third-party witnesses and treating physicians; developed and executed pretrial strategy; briefed dispositive and procedural motions; and coordinated discovery.{{ FIELD }}Defended GSK before Pennsylvania appellate courts following summary judgment for GSK in product liability litigation including allegations that Paxil® caused congenital defects.{{ FIELD }}Represented a multinational pharmaceuticals manufacturer in personal injury action filed in Florida State Court. Matt coordinated removal of the action to federal court and then successfully moved to dismiss the action at the pleadings stage.{{ FIELD }}Defended the Dow Chemical Company (\"Dow\") in California product liability litigation in which plaintiffs allege that certain Dow products caused injuries to an employee at a manufacturing facility.{{ FIELD }}Defended Dow in a commercial dispute in California involving product liability claims concerning a plastic resin formerly manufactured by Dow.{{ FIELD }}Represented consumer product manufacturers in enforcement actions brought by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation.{{ FIELD }}Preparation for trial in multiple mass tort lawsuits alleging health and property claims, including drafting discovery, interviewing witnesses, and preparing fact witnesses for deposition testimony; also responsible for interviewing and preparing expert witnesses in fields of toxicology and municipal water delivery systems.{{ FIELD }}Participated as part of a multi-disciplinary team of attorneys and consultants conducting a risk assessment for a multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer in connection with the approval of a new medication. Matt assisted with Company by identifying and recommending steps to minimize product liability risk.{{ FIELD }}Participated in the defense of a bellwether lawsuit alleging health claims arising from exposure to dioxins, vinyl chloride, TCE and other soil and groundwater contaminants, including drafting Daubert motions to exclude plaintiffs’ expert witnesses.{{ FIELD }}Defended litigation arising under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against client in the healthcare industry, including developing case strategy with codefendant federal agency, drafting dispositive motions, and negotiations with opposing counsel.{{ FIELD }}Defended litigation arising under state freedom of information laws for a nuclear power trade group, including drafting of dispositive motions, discovery responses, and settlement agreement to protect the confidentiality of client documents.{{ FIELD }}Matt Blaschke focuses on complex litigation involving scientific or technical issues, as well as general litigation. As a partner in our Environmental and Mass Tort and Toxic Tort practices, Matt represents energy, pharmaceutical, consumer product and chemical industry clients in state and federal courts throughout the country.\nMatt’s experience ranges from large-scale multiparty litigation to individual product liability actions. He also advises clients on environmental laws and regulations, including the federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act. Matthew J Blaschke Partner Notre Dame  George Washington University George Washington University Law School U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California District of Columbia Currently representing a large energy company in mass tort litigation arising from facility fire in California. Member of national coordinating team of lawyers representing GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in product liability litigation throughout the country, including allegations that the antidepressant Paxil® causes congenital defects. Matt has prepared numerous cases for trial; deposed plaintiffs as well as third-party witnesses and treating physicians; developed and executed pretrial strategy; briefed dispositive and procedural motions; and coordinated discovery. Defended GSK before Pennsylvania appellate courts following summary judgment for GSK in product liability litigation including allegations that Paxil® caused congenital defects. Represented a multinational pharmaceuticals manufacturer in personal injury action filed in Florida State Court. Matt coordinated removal of the action to federal court and then successfully moved to dismiss the action at the pleadings stage. Defended the Dow Chemical Company (\"Dow\") in California product liability litigation in which plaintiffs allege that certain Dow products caused injuries to an employee at a manufacturing facility. Defended Dow in a commercial dispute in California involving product liability claims concerning a plastic resin formerly manufactured by Dow. Represented consumer product manufacturers in enforcement actions brought by California's Department of Pesticide Regulation. Preparation for trial in multiple mass tort lawsuits alleging health and property claims, including drafting discovery, interviewing witnesses, and preparing fact witnesses for deposition testimony; also responsible for interviewing and preparing expert witnesses in fields of toxicology and municipal water delivery systems. Participated as part of a multi-disciplinary team of attorneys and consultants conducting a risk assessment for a multinational pharmaceutical manufacturer in connection with the approval of a new medication. Matt assisted with Company by identifying and recommending steps to minimize product liability risk. Participated in the defense of a bellwether lawsuit alleging health claims arising from exposure to dioxins, vinyl chloride, TCE and other soil and groundwater contaminants, including drafting Daubert motions to exclude plaintiffs’ expert witnesses. Defended litigation arising under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against client in the healthcare industry, including developing case strategy with codefendant federal agency, drafting dispositive motions, and negotiations with opposing counsel. Defended litigation arising under state freedom of information laws for a nuclear power trade group, including drafting of dispositive motions, discovery responses, and settlement agreement to protect the confidentiality of client documents.","searchable_name":"Matthew J. Blaschke (Matt)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442372,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":883,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"mark-brown","email":"mbrown@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePhillip Morris USA\u003c/strong\u003e v. FDA\u003c/em\u003e, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eUnited States v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFranck's Lab\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDuring his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990\u0026ndash;1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e (2008 and 2015), \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eThe General Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e (2007) and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBaxter Healthcare\u003c/strong\u003e (2006).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSince 2002, served on the national counsel team for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eO'Neal v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFrom 1995 to 2001, served on \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eConnaught Laboratories v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNext Nutrition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003ev. SportPharma USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies\u003c/strong\u003e to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Top 10 pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea top tier biotechnology company\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed numerous internal investigations for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ebiotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eseveral drug and device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":51}]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Brown","nick_name":"Mark","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Mark","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":196,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney ","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017"},{"title":"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. ","detail":"Legal 500, 2016"},{"title":"Named Life Sciences Star ","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016"},{"title":"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers ","detail":"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016"},{"title":"Superior Achievement Award ","detail":"U.S. Department of Health \u0026 Human Services, 1992"},{"title":"Commendable Service Award ","detail":"FDA, 1992–1994"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePhillip Morris USA\u003c/strong\u003e v. FDA\u003c/em\u003e, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eUnited States v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFranck's Lab\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDuring his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990\u0026ndash;1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e (2008 and 2015), \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eThe General Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e (2007) and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBaxter Healthcare\u003c/strong\u003e (2006).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSince 2002, served on the national counsel team for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eO'Neal v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFrom 1995 to 2001, served on \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eConnaught Laboratories v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNext Nutrition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003ev. SportPharma USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies\u003c/strong\u003e to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Top 10 pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea top tier biotechnology company\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed numerous internal investigations for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ebiotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eseveral drug and device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney ","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017"},{"title":"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. ","detail":"Legal 500, 2016"},{"title":"Named Life Sciences Star ","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016"},{"title":"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers ","detail":"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016"},{"title":"Superior Achievement Award ","detail":"U.S. Department of Health \u0026 Human Services, 1992"},{"title":"Commendable Service Award ","detail":"FDA, 1992–1994"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":746}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:44.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Brown{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law \u0026amp; Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Life Sciences Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Superior Achievement Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Department of Health \u0026amp; Human Services, 1992\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendable Service Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"FDA, 1992–1994\"}{{ FIELD }}Phillip Morris USA v. FDA, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.{{ FIELD }}United States v. Franck's Lab, 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.{{ FIELD }}During his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990–1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including Medtronic (2008 and 2015), The General Electric Company (2007) and Baxter Healthcare (2006).{{ FIELD }}Since 2002, served on the national counsel team for GlaxoSmithKline in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in O'Neal v. SmithKline Beecham (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.{{ FIELD }}From 1995 to 2001, served on 3M's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.{{ FIELD }}Connaught Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham, 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.{{ FIELD }}Next Nutrition, Inc. v. SportPharma USA, Inc., No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.{{ FIELD }}Represented pharmaceutical manufacturers in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.{{ FIELD }}Conducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of multiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.{{ FIELD }}Conducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for a Top 10 pharmaceutical company’s blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.{{ FIELD }}Conducted a risk assessment for a top tier biotechnology company’s drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.{{ FIELD }}Led numerous internal investigations for biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented several drug and device manufacturers concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation’s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.{{ FIELD }}Represented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.{{ FIELD }}Represented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.{{ FIELD }}Conducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.{{ FIELD }}Assisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.{{ FIELD }}Mark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.\nMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\nMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\nMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\nBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients. Mark S Brown Partner Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney  Law \u0026amp; Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017 Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S.  Legal 500, 2016 Named Life Sciences Star  LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016 Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers  Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016 Superior Achievement Award  U.S. Department of Health \u0026amp; Human Services, 1992 Commendable Service Award  FDA, 1992–1994 University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School St. Louis University  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania District of Columbia Bar Maryland State Bar Phillip Morris USA v. FDA, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products. United States v. Franck's Lab, 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs. During his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990–1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including Medtronic (2008 and 2015), The General Electric Company (2007) and Baxter Healthcare (2006). Since 2002, served on the national counsel team for GlaxoSmithKline in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in O'Neal v. SmithKline Beecham (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil. From 1995 to 2001, served on 3M's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues. Connaught Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham, 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine. Next Nutrition, Inc. v. SportPharma USA, Inc., No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award. Represented pharmaceutical manufacturers in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation. Conducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of multiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure. Conducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for a Top 10 pharmaceutical company’s blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas. Conducted a risk assessment for a top tier biotechnology company’s drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making. Led numerous internal investigations for biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues. Represented several drug and device manufacturers concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues. Represented one of the nation’s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement. Represented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product. Represented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments. Conducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices. Assisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.","searchable_name":"Mark S. Brown","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":196,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427629,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1020,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Bucholtz focuses on appeals and legal issues before federal and state courts across the country. As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law and Contracts and Business Torts practices, Jeff represents clients in a wide range of civil, regulatory and criminal matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff has argued over 40 appeals spanning nearly every federal circuit and several state courts, including two arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. Jeff's experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act investigations and litigation, First Amendment and other constitutional issues, product liability litigation, administrative law, and many other types of business litigation. Jeff has particular expertise in Life Sciences and represents numerous FDA-regulated companies in civil, regulatory and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Jeff served at the U.S. Department of Justice in a number of senior roles, including the Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, the department\u0026rsquo;s largest litigating division. Jeff was also the Deputy Assistant Attorney General overseeing the Consumer Protection Branch, which brings criminal and civil enforcement actions on behalf of FDA and defends FDA in administrative law challenges, as well as the Torts Branch, which defends constitutional and common-law tort claims against the government and federal employees and officers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff represents clients in a variety of industries in appeals as well as trial court litigation, and government investigations and regulatory matters that require exceptional legal analysis and creative and strategic advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jeffrey-bucholtz","email":"jbucholtz@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eVascular Solutions\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense of a federal criminal prosecution in Texas alleging off-label promotion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePandora Media\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense in the Second Circuit of an important rate-court decision against ASCAP.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eChevron\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful action in DC federal court to confirm a $100M international arbitral award against Ecuador.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA KBR subsidiary\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful action in NY federal court to confirm a $400M international arbitral award against Mexico's state oil company, despite a Mexican court's annulment of the award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eHuntington Ingalls\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining dismissal (and affirmance on appeal and the denial of certiorari) of a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act in Mississippi, based on the relator's ethical violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSeveral leading companies\u003c/strong\u003e in life sciences, healthcare, transportation, and other sectors in defense of criminal and civil government investigations, obtaining declinations of criminal charges, dismissal of False Claims Act claims, and favorable resolutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan\u003c/strong\u003e in its First Amendment declaratory judgment action challenging the government\u0026rsquo;s restrictions on truthful speech about off-label uses of FDA-approved drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e in several successful appeals in product liability cases in state courts in Florida and Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in opposing plaintiffs' lawyers' attempts to bring large numbers of claims in jurisdictions having no relationship to the claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA DEA agent\u003c/strong\u003e in successfully obtaining a grant of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court and then reversal after oral argument in Walden v. Fiore, a case presenting important issues of personal jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA medical imaging provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Sixth Circuit appeal of an adverse judgment in a government-intervened False Claims Act case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeveral hospitals in a successful DC Circuit appeal seeking relief for CMS\u0026rsquo;s erroneous adjustments to hospitals' payments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePODS\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining a favorable settlement in an Eleventh Circuit appeal of a trademark infringement action against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eShire\u003c/strong\u003e in separate Lanham Act false advertising cases against competitors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA software company\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Ninth Circuit appeal of an order refusing to compel arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Fourth Circuit appeal of an order granting class certification.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTwo wrongfully convicted individuals\u003c/strong\u003e who spent 25 years in prison, in a civil rights action against the prosecutors who framed them for murder, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether prosecutorial immunity barred our clients\u0026rsquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGE Capital Aviation Services\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Alabama Supreme Court appeal of a large punitive damages award in a commercial dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA large REIT\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Eleventh Circuit appeal of a class certification order in a securities case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA dietary supplement manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense of an Eleventh Circuit appeal by the FTC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA leading chemical company\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining a favorable settlement of a Second Circuit appeal in a CERCLA action.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":105}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bucholtz","nick_name":"Jeffrey","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit","years_held":"1996 - 1997"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Stephen V. Wilson, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"1995 - 1996"}],"first_name":"Jeffrey","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Firm of the Year for Supreme Court and Appellate Practice ","detail":"Legal 500, 2015"},{"title":"Practice of the Year, Appellate practice ","detail":"Law360, 2014"},{"title":"Exemplar of Good Legal Writing, for a Supreme Court brief ","detail":"Green Bag, 2013"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week, for Second Circuit Win for Pandora Media ","detail":"American Lawyer, 2015"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJeff Bucholtz focuses on appeals and legal issues before federal and state courts across the country. As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law and Contracts and Business Torts practices, Jeff represents clients in a wide range of civil, regulatory and criminal matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff has argued over 40 appeals spanning nearly every federal circuit and several state courts, including two arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. Jeff's experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act investigations and litigation, First Amendment and other constitutional issues, product liability litigation, administrative law, and many other types of business litigation. Jeff has particular expertise in Life Sciences and represents numerous FDA-regulated companies in civil, regulatory and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Jeff served at the U.S. Department of Justice in a number of senior roles, including the Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, the department\u0026rsquo;s largest litigating division. Jeff was also the Deputy Assistant Attorney General overseeing the Consumer Protection Branch, which brings criminal and civil enforcement actions on behalf of FDA and defends FDA in administrative law challenges, as well as the Torts Branch, which defends constitutional and common-law tort claims against the government and federal employees and officers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJeff represents clients in a variety of industries in appeals as well as trial court litigation, and government investigations and regulatory matters that require exceptional legal analysis and creative and strategic advocacy.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eVascular Solutions\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense of a federal criminal prosecution in Texas alleging off-label promotion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePandora Media\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense in the Second Circuit of an important rate-court decision against ASCAP.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eChevron\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful action in DC federal court to confirm a $100M international arbitral award against Ecuador.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA KBR subsidiary\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful action in NY federal court to confirm a $400M international arbitral award against Mexico's state oil company, despite a Mexican court's annulment of the award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eHuntington Ingalls\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining dismissal (and affirmance on appeal and the denial of certiorari) of a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act in Mississippi, based on the relator's ethical violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSeveral leading companies\u003c/strong\u003e in life sciences, healthcare, transportation, and other sectors in defense of criminal and civil government investigations, obtaining declinations of criminal charges, dismissal of False Claims Act claims, and favorable resolutions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan\u003c/strong\u003e in its First Amendment declaratory judgment action challenging the government\u0026rsquo;s restrictions on truthful speech about off-label uses of FDA-approved drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e in several successful appeals in product liability cases in state courts in Florida and Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in opposing plaintiffs' lawyers' attempts to bring large numbers of claims in jurisdictions having no relationship to the claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA DEA agent\u003c/strong\u003e in successfully obtaining a grant of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court and then reversal after oral argument in Walden v. Fiore, a case presenting important issues of personal jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA medical imaging provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Sixth Circuit appeal of an adverse judgment in a government-intervened False Claims Act case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSeveral hospitals in a successful DC Circuit appeal seeking relief for CMS\u0026rsquo;s erroneous adjustments to hospitals' payments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePODS\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining a favorable settlement in an Eleventh Circuit appeal of a trademark infringement action against a competitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAllergan\u003c/strong\u003e and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eShire\u003c/strong\u003e in separate Lanham Act false advertising cases against competitors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA software company\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Ninth Circuit appeal of an order refusing to compel arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Fourth Circuit appeal of an order granting class certification.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTwo wrongfully convicted individuals\u003c/strong\u003e who spent 25 years in prison, in a civil rights action against the prosecutors who framed them for murder, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether prosecutorial immunity barred our clients\u0026rsquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGE Capital Aviation Services\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Alabama Supreme Court appeal of a large punitive damages award in a commercial dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA large REIT\u003c/strong\u003e in a successful Eleventh Circuit appeal of a class certification order in a securities case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA dietary supplement manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in successful defense of an Eleventh Circuit appeal by the FTC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eA leading chemical company\u003c/strong\u003e in obtaining a favorable settlement of a Second Circuit appeal in a CERCLA action.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Firm of the Year for Supreme Court and Appellate Practice ","detail":"Legal 500, 2015"},{"title":"Practice of the Year, Appellate practice ","detail":"Law360, 2014"},{"title":"Exemplar of Good Legal Writing, for a Supreme Court brief ","detail":"Green Bag, 2013"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week, for Second Circuit Win for Pandora Media ","detail":"American Lawyer, 2015"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":749}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:57.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:57.000Z","searchable_text":"Bucholtz{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Firm of the Year for Supreme Court and Appellate Practice \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Practice of the Year, Appellate practice \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Exemplar of Good Legal Writing, for a Supreme Court brief \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Green Bag, 2013\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week, for Second Circuit Win for Pandora Media \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Lawyer, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}Vascular Solutions in successful defense of a federal criminal prosecution in Texas alleging off-label promotion.{{ FIELD }}Pandora Media in successful defense in the Second Circuit of an important rate-court decision against ASCAP.{{ FIELD }}Chevron in a successful action in DC federal court to confirm a $100M international arbitral award against Ecuador.{{ FIELD }}A KBR subsidiary in a successful action in NY federal court to confirm a $400M international arbitral award against Mexico's state oil company, despite a Mexican court's annulment of the award.{{ FIELD }}Huntington Ingalls in obtaining dismissal (and affirmance on appeal and the denial of certiorari) of a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act in Mississippi, based on the relator's ethical violations.{{ FIELD }}Several leading companies in life sciences, healthcare, transportation, and other sectors in defense of criminal and civil government investigations, obtaining declinations of criminal charges, dismissal of False Claims Act claims, and favorable resolutions.{{ FIELD }}Allergan in its First Amendment declaratory judgment action challenging the government’s restrictions on truthful speech about off-label uses of FDA-approved drugs.{{ FIELD }}R.J. Reynolds in several successful appeals in product liability cases in state courts in Florida and Missouri.{{ FIELD }}GlaxoSmithKline in opposing plaintiffs' lawyers' attempts to bring large numbers of claims in jurisdictions having no relationship to the claims.{{ FIELD }}A DEA agent in successfully obtaining a grant of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court and then reversal after oral argument in Walden v. Fiore, a case presenting important issues of personal jurisdiction.{{ FIELD }}A medical imaging provider in a successful Sixth Circuit appeal of an adverse judgment in a government-intervened False Claims Act case.{{ FIELD }}Several hospitals in a successful DC Circuit appeal seeking relief for CMS’s erroneous adjustments to hospitals' payments.{{ FIELD }}PODS in obtaining a favorable settlement in an Eleventh Circuit appeal of a trademark infringement action against a competitor.{{ FIELD }}Allergan and Shire in separate Lanham Act false advertising cases against competitors.{{ FIELD }}A software company in a successful Ninth Circuit appeal of an order refusing to compel arbitration.{{ FIELD }}Equifax in a successful Fourth Circuit appeal of an order granting class certification.{{ FIELD }}Two wrongfully convicted individuals who spent 25 years in prison, in a civil rights action against the prosecutors who framed them for murder, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether prosecutorial immunity barred our clients’ claims.{{ FIELD }}GE Capital Aviation Services in a successful Alabama Supreme Court appeal of a large punitive damages award in a commercial dispute.{{ FIELD }}A large REIT in a successful Eleventh Circuit appeal of a class certification order in a securities case.{{ FIELD }}A dietary supplement manufacturer in successful defense of an Eleventh Circuit appeal by the FTC.{{ FIELD }}A leading chemical company in obtaining a favorable settlement of a Second Circuit appeal in a CERCLA action.{{ FIELD }}Jeff Bucholtz focuses on appeals and legal issues before federal and state courts across the country. As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law and Contracts and Business Torts practices, Jeff represents clients in a wide range of civil, regulatory and criminal matters.\nJeff has argued over 40 appeals spanning nearly every federal circuit and several state courts, including two arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court. Jeff's experience extends to a wide range of subject areas, including False Claims Act investigations and litigation, First Amendment and other constitutional issues, product liability litigation, administrative law, and many other types of business litigation. Jeff has particular expertise in Life Sciences and represents numerous FDA-regulated companies in civil, regulatory and criminal matters.\nPreviously, Jeff served at the U.S. Department of Justice in a number of senior roles, including the Acting Assistant Attorney General and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, the department’s largest litigating division. Jeff was also the Deputy Assistant Attorney General overseeing the Consumer Protection Branch, which brings criminal and civil enforcement actions on behalf of FDA and defends FDA in administrative law challenges, as well as the Torts Branch, which defends constitutional and common-law tort claims against the government and federal employees and officers.\nJeff represents clients in a variety of industries in appeals as well as trial court litigation, and government investigations and regulatory matters that require exceptional legal analysis and creative and strategic advocacy. Jeffrey S Bucholtz Partner Firm of the Year for Supreme Court and Appellate Practice  Legal 500, 2015 Practice of the Year, Appellate practice  Law360, 2014 Exemplar of Good Legal Writing, for a Supreme Court brief  Green Bag, 2013 Litigator of the Week, for Second Circuit Win for Pandora Media  American Lawyer, 2015 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth 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 Columbia District of Columbia Virginia Judicial Clerk, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Judicial Clerk, Stephen V. Wilson, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Vascular Solutions in successful defense of a federal criminal prosecution in Texas alleging off-label promotion. Pandora Media in successful defense in the Second Circuit of an important rate-court decision against ASCAP. Chevron in a successful action in DC federal court to confirm a $100M international arbitral award against Ecuador. A KBR subsidiary in a successful action in NY federal court to confirm a $400M international arbitral award against Mexico's state oil company, despite a Mexican court's annulment of the award. Huntington Ingalls in obtaining dismissal (and affirmance on appeal and the denial of certiorari) of a qui tam suit under the False Claims Act in Mississippi, based on the relator's ethical violations. Several leading companies in life sciences, healthcare, transportation, and other sectors in defense of criminal and civil government investigations, obtaining declinations of criminal charges, dismissal of False Claims Act claims, and favorable resolutions. Allergan in its First Amendment declaratory judgment action challenging the government’s restrictions on truthful speech about off-label uses of FDA-approved drugs. R.J. Reynolds in several successful appeals in product liability cases in state courts in Florida and Missouri. GlaxoSmithKline in opposing plaintiffs' lawyers' attempts to bring large numbers of claims in jurisdictions having no relationship to the claims. A DEA agent in successfully obtaining a grant of certiorari from the U.S. Supreme Court and then reversal after oral argument in Walden v. Fiore, a case presenting important issues of personal jurisdiction. A medical imaging provider in a successful Sixth Circuit appeal of an adverse judgment in a government-intervened False Claims Act case. Several hospitals in a successful DC Circuit appeal seeking relief for CMS’s erroneous adjustments to hospitals' payments. PODS in obtaining a favorable settlement in an Eleventh Circuit appeal of a trademark infringement action against a competitor. Allergan and Shire in separate Lanham Act false advertising cases against competitors. A software company in a successful Ninth Circuit appeal of an order refusing to compel arbitration. Equifax in a successful Fourth Circuit appeal of an order granting class certification. Two wrongfully convicted individuals who spent 25 years in prison, in a civil rights action against the prosecutors who framed them for murder, after the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether prosecutorial immunity barred our clients’ claims. GE Capital Aviation Services in a successful Alabama Supreme Court appeal of a large punitive damages award in a commercial dispute. A large REIT in a successful Eleventh Circuit appeal of a class certification order in a securities case. A dietary supplement manufacturer in successful defense of an Eleventh Circuit appeal by the FTC. A leading chemical company in obtaining a favorable settlement of a Second Circuit appeal in a CERCLA action.","searchable_name":"Jeffrey S. Bucholtz","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":444643,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5039,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eZach Burnett joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2017 as an associate in the Austin office\u0026rsquo;s Tort \u0026amp; Environmental practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses primarily on complex litigations involving medical devices, pharmaceutical products, and consumer products, with a secondary\u0026nbsp;focus on toxic torts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has substantial experience with complex products-liability litigations involving medical-device and pharmaceutical\u0026nbsp;companies, including in MDL proceedings.\u0026nbsp; Zach works on\u0026nbsp;multiple case and trial teams, in both state and federal court,\u0026nbsp;and plays a key, active role in every aspect of pre-trial and trial proceedings, including preparing initial case assessments;\u0026nbsp;conducting written discovery;\u0026nbsp;preparing for and taking fact- and expert-witness depositions; preparing corporate-representative and fact witnesses for deposition; assisting with trial strategy and preparation; and working closely with trial counsel at trial, both in the war room and the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has served as the assistant and lead drafter of numerous successful motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 702/Daubert motions, and motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp; He also\u0026nbsp;has experience arguing discovery and Rule 702 motions, as well as motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his products-liability practice, Zach maintains an active\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;docket representing DACA renewal applicants and civil-rights litigants across the country.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"zachary-burnett","email":"zburnett@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefending \u003cstrong\u003eBoehringer Ingelheim\u003c/strong\u003e in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColoplast\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLundbeck\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.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":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Burnett","nick_name":"Zach","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Zachary","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"C.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named Staff Editor of the Year ","detail":"American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/zachary-burnett-2115b148/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eZach Burnett joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2017 as an associate in the Austin office\u0026rsquo;s Tort \u0026amp; Environmental practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses primarily on complex litigations involving medical devices, pharmaceutical products, and consumer products, with a secondary\u0026nbsp;focus on toxic torts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has substantial experience with complex products-liability litigations involving medical-device and pharmaceutical\u0026nbsp;companies, including in MDL proceedings.\u0026nbsp; Zach works on\u0026nbsp;multiple case and trial teams, in both state and federal court,\u0026nbsp;and plays a key, active role in every aspect of pre-trial and trial proceedings, including preparing initial case assessments;\u0026nbsp;conducting written discovery;\u0026nbsp;preparing for and taking fact- and expert-witness depositions; preparing corporate-representative and fact witnesses for deposition; assisting with trial strategy and preparation; and working closely with trial counsel at trial, both in the war room and the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has served as the assistant and lead drafter of numerous successful motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 702/Daubert motions, and motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp; He also\u0026nbsp;has experience arguing discovery and Rule 702 motions, as well as motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his products-liability practice, Zach maintains an active\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;docket representing DACA renewal applicants and civil-rights litigants across the country.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefending \u003cstrong\u003eBoehringer Ingelheim\u003c/strong\u003e in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColoplast\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLundbeck\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named Staff Editor of the Year ","detail":"American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5377}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-02T15:56:35.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-02T15:56:35.000Z","searchable_text":"Burnett{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Staff Editor of the Year \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Defending Boehringer Ingelheim in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL.{{ FIELD }}Representing 3M in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general.{{ FIELD }}Defending Coloplast in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.{{ FIELD }}Defending Lundbeck in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.{{ FIELD }}Zach Burnett joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2017 as an associate in the Austin office’s Tort \u0026amp; Environmental practice.  His practice focuses primarily on complex litigations involving medical devices, pharmaceutical products, and consumer products, with a secondary focus on toxic torts.\nZach has substantial experience with complex products-liability litigations involving medical-device and pharmaceutical companies, including in MDL proceedings.  Zach works on multiple case and trial teams, in both state and federal court, and plays a key, active role in every aspect of pre-trial and trial proceedings, including preparing initial case assessments; conducting written discovery; preparing for and taking fact- and expert-witness depositions; preparing corporate-representative and fact witnesses for deposition; assisting with trial strategy and preparation; and working closely with trial counsel at trial, both in the war room and the courtroom.  \nZach has served as the assistant and lead drafter of numerous successful motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 702/Daubert motions, and motions for summary judgment.  He also has experience arguing discovery and Rule 702 motions, as well as motions for summary judgment. \nIn addition to his products-liability practice, Zach maintains an active pro bono docket representing DACA renewal applicants and civil-rights litigants across the country.  Partner Named Staff Editor of the Year  American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017 The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Texas State Bar of Texas Defending Boehringer Ingelheim in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL. Representing 3M in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general. Defending Coloplast in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Defending Lundbeck in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.","searchable_name":"Zachary C. Burnett (Zach)","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":442371,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":125,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKevin Buster is a senior trial partner with over 40\u0026nbsp;years of courtroom experience in a wide variety of cases. His practice focuses on class actions and other mass tort litigation in the toxic tort, product liability and environmental tort areas. Kevin has represented\u0026nbsp;leading companies nationwide in the defense of complex tort claims involving a wide variety of chemical substances.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKevin has defended clients in state and federal courts in over 25 states in cases involving a wide array of chemical substances, including dioxins, PCBs, pesticides, metals, solvents, gasses, odors, petroleum products, chemical warfare agents, asbestos and others. These cases have involved exposures/contamination in a broad variety of contexts, including workplace, residential, environmental and product exposures.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jkevin-buster","email":"kbuster@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":103}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1185,"guid":"1185.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":12,"guid":"12.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Buster","nick_name":"Kevin","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, The Honorable Pierce Lively, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","years_held":"1978 - 1979"}],"first_name":"Kevin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":196,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKevin Buster is a senior trial partner with over 40\u0026nbsp;years of courtroom experience in a wide variety of cases. His practice focuses on class actions and other mass tort litigation in the toxic tort, product liability and environmental tort areas. Kevin has represented\u0026nbsp;leading companies nationwide in the defense of complex tort claims involving a wide variety of chemical substances.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKevin has defended clients in state and federal courts in over 25 states in cases involving a wide array of chemical substances, including dioxins, PCBs, pesticides, metals, solvents, gasses, odors, petroleum products, chemical warfare agents, asbestos and others. These cases have involved exposures/contamination in a broad variety of contexts, including workplace, residential, environmental and product exposures.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4196}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:42.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:42.000Z","searchable_text":"Buster{{ FIELD }}Kevin Buster is a senior trial partner with over 40 years of courtroom experience in a wide variety of cases. His practice focuses on class actions and other mass tort litigation in the toxic tort, product liability and environmental tort areas. Kevin has represented leading companies nationwide in the defense of complex tort claims involving a wide variety of chemical substances.\nKevin has defended clients in state and federal courts in over 25 states in cases involving a wide array of chemical substances, including dioxins, PCBs, pesticides, metals, solvents, gasses, odors, petroleum products, chemical warfare agents, asbestos and others. These cases have involved exposures/contamination in a broad variety of contexts, including workplace, residential, environmental and product exposures. J Kevin Buster Partner Duke University Duke University School of Law University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Law Clerk, The Honorable Pierce Lively, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit","searchable_name":"Kevin Buster","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":196,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442383,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1005,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Butterfield helps lead the firm\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta Environmental, Health and Safety Practice Group, where he concentrates his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation as well as\u0026nbsp;emergency incident response. Randy's practice focuses in particular on assisting clients in the wake of catastrophic emergency incidents, such as explosions, fires, industrial accidents, chemical releases, spills, and other environmental and industrial calamities. In that capacity, Randy is frequently called upon in the immediate aftermath of these emergencies to provide time-critical crisis management addressing a wide range of pressing concerns, including forensic investigation; workplace safety; site security and evidence preservation; regulatory disclosures, investigation, and potential enforcement; environmental remediation; internal investigations; and insurance coverage. Recent incidents on which Randy has helped lead the response have involved over $2 billion in property damages, business losses, and insurance claims; significant personal injury lawsuits; as well as enforcement actions from federal and state regulators.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Randy has handled numerous mass joinder and class action cases involving personal injury and property damage claims, both at the trial and appellate levels. Randy has played a particularly significant role in preparing and defending the defense experts\u0026mdash;as well as deposing and critiquing plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts\u0026mdash;on a wide variety of technical topics, such as air and groundwater modeling, emission inventories, dose reconstruction, geostatistics, human health risk assessment, toxicology, epidemiology,\u0026nbsp;fate and transport,\u0026nbsp;remediation,\u0026nbsp;property valuation, and damage assessments. Over his career, Randy\u0026rsquo;s litigation matters have involved nearly every major piece of environmental legislation as well as the entire spectrum of common law tort claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has published several articles involving the potential application and use of federal and state regulatory standards in the toxic tort context. He has also co-authored a chapter on legal defenses in toxic tort cases in a treatise published by the American Bar Association as well as a chapter on administrative appeals published by LexisNexis. Randy served on the Environmental and Toxic Tort Section of the Atlanta Bar Association, including as Board Chair in 2018. Randy also served on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s Environmental Editorial Advisory Board from 2021-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBooks, Articles \u0026amp; Presentations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; LexisNexis Practice Guide:\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Environmental Law\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 ed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield, moderator, Roundtable with Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearing Judges\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp; Litigants, Atlanta Bar Association, Toxic Tort and Environmental Law CLE, Feb. 1, 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield \u0026amp; Stephen A. McCullers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRaising the Class Action Certification Bar in Georgia:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eGeorgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Ratner, Perspectives on Georgia\u0026rsquo;s Environment (State Bar of\u0026nbsp;Georgia), Spring 2015, at 6-9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRecent \u0026amp; Recurring Issues in Toxic Tort Cases\u003c/em\u003e, State Bar of Georgia, Toxic Tort\u0026nbsp;Litigation CLE, Mar. 2014\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; J Kevin Buster \u0026amp; Randy J. Butterfield,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCommon Defenses in Toxic Tort Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(book chapter) (ABA\u0026nbsp;2d ed. 2013)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield, Note,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRecovering Environmental Cleanup Costs Under the Resource Conservation\u0026nbsp;and Recovery Act: A Potential Solution to a Persistent Problem\u003c/em\u003e, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 689 (1997)\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"randall-butterfield","email":"rbutterfield@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eA midstream energy company in connection with investigations by Federal and State environmental agencies as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into an explosion and fire at a natural gas processing facility resulting in catastrophic loss. Oversaw root cause investigation, coordinated responses to agency inquiries, and provided advice and counsel in connection with successful insurance recovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOne of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest producers of methanol from natural gas as standby incident response counsel, including in connection with environmental investigations into spills and releases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn LNG facility in connection with government investigations by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) arising out of an explosion that resulted in operational shutdown and extensive damage to piping and other equipment and in connection with insurance coverage concerns.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Fortune 50 energy company in connection with the February 2023 Norfolk Southern freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn international chemical manufacturer in response to an explosion at its largest U.S. manufacturing facility, including helping to lead the emergency incident response and internal investigation as well as responding to regulatory inquiries by, among others OSHA; State and Federal environmental agencies; the CSB; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe country\u0026rsquo;s largest specialty paper company following the catastrophic explosion of two continuous pulp digesters. Helped lead the team handling the emergency response, including handling the root cause investigation, successfully resolving investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, CSB, and numerous state regulatory agencies, and securing a significant settlement of its insurance claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA worldwide mining and petroleum company as standby incident response counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn engineering and construction company in connection with a trench collapse resulting in a fatality, including responding to OSHA\u0026rsquo;s resulting investigation and implementing a nationwide safety audit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA carbon capture company in connection with building collapse resulting in extensive damages to multiple rail cars. Led root cause investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA water and wastewater treatment provider in connection with a civil and criminal investigation into wastewater treatment plant compliance involving allegations of falsification of records.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOne of the largest specialty pulp and paper manufacturers in the United States in connection with investigations by EPA, OSHA, and various state and local agencies arising out of a catastrophic explosion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical facility following release of trichlorosilane during line break that resulted in serious injuries to contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical facility in connection with explosion caused by the failure of an expansion joint, resulting in numerous injuries and one fatality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA medical sterilization company in pending litigation involving air emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO) from its facility in Colorado.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA world-leading manufacturer to defend the claims of 3,000 plaintiffs stemming from air emissions of lead, arsenic, and other substances from a polymetallic smelter in Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolved regulatory enforcement actions against a Fortune 100 company involving EPA\u0026rsquo;s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (\u0026ldquo;RRP\u0026rdquo;) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (\u0026ldquo;TSCA\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA large paper manufacturer following a catastrophic fire at its New Jersey production facility. Helped lead the core team that successfully resolved all State and Federal regulatory investigations and secured a significant settlement of its insurance claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRayonier Performance Fibers in securing renewal of the NPDES discharge permit for its Jesup pulp mill, the world's largest producer of cellulose specialty products. The permit had been reversed by the administrative law judge, who imposed a novel and unreasonable construction of the narrative water quality standard. That erroneous decision, which threatened the permitting program for all industrial and municipal dischargers in Georgia, was reversed on appeal, ultimately leading to affirmance of the renewed permit.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 816 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), cert. denied (Aug. 5, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRayonier Performance Fibers in a citizen suit alleging that the pulp mill was violating its NPDES discharge permit. District court granted summary judgment in favor of Rayonier on all counts.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. CV 214-44, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42849 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSea Island Company in securing, and successfully defending to an Administrative Law Judge and then to Superior Court, the state Shore Protection Act permit for a controversial beach nourishment, dune construction, and groin project along three miles of beachfront property. In subsequent related litigation brought in federal court, obtained summary judgment upholding the contested permits.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng\u0026rsquo;rs\u003c/em\u003e, No. CV 418-251, 2020 WL 5837650 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA large electric utility company in toxic tort litigation involving approximately 150 residents living near Plant Scherer, one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the country. Following oral argument on an early motion to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA carbon black manufacturer in mass joinder actions filed in West Virginia by hundreds of current and former neighbors, asserting nuisance, trespass, negligence and medical monitoring claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense contractors in a putative personal injury and property damage class action seeking some $200 million for alleged exposure to lead, PCBs, and other chemicals associated with historic forge and foundry operations in Anniston, Alabama. Cases ultimately resolved in nuisance value settlements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe City of Atlanta and other local governments in the tri-state \u0026ldquo;water wars\u0026rdquo; litigation involving Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, including the successful defense of Florida\u0026rsquo;s claims that the operation of Georgia reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River have harmed endangered species.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical manufacturer against claims related to the contamination of a former fertilizer manufacturing facility. Following extensive fact and expert discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Fortune 50 energy company in the appeal of a $27 million jury verdict in a \u0026ldquo;dram shop\u0026rdquo; case asserting agency liability based upon the use of brand standards for independent service stations. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and rendered judgment in favor of the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical manufacturer in a mixture of class actions and individual lawsuits filed in state and federal courts concerning alleged mercury and PCB contamination from the company\u0026rsquo;s former chlor-alkali plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMore than a dozen manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of welding products in several Georgia cases brought on behalf of approximately 500 plaintiffs who alleged personal injury due to inhalation of manganese particles produced by the welding process.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1015,"guid":"1015.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1236,"guid":"1236.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1168,"guid":"1168.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Butterfield","nick_name":"Randy","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Chief Judge Robert L. Echols, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee","years_held":"1997 - 1999"}],"first_name":"Randall","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Law360 Selects Nine from King \u0026 Spalding to Serve on 2021 Editorial Advisory Boards","detail":"Law 360, April 2021"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/randy-butterfield-237ab87/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Butterfield helps lead the firm\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta Environmental, Health and Safety Practice Group, where he concentrates his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation as well as\u0026nbsp;emergency incident response. Randy's practice focuses in particular on assisting clients in the wake of catastrophic emergency incidents, such as explosions, fires, industrial accidents, chemical releases, spills, and other environmental and industrial calamities. In that capacity, Randy is frequently called upon in the immediate aftermath of these emergencies to provide time-critical crisis management addressing a wide range of pressing concerns, including forensic investigation; workplace safety; site security and evidence preservation; regulatory disclosures, investigation, and potential enforcement; environmental remediation; internal investigations; and insurance coverage. Recent incidents on which Randy has helped lead the response have involved over $2 billion in property damages, business losses, and insurance claims; significant personal injury lawsuits; as well as enforcement actions from federal and state regulators.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Randy has handled numerous mass joinder and class action cases involving personal injury and property damage claims, both at the trial and appellate levels. Randy has played a particularly significant role in preparing and defending the defense experts\u0026mdash;as well as deposing and critiquing plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts\u0026mdash;on a wide variety of technical topics, such as air and groundwater modeling, emission inventories, dose reconstruction, geostatistics, human health risk assessment, toxicology, epidemiology,\u0026nbsp;fate and transport,\u0026nbsp;remediation,\u0026nbsp;property valuation, and damage assessments. Over his career, Randy\u0026rsquo;s litigation matters have involved nearly every major piece of environmental legislation as well as the entire spectrum of common law tort claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has published several articles involving the potential application and use of federal and state regulatory standards in the toxic tort context. He has also co-authored a chapter on legal defenses in toxic tort cases in a treatise published by the American Bar Association as well as a chapter on administrative appeals published by LexisNexis. Randy served on the Environmental and Toxic Tort Section of the Atlanta Bar Association, including as Board Chair in 2018. Randy also served on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s Environmental Editorial Advisory Board from 2021-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBooks, Articles \u0026amp; Presentations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; LexisNexis Practice Guide:\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Environmental Law\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 ed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield, moderator, Roundtable with Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearing Judges\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp; Litigants, Atlanta Bar Association, Toxic Tort and Environmental Law CLE, Feb. 1, 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield \u0026amp; Stephen A. McCullers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRaising the Class Action Certification Bar in Georgia:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eGeorgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Ratner, Perspectives on Georgia\u0026rsquo;s Environment (State Bar of\u0026nbsp;Georgia), Spring 2015, at 6-9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRecent \u0026amp; Recurring Issues in Toxic Tort Cases\u003c/em\u003e, State Bar of Georgia, Toxic Tort\u0026nbsp;Litigation CLE, Mar. 2014\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; J Kevin Buster \u0026amp; Randy J. Butterfield,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCommon Defenses in Toxic Tort Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(book chapter) (ABA\u0026nbsp;2d ed. 2013)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield, Note,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRecovering Environmental Cleanup Costs Under the Resource Conservation\u0026nbsp;and Recovery Act: A Potential Solution to a Persistent Problem\u003c/em\u003e, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 689 (1997)\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eA midstream energy company in connection with investigations by Federal and State environmental agencies as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into an explosion and fire at a natural gas processing facility resulting in catastrophic loss. Oversaw root cause investigation, coordinated responses to agency inquiries, and provided advice and counsel in connection with successful insurance recovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOne of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest producers of methanol from natural gas as standby incident response counsel, including in connection with environmental investigations into spills and releases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn LNG facility in connection with government investigations by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) arising out of an explosion that resulted in operational shutdown and extensive damage to piping and other equipment and in connection with insurance coverage concerns.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Fortune 50 energy company in connection with the February 2023 Norfolk Southern freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn international chemical manufacturer in response to an explosion at its largest U.S. manufacturing facility, including helping to lead the emergency incident response and internal investigation as well as responding to regulatory inquiries by, among others OSHA; State and Federal environmental agencies; the CSB; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe country\u0026rsquo;s largest specialty paper company following the catastrophic explosion of two continuous pulp digesters. Helped lead the team handling the emergency response, including handling the root cause investigation, successfully resolving investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, CSB, and numerous state regulatory agencies, and securing a significant settlement of its insurance claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA worldwide mining and petroleum company as standby incident response counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn engineering and construction company in connection with a trench collapse resulting in a fatality, including responding to OSHA\u0026rsquo;s resulting investigation and implementing a nationwide safety audit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA carbon capture company in connection with building collapse resulting in extensive damages to multiple rail cars. Led root cause investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA water and wastewater treatment provider in connection with a civil and criminal investigation into wastewater treatment plant compliance involving allegations of falsification of records.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOne of the largest specialty pulp and paper manufacturers in the United States in connection with investigations by EPA, OSHA, and various state and local agencies arising out of a catastrophic explosion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical facility following release of trichlorosilane during line break that resulted in serious injuries to contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical facility in connection with explosion caused by the failure of an expansion joint, resulting in numerous injuries and one fatality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA medical sterilization company in pending litigation involving air emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO) from its facility in Colorado.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA world-leading manufacturer to defend the claims of 3,000 plaintiffs stemming from air emissions of lead, arsenic, and other substances from a polymetallic smelter in Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolved regulatory enforcement actions against a Fortune 100 company involving EPA\u0026rsquo;s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (\u0026ldquo;RRP\u0026rdquo;) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (\u0026ldquo;TSCA\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA large paper manufacturer following a catastrophic fire at its New Jersey production facility. Helped lead the core team that successfully resolved all State and Federal regulatory investigations and secured a significant settlement of its insurance claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRayonier Performance Fibers in securing renewal of the NPDES discharge permit for its Jesup pulp mill, the world's largest producer of cellulose specialty products. The permit had been reversed by the administrative law judge, who imposed a novel and unreasonable construction of the narrative water quality standard. That erroneous decision, which threatened the permitting program for all industrial and municipal dischargers in Georgia, was reversed on appeal, ultimately leading to affirmance of the renewed permit.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 816 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), cert. denied (Aug. 5, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRayonier Performance Fibers in a citizen suit alleging that the pulp mill was violating its NPDES discharge permit. District court granted summary judgment in favor of Rayonier on all counts.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. CV 214-44, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42849 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSea Island Company in securing, and successfully defending to an Administrative Law Judge and then to Superior Court, the state Shore Protection Act permit for a controversial beach nourishment, dune construction, and groin project along three miles of beachfront property. In subsequent related litigation brought in federal court, obtained summary judgment upholding the contested permits.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng\u0026rsquo;rs\u003c/em\u003e, No. CV 418-251, 2020 WL 5837650 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA large electric utility company in toxic tort litigation involving approximately 150 residents living near Plant Scherer, one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the country. Following oral argument on an early motion to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA carbon black manufacturer in mass joinder actions filed in West Virginia by hundreds of current and former neighbors, asserting nuisance, trespass, negligence and medical monitoring claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense contractors in a putative personal injury and property damage class action seeking some $200 million for alleged exposure to lead, PCBs, and other chemicals associated with historic forge and foundry operations in Anniston, Alabama. Cases ultimately resolved in nuisance value settlements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe City of Atlanta and other local governments in the tri-state \u0026ldquo;water wars\u0026rdquo; litigation involving Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, including the successful defense of Florida\u0026rsquo;s claims that the operation of Georgia reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River have harmed endangered species.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical manufacturer against claims related to the contamination of a former fertilizer manufacturing facility. Following extensive fact and expert discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Fortune 50 energy company in the appeal of a $27 million jury verdict in a \u0026ldquo;dram shop\u0026rdquo; case asserting agency liability based upon the use of brand standards for independent service stations. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and rendered judgment in favor of the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical manufacturer in a mixture of class actions and individual lawsuits filed in state and federal courts concerning alleged mercury and PCB contamination from the company\u0026rsquo;s former chlor-alkali plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMore than a dozen manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of welding products in several Georgia cases brought on behalf of approximately 500 plaintiffs who alleged personal injury due to inhalation of manganese particles produced by the welding process.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Law360 Selects Nine from King \u0026 Spalding to Serve on 2021 Editorial Advisory Boards","detail":"Law 360, April 2021"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":757}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Butterfield{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Selects Nine from King \u0026amp; Spalding to Serve on 2021 Editorial Advisory Boards\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, April 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}A midstream energy company in connection with investigations by Federal and State environmental agencies as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into an explosion and fire at a natural gas processing facility resulting in catastrophic loss. Oversaw root cause investigation, coordinated responses to agency inquiries, and provided advice and counsel in connection with successful insurance recovery.{{ FIELD }}One of the world’s largest producers of methanol from natural gas as standby incident response counsel, including in connection with environmental investigations into spills and releases.{{ FIELD }}An LNG facility in connection with government investigations by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) arising out of an explosion that resulted in operational shutdown and extensive damage to piping and other equipment and in connection with insurance coverage concerns.{{ FIELD }}A Fortune 50 energy company in connection with the February 2023 Norfolk Southern freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.{{ FIELD }}An international chemical manufacturer in response to an explosion at its largest U.S. manufacturing facility, including helping to lead the emergency incident response and internal investigation as well as responding to regulatory inquiries by, among others OSHA; State and Federal environmental agencies; the CSB; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).{{ FIELD }}The country’s largest specialty paper company following the catastrophic explosion of two continuous pulp digesters. Helped lead the team handling the emergency response, including handling the root cause investigation, successfully resolving investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, CSB, and numerous state regulatory agencies, and securing a significant settlement of its insurance claim.{{ FIELD }}A worldwide mining and petroleum company as standby incident response counsel.{{ FIELD }}An engineering and construction company in connection with a trench collapse resulting in a fatality, including responding to OSHA’s resulting investigation and implementing a nationwide safety audit.{{ FIELD }}A carbon capture company in connection with building collapse resulting in extensive damages to multiple rail cars. Led root cause investigation.{{ FIELD }}A water and wastewater treatment provider in connection with a civil and criminal investigation into wastewater treatment plant compliance involving allegations of falsification of records.{{ FIELD }}One of the largest specialty pulp and paper manufacturers in the United States in connection with investigations by EPA, OSHA, and various state and local agencies arising out of a catastrophic explosion.{{ FIELD }}A chemical facility following release of trichlorosilane during line break that resulted in serious injuries to contractors.{{ FIELD }}A chemical facility in connection with explosion caused by the failure of an expansion joint, resulting in numerous injuries and one fatality.{{ FIELD }}A medical sterilization company in pending litigation involving air emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO) from its facility in Colorado.{{ FIELD }}A world-leading manufacturer to defend the claims of 3,000 plaintiffs stemming from air emissions of lead, arsenic, and other substances from a polymetallic smelter in Peru.{{ FIELD }}Successfully resolved regulatory enforcement actions against a Fortune 100 company involving EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (“RRP”) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”).{{ FIELD }}A large paper manufacturer following a catastrophic fire at its New Jersey production facility. Helped lead the core team that successfully resolved all State and Federal regulatory investigations and secured a significant settlement of its insurance claims.{{ FIELD }}Rayonier Performance Fibers in securing renewal of the NPDES discharge permit for its Jesup pulp mill, the world's largest producer of cellulose specialty products. The permit had been reversed by the administrative law judge, who imposed a novel and unreasonable construction of the narrative water quality standard. That erroneous decision, which threatened the permitting program for all industrial and municipal dischargers in Georgia, was reversed on appeal, ultimately leading to affirmance of the renewed permit. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC, 816 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), cert. denied (Aug. 5, 2019).{{ FIELD }}Rayonier Performance Fibers in a citizen suit alleging that the pulp mill was violating its NPDES discharge permit. District court granted summary judgment in favor of Rayonier on all counts. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier, Inc., No. CV 214-44, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42849 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2015).{{ FIELD }}Sea Island Company in securing, and successfully defending to an Administrative Law Judge and then to Superior Court, the state Shore Protection Act permit for a controversial beach nourishment, dune construction, and groin project along three miles of beachfront property. In subsequent related litigation brought in federal court, obtained summary judgment upholding the contested permits. Altamaha Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. CV 418-251, 2020 WL 5837650 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2020).{{ FIELD }}A large electric utility company in toxic tort litigation involving approximately 150 residents living near Plant Scherer, one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the country. Following oral argument on an early motion to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims.{{ FIELD }}A carbon black manufacturer in mass joinder actions filed in West Virginia by hundreds of current and former neighbors, asserting nuisance, trespass, negligence and medical monitoring claims.{{ FIELD }}Defense contractors in a putative personal injury and property damage class action seeking some $200 million for alleged exposure to lead, PCBs, and other chemicals associated with historic forge and foundry operations in Anniston, Alabama. Cases ultimately resolved in nuisance value settlements.{{ FIELD }}The City of Atlanta and other local governments in the tri-state “water wars” litigation involving Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, including the successful defense of Florida’s claims that the operation of Georgia reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River have harmed endangered species.{{ FIELD }}A chemical manufacturer against claims related to the contamination of a former fertilizer manufacturing facility. Following extensive fact and expert discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.{{ FIELD }}A Fortune 50 energy company in the appeal of a $27 million jury verdict in a “dram shop” case asserting agency liability based upon the use of brand standards for independent service stations. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and rendered judgment in favor of the company.{{ FIELD }}A chemical manufacturer in a mixture of class actions and individual lawsuits filed in state and federal courts concerning alleged mercury and PCB contamination from the company’s former chlor-alkali plant.{{ FIELD }}More than a dozen manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of welding products in several Georgia cases brought on behalf of approximately 500 plaintiffs who alleged personal injury due to inhalation of manganese particles produced by the welding process.{{ FIELD }}Randy Butterfield helps lead the firm’s Atlanta Environmental, Health and Safety Practice Group, where he concentrates his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation as well as emergency incident response. Randy's practice focuses in particular on assisting clients in the wake of catastrophic emergency incidents, such as explosions, fires, industrial accidents, chemical releases, spills, and other environmental and industrial calamities. In that capacity, Randy is frequently called upon in the immediate aftermath of these emergencies to provide time-critical crisis management addressing a wide range of pressing concerns, including forensic investigation; workplace safety; site security and evidence preservation; regulatory disclosures, investigation, and potential enforcement; environmental remediation; internal investigations; and insurance coverage. Recent incidents on which Randy has helped lead the response have involved over $2 billion in property damages, business losses, and insurance claims; significant personal injury lawsuits; as well as enforcement actions from federal and state regulators.\nIn addition, Randy has handled numerous mass joinder and class action cases involving personal injury and property damage claims, both at the trial and appellate levels. Randy has played a particularly significant role in preparing and defending the defense experts—as well as deposing and critiquing plaintiffs’ experts—on a wide variety of technical topics, such as air and groundwater modeling, emission inventories, dose reconstruction, geostatistics, human health risk assessment, toxicology, epidemiology, fate and transport, remediation, property valuation, and damage assessments. Over his career, Randy’s litigation matters have involved nearly every major piece of environmental legislation as well as the entire spectrum of common law tort claims.\nRandy has published several articles involving the potential application and use of federal and state regulatory standards in the toxic tort context. He has also co-authored a chapter on legal defenses in toxic tort cases in a treatise published by the American Bar Association as well as a chapter on administrative appeals published by LexisNexis. Randy served on the Environmental and Toxic Tort Section of the Atlanta Bar Association, including as Board Chair in 2018. Randy also served on Law360’s Environmental Editorial Advisory Board from 2021-2022.\nBooks, Articles \u0026amp; Presentations\n• LexisNexis Practice Guide: Georgia Environmental Law, 2022 ed.\n• Randy J. Butterfield, moderator, Roundtable with Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearing Judges \u0026amp; Litigants, Atlanta Bar Association, Toxic Tort and Environmental Law CLE, Feb. 1, 2018\n• Randy J. Butterfield \u0026amp; Stephen A. McCullers, Raising the Class Action Certification Bar in Georgia: Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Ratner, Perspectives on Georgia’s Environment (State Bar of Georgia), Spring 2015, at 6-9\n• Randy J. Butterfield, Recent \u0026amp; Recurring Issues in Toxic Tort Cases, State Bar of Georgia, Toxic Tort Litigation CLE, Mar. 2014\n• J Kevin Buster \u0026amp; Randy J. Butterfield, Common Defenses in Toxic Tort Litigation (book chapter) (ABA 2d ed. 2013)\n• Randy J. Butterfield, Note, Recovering Environmental Cleanup Costs Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: A Potential Solution to a Persistent Problem, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 689 (1997) Partner Law360 Selects Nine from King \u0026amp; Spalding to Serve on 2021 Editorial Advisory Boards Law 360, April 2021 Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Texas Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia State Bar of Georgia, Environmental Law Section Atlanta Bar Association, Environmental and Toxic Tort Section (past President) American Bar Association, Section on Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law Defense Research Institute (DRI) Law Clerk, Chief Judge Robert L. Echols, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee A midstream energy company in connection with investigations by Federal and State environmental agencies as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into an explosion and fire at a natural gas processing facility resulting in catastrophic loss. Oversaw root cause investigation, coordinated responses to agency inquiries, and provided advice and counsel in connection with successful insurance recovery. One of the world’s largest producers of methanol from natural gas as standby incident response counsel, including in connection with environmental investigations into spills and releases. An LNG facility in connection with government investigations by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) arising out of an explosion that resulted in operational shutdown and extensive damage to piping and other equipment and in connection with insurance coverage concerns. A Fortune 50 energy company in connection with the February 2023 Norfolk Southern freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. An international chemical manufacturer in response to an explosion at its largest U.S. manufacturing facility, including helping to lead the emergency incident response and internal investigation as well as responding to regulatory inquiries by, among others OSHA; State and Federal environmental agencies; the CSB; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The country’s largest specialty paper company following the catastrophic explosion of two continuous pulp digesters. Helped lead the team handling the emergency response, including handling the root cause investigation, successfully resolving investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, CSB, and numerous state regulatory agencies, and securing a significant settlement of its insurance claim. A worldwide mining and petroleum company as standby incident response counsel. An engineering and construction company in connection with a trench collapse resulting in a fatality, including responding to OSHA’s resulting investigation and implementing a nationwide safety audit. A carbon capture company in connection with building collapse resulting in extensive damages to multiple rail cars. Led root cause investigation. A water and wastewater treatment provider in connection with a civil and criminal investigation into wastewater treatment plant compliance involving allegations of falsification of records. One of the largest specialty pulp and paper manufacturers in the United States in connection with investigations by EPA, OSHA, and various state and local agencies arising out of a catastrophic explosion. A chemical facility following release of trichlorosilane during line break that resulted in serious injuries to contractors. A chemical facility in connection with explosion caused by the failure of an expansion joint, resulting in numerous injuries and one fatality. A medical sterilization company in pending litigation involving air emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO) from its facility in Colorado. A world-leading manufacturer to defend the claims of 3,000 plaintiffs stemming from air emissions of lead, arsenic, and other substances from a polymetallic smelter in Peru. Successfully resolved regulatory enforcement actions against a Fortune 100 company involving EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (“RRP”) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). A large paper manufacturer following a catastrophic fire at its New Jersey production facility. Helped lead the core team that successfully resolved all State and Federal regulatory investigations and secured a significant settlement of its insurance claims. Rayonier Performance Fibers in securing renewal of the NPDES discharge permit for its Jesup pulp mill, the world's largest producer of cellulose specialty products. The permit had been reversed by the administrative law judge, who imposed a novel and unreasonable construction of the narrative water quality standard. That erroneous decision, which threatened the permitting program for all industrial and municipal dischargers in Georgia, was reversed on appeal, ultimately leading to affirmance of the renewed permit. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC, 816 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), cert. denied (Aug. 5, 2019). Rayonier Performance Fibers in a citizen suit alleging that the pulp mill was violating its NPDES discharge permit. District court granted summary judgment in favor of Rayonier on all counts. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier, Inc., No. CV 214-44, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42849 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2015). Sea Island Company in securing, and successfully defending to an Administrative Law Judge and then to Superior Court, the state Shore Protection Act permit for a controversial beach nourishment, dune construction, and groin project along three miles of beachfront property. In subsequent related litigation brought in federal court, obtained summary judgment upholding the contested permits. Altamaha Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. CV 418-251, 2020 WL 5837650 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2020). A large electric utility company in toxic tort litigation involving approximately 150 residents living near Plant Scherer, one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the country. Following oral argument on an early motion to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims. A carbon black manufacturer in mass joinder actions filed in West Virginia by hundreds of current and former neighbors, asserting nuisance, trespass, negligence and medical monitoring claims. Defense contractors in a putative personal injury and property damage class action seeking some $200 million for alleged exposure to lead, PCBs, and other chemicals associated with historic forge and foundry operations in Anniston, Alabama. Cases ultimately resolved in nuisance value settlements. The City of Atlanta and other local governments in the tri-state “water wars” litigation involving Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, including the successful defense of Florida’s claims that the operation of Georgia reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River have harmed endangered species. A chemical manufacturer against claims related to the contamination of a former fertilizer manufacturing facility. Following extensive fact and expert discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. A Fortune 50 energy company in the appeal of a $27 million jury verdict in a “dram shop” case asserting agency liability based upon the use of brand standards for independent service stations. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and rendered judgment in favor of the company. A chemical manufacturer in a mixture of class actions and individual lawsuits filed in state and federal courts concerning alleged mercury and PCB contamination from the company’s former chlor-alkali plant. More than a dozen manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of welding products in several Georgia cases brought on behalf of approximately 500 plaintiffs who alleged personal injury due to inhalation of manganese particles produced by the welding process.","searchable_name":"Randall J. Butterfield (Randy)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":436398,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3099,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRuth Byrne KC specialises in international commercial and investment disputes, with a particular focus on energy, life sciences, fraud and enforcement.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRuth has advised clients on disputes arising in multiple jurisdictions and has appeared as counsel in 100+ arbitrations as well sitting regularly as arbitrator.\u0026nbsp; She also appears frequently in the English High Court, in particular in proceedings in support of arbitration, as well as more generally in international commercial litigation.\u0026nbsp; Recognised in several legal directories over the years, Ruth is described as \u0026ldquo;superb\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;an exceptional litigator\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;an excellent advocate wise beyond her years\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;a persistent, credible case builder\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp; Clients note her \u0026ldquo;ability to marshal enormous doses of information, retain key facts, be diligent and patient, and follow through as if it were her personal matter \u0026ndash; her analysis is always based on facts, the law and the cultural sensibilities of the jurisdictions involved\u0026rdquo; and that she is \u0026ldquo;very strategic in her thinking and able to pare down arguments to what's important\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRuth writes and speaks regularly on a variety of international arbitration topics. \u0026nbsp;Ruth is a member of the ICC UK Selection Subcommittee, the Delos ROAP faculty and a former YIAG Co-Chair.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"ruth-byrne","email":"rbyrne@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy and Related Areas\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArbitration\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;European buyer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of substantial\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003egas pricing disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest suppliers of LNG.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emultinational oil, gas and petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eemergency ICC arbitration proceedings\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to restrain a counter-party from acquiring substantial gas assets alone and in breach of exclusive joint bidding arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejoint venture company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a significant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLNG\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;dispute arising from repeated failures to supply by a seller and involving allegations of misrepresentation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean asset management firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with the buyers of its of oil and gas assets in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCentral America\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;regarding contingent consideration payable for those assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea trading company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two multi billion dollar arbitrations regarding failures in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLNG\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;supply during the COVID 19 pandemic.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an arbitration in Nigeria on a nine-figure dispute regarding\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eallocation of hydrocarbon product\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eat a handling facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean oil and gas trader\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims as to the alleged existence of a contract to supply\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLNG\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involving questions of authority and custom and practice in the LNG sector.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major gas supplier\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon the applicability of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforce majeure\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;provisions under its long term LNG sales agreements and potential gas pricing disputes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor Asian energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration regarding the break-down of its relationship with a minority partner under a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejoint operating agreement\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eindependent oil company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with its\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLNG off-taker\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eregarding quantities to be delivered under their agreed annual delivery program and a long-term sale and purchase agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNorth American oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its rights of first refusal upon the sale of rights in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoilfield concessions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eenergy sector contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in LCIA proceedings regarding allegations of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003econtractual mistake\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the context of indemnity obligations of a major equipment supplier.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multi-billion dollar proceedings regarding failure by a co-venturer to pay its share of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eexploration and development costs\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;under a joint operating agreement and interference with recovery of those costs from government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etwo private equity funds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC proceedings against an African government regarding\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforce majeure\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;events that led to the failure of a substantial renewables project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading global provider of energy equipment\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims that milestone payments due against supply of power plant equipment were\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eunenforceable penalties\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas drilling contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings to recover unpaid contract sums from its former\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003elocal partner in Nigeria\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor Asian energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with an international commodities company regarding the impact of\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;sanctions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on obligations to deliver LNG.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to disputed payments for the sale of a significant asset in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLatin America\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading global provider of energy equipment\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings regarding its alleged warranty liability for with respect to equipment supplied to an Eastern European\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epower plant\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration regarding the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edefective design of a floating offshore unit\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003elocated offshore South America and on related\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003einsurance\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejunior oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration regarding claims of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emisrepresentation and duress\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by a former consultant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its contractual rights with regard to the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ereview of the contract price under a long-term LNG sales agreement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the Asian market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to the termination of a longstanding\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eshareholder relationship\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Eastern Europe and early resolution of potential LCIA arbitration proceedings in that regard.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading global provider of energy equipment\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an SCC arbitration under Russian law regarding liability for the supply of spare parts to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epower stations\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmployer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in urgent ICC proceedings to prevent its contractor\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;injuncting\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;it from drawing down on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eperformance guarantees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with a chemical plant construction project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejunior oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration regarding the existence and value of an alleged minority interest in two\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproduction sharing contracts\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of multi-million dollar disputes under the UNCITRAL Rules arising out of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efailed joint venture\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Kazakhstan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejunior oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration regarding liability for tax in connection with its sale of an\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;interest in an oil field\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Western Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute under a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejoint operating agreement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ewith respect to North Sea assets and its entitlement as operator to payment of certain costs from its co-venturers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNorthern European investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its rights under a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebilateral investment treaty\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with respect to treatment of its investment in an agro-energy project in sub-Saharan Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edrilling contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on a dispute with its South East Asian employer regarding\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etermination rights\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand payments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejunior oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an expedited LCIA arbitration regarding the applicability of\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;pre-emption rights under a joint operating agreement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eupon the sale of an interest in an oil asset.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003econstruction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in expedited LCIA proceedings regarding disputed entitlements to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edraw down on performance guarantees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with a project to construct oil processing facilities and civil unrest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules with regard to claims for breaches of a drilling contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean oil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multi-billion dollar contentious proceedings regarding oil and gas rights in East Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean oil major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with its\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edrilling contractor\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eregarding fees for stacking and/or termination.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003econstruction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration regarding a failed road-building project in West Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproperty developer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its investment treaty rights in relation to a failed project in West Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejunior international oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its rights in a dispute regarding allegedly unpaid cash calls under a joint operating agreement with an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil major\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor gas infrastructure company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on disputes regarding failure to pay sums due under construction and operation contracts on a project in Central Asia and related\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebank guarantee rights and obligations\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003egroup of Kuwaiti investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multi-million dollar dispute under the ICC Rules regarding a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efailed joint venture\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the oil and gas sector in Kazakhstan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEastern European engineering company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration regarding its lender\u0026rsquo;s disputed rights to execute on various\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eguarantee\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003earrangements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor shipping company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003earbitration proceedings seated in London for the return of a down-payment on a major acquisition that was frustrated by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esanctions\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003estate entity\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims brought before the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCommon Court of Justice and Arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by an international construction company regarding the delayed construction of a hotel in North Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommercial Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Commercial Court proceedings regarding the interpretation of the contract for the sale of substantial European assets and the consideration payable for those assets (\u003cem\u003eConocoPhillips v. Chrysaor E\u0026amp;P Limited\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003egroup of Saudi investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings in the Channel Islands with respect to a failed real estate project and involving alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejunior oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Commercial Court proceedings involving allegations of fraud and duress and subsequent Court of Appeal proceedings on related claims regarding contractual interpretation of termination rights (\u003cem\u003eMonde Petroleum SA v WesternZagros Limited\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[2016] EWHC 1472 (Comm) and [2018] EWCA Civ 25).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading global provider of energy equipment\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings regarding liability for a series of unplanned outages at a UK power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFraud, Enforcement, Challenges to Awards and Asset Tracing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnion Fenosa Gas\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successful proceedings for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003erecognition of its USD 2+ billion ICSID award\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against Egypt, involving issues of sovereign immunity and the correct approach to recognition of ICSID awards in England \u0026amp; Wales (\u003cem\u003eUnion Fenosa Gas v Arab Republic of Egypt\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[2020] EWHC 1723 (Comm))\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejudgment creditor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of hearings to recover a USD 2+ billion judgment debt resulting from a substantial international fraud and involving applications maintain/extend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efreezing injunction relief, including by the exercise of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChabra\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;jurisdiction\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethree defendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to claims for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emisselling\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of certain financial instruments/conspiracy and successfully challenging the jurisdiction of the English courts on their behalf (\u003cem\u003eTsareva v Ananyev\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;[2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm)).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising a well-known\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emultinational\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on proceedings in New York, London and Central Africa on disputes arising from alleged\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebribery and corruption\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with a major power project in sub-Saharan Africa.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etrading company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;freezing injunction\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and substantive proceedings in the Commercial Court regarding allegedly fraudulent transactions in West Africa.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor shipping company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in five UNCITRAL arbitrations and English Commercial Court proceedings to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003erecover the proceeds of a fraudulent scheme\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the defendant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esovereign wealth fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a billion-dollar claim in the English Commercial Court arising out of alleged breach of contract, duress and misrepresentation, in particular successfully overturning summary judgment at an appeal hearing before Burton J (Catalyst Managerial Services v Libya Africa Investment Portfolio, unreported).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe Claimant\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in claims brought in the English Commercial Court for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efraudulent misrepresentation\u003c/strong\u003e, in particular appearing at hearings securing a worldwide freezing injunction and to resist an application for security for costs (Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v Aidar Assaubayev \u0026amp; Ors, unreported).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefending an oil and gas company against the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eattempted appeal under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of an arbitral award concerning a failed joint venture in Kazakhstan.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAppearing in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Court on jurisdictional issues\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand to secure evidence with respect to a London-seated international arbitration (\u003cem\u003eSilver Dry Bulk Company Limited v Homer Hulbert Maritime Company Limited\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[2017] EWHC 44 (Comm)).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAppearing in the Commercial Court on a challenge to an award under\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSection 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand on an application for security in related court proceedings (\u003cem\u003eMonde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;[2015] EWHC 67 (Comm)).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on a challenge to an arbitral award brought in the English Commercial Court under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and related security applications (PT Transportasi Gas Indonesia v ConocoPhillips (Grissik) Ltd [2016] EWHC 2834 (Comm)).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in English court proceedings to enforce a USD 1 billion + award against a Latin American State.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAppearing in the Commercial Court to secure an order for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003erecognition of an ICC award\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;for damages arising from a failed joint venture in Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor shipping company\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eresisting the attempted appeal of an arbitral award under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 before the Commercial Court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMoldovan investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings to enforce a USD half billion dollar award in the Commercial Court and related applications for security (\u003cem\u003eStati v Kazakhstan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;[2015] EWHC 2542 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm)).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefending an oil and gas company against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eworldwide freezing order\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eapplications in the Commercial Court during the pendency of a related arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAfrican investment fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on strategy to recover substantial sums owed by a loan debtor in Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eIndian car manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to resist proceedings brought in the English Commercial Court by its former U.S. distributor to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003echallenge and appeal\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;a final UNCITRAL arbitration award in its favour under Sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, including successful applications for security for costs and in the amount of the award.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the claimant,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003einternational construction company\u003c/strong\u003e, in multi-jurisdictional proceedings to enforce an ICC arbitration award against an African State, including appearing to secure third party debt orders in the English Commercial Court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean oil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings to enforce an arbitral award under the SIAC Rules before the English Court and to obtain\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eurgent worldwide freezing order relief\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in support of that enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaward creditor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings to execute the award against assets of a South East Asian State and related freezing injunction proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003egroup of investors from the Middle East\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings in the English and Cayman Islands Courts involving claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLife Sciences/Product Liability/IP and Related Areas\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArbitration\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian life sciences company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;arbitration regarding alleged breaches of contractual prohibitions on distribution of its pharmaceuticals in certain territories and related allegations of duress and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edrilling contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in LCIA proceedings regarding the apportionment of liability for alleged patent infringement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor engineering company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on several disputes regarding allegedly patented technology in the ship-building sector and alleged liability for defects in that technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian life sciences company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration regarding exclusive development and distribution rights with respect to pharmaceutical products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epharmaceuticals company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute regarding the break-down of its relationship for the joint development of cancer treatments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eIndian manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings seated in New Delhi regarding liability for allegedly defective electronic components and related proceedings with insurers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ewell-known multinational\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in LCIA proceedings regarding the alleged breach of a distributorship agreement for medical products in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esports federation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to claims against a competitor for anti-competitive behaviour and interference with contractual rights.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emanufacturing and retail business\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of LCIA arbitration proceedings seated in London and related litigation in Italy arising from an M\u0026amp;A transaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLatin American company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in LCIA proceedings arising out of the alleged breach of an agreement for the distributorship of books and other publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSaudi company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multi-million dollar ICC arbitration claim for breach of a publishing licence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLitigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003einternational manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of claims regarding alleged defects in its household products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in English court proceedings regarding alleged breach of supply contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003einternational pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multi-jurisdictional proceedings regarding alleged patent infringement (\u003cem\u003eOtsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v GW Pharma Ltd \u0026amp; Anor\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[2022] EWCA Civ 1462).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device multinational\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of proceedings regarding alleged product liability with respect to its surgical devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefending a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esmall business\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against multiple claims of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebreach of copyright\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with web-based imagery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMiddle Eastern technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in English court proceedings to restrain its counterparty from drawing down on a bank guarantee.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArbitral Appointments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChair\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on an arbitration regarding the alleged under-delivery of contractual quantities of gas and wrongful retention of advance payments against delivery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eActing as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSole Arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on a licensing dispute regarding fees allegedly due with respect to the use of TV trademark.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSole Arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on a dispute regarding the remedies applicable upon a buyer\u0026rsquo;s failure to pay for and take delivery of a commodity during volatile market conditions arising during the pandemic.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChair\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof an arbitral tribunal on an LCIA arbitration regarding the break-down of contractual arrangements for the sale of goods to an Indian buyer.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChair\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon an arbitration regarding the breakdown of a tv channel joint venture in Eastern Europe.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChair\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on an LCIA arbitration seated in London between North American and Sub-Saharan African entities regarding wire transfer services.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eco-arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on two LCIA disputes seated in London regarding the alleged breach of settlement terms and involving challenges to the Tribunal\u0026rsquo;s jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esole arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on an LCIA arbitration seated in London in a dispute between a law firm and its former client regarding unpaid fees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChair\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on an ICC arbitration regarding a failed television joint venture in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eco-arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on an ICC arbitration seated in Geneva regarding the failure of a real estate venture in London involving allegations of fraud and jurisdictional challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esole arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on an ICC arbitration seated in London regarding the sale and purchase of commodities and alleged force majeure in connection with civil unrest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esole arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration seated in London under Illinois law in a dispute regarding alleged breach of exclusivity under a manufacturing contract involving applications for emergency relief.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esole arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration seated in London under English law concerning the quality of metals delivered under an international supply contract.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":163}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":38,"guid":"38.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Byrne","nick_name":"Ruth","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Ruth","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"M.D.","name_suffix":"K.C.","recognitions":[{"title":"\"highly experienced arbitration practitioner known for her prowess in the energy sector\" ","detail":"Chambers Global, 2023"},{"title":"\"highly adept at handling complex commercial and investment disputes in the energy space\" ","detail":"Chambers UK 2023"},{"title":"\"grasps the important stuff, and has a great collaborative work style – infinitely patient\" ","detail":"Legal 500 UK, 2023"},{"title":"\"Ruth Byrne is someone clients want to have in control of a case\" ","detail":"Legal 500 UK, 2023"},{"title":"\"popular among energy and life sciences sector clients\" ","detail":"Legal 500 UK, 2022"},{"title":"\"very easy to work with, very attentive ...incredibly practical in terms of how to achieve your goal\" ","detail":"Chambers UK, 2022; Chambers Global, 2022"},{"title":"\"a quick-thinking and effective oral advocate\" ","detail":"Chambers UK, 2022; Chambers Global, 2022"},{"title":"\"her analysis is always based on facts, the law and the cultural sensibilities of the jurisdictions involved\" ","detail":"Legal 500 UK, Civil Fraud, 2021"},{"title":"\"has the ability to marshal enormous doses of information...and follow through as if it were her personal matter..\"","detail":"Legal 500 UK, Civil Fraud, 2021"},{"title":"\"Ruth Byrne is an exceptional litigator and extremely calm in complex situations.\" ","detail":"Legal 500 UK, Commercial Litigation, 2021"},{"title":"\"She's an impressive clear thinker...She's very smart and experienced. She's excellent at what she does.\" ","detail":"Chambers UK, 2021; Chambers Global, 2021"},{"title":"\"The \"superb\" Ruth Byrne .. described as \"very strategic in her thinking..\" ","detail":"Chambers UK, 2020; Chambers Global, 2020"},{"title":"Clients appreciate her \"ability to cut through the nonsense and home in on the real issues.\" ","detail":"Chambers UK, 2019"},{"title":"\"An excellent advocate ... She will be a dominant character in the arbitration world for years to come\"","detail":"Who's Who Legal, Future Leaders - Arbitration 2017"},{"title":"\"Extremely bright, personable and diligent”","detail":"Chambers UK, 2016"},{"title":"\"Especially known for her expertise in energy-related disputes, and in court hearings regarding arbitration matters.\"","detail":"Chambers UK, 2016"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRuth Byrne KC specialises in international commercial and investment disputes, with a particular focus on energy, life sciences, fraud and enforcement.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRuth has advised clients on disputes arising in multiple jurisdictions and has appeared as counsel in 100+ arbitrations as well sitting regularly as arbitrator.\u0026nbsp; She also appears frequently in the English High Court, in particular in proceedings in support of arbitration, as well as more generally in international commercial litigation.\u0026nbsp; Recognised in several legal directories over the years, Ruth is described as \u0026ldquo;superb\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;an exceptional litigator\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;an excellent advocate wise beyond her years\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;a persistent, credible case builder\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp; Clients note her \u0026ldquo;ability to marshal enormous doses of information, retain key facts, be diligent and patient, and follow through as if it were her personal matter \u0026ndash; her analysis is always based on facts, the law and the cultural sensibilities of the jurisdictions involved\u0026rdquo; and that she is \u0026ldquo;very strategic in her thinking and able to pare down arguments to what's important\u0026rdquo;.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRuth writes and speaks regularly on a variety of international arbitration topics. \u0026nbsp;Ruth is a member of the ICC UK Selection Subcommittee, the Delos ROAP faculty and a former YIAG Co-Chair.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEnergy and Related Areas\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArbitration\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;European buyer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of substantial\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003egas pricing disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest suppliers of LNG.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emultinational oil, gas and petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eemergency ICC arbitration proceedings\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to restrain a counter-party from acquiring substantial gas assets alone and in breach of exclusive joint bidding arrangements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejoint venture company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a significant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLNG\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;dispute arising from repeated failures to supply by a seller and involving allegations of misrepresentation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean asset management firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with the buyers of its of oil and gas assets in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCentral America\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;regarding contingent consideration payable for those assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea trading company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two multi billion dollar arbitrations regarding failures in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLNG\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;supply during the COVID 19 pandemic.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an arbitration in Nigeria on a nine-figure dispute regarding\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eallocation of hydrocarbon product\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eat a handling facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean oil and gas trader\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims as to the alleged existence of a contract to supply\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLNG\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involving questions of authority and custom and practice in the LNG sector.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major gas supplier\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon the applicability of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforce majeure\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;provisions under its long term LNG sales agreements and potential gas pricing disputes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor Asian energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration regarding the break-down of its relationship with a minority partner under a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejoint operating agreement\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eindependent oil company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with its\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLNG off-taker\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eregarding quantities to be delivered under their agreed annual delivery program and a long-term sale and purchase agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNorth American oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its rights of first refusal upon the sale of rights in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoilfield concessions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eenergy sector contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in LCIA proceedings regarding allegations of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003econtractual mistake\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the context of indemnity obligations of a major equipment supplier.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multi-billion dollar proceedings regarding failure by a co-venturer to pay its share of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eexploration and development costs\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;under a joint operating agreement and interference with recovery of those costs from government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etwo private equity funds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC proceedings against an African government regarding\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforce majeure\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;events that led to the failure of a substantial renewables project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading global provider of energy equipment\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims that milestone payments due against supply of power plant equipment were\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eunenforceable penalties\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas drilling contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings to recover unpaid contract sums from its former\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003elocal partner in Nigeria\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor Asian energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with an international commodities company regarding the impact of\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;sanctions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on obligations to deliver LNG.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to disputed payments for the sale of a significant asset in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLatin America\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading global provider of energy equipment\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings regarding its alleged warranty liability for with respect to equipment supplied to an Eastern European\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epower plant\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration regarding the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edefective design of a floating offshore unit\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003elocated offshore South America and on related\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003einsurance\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejunior oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration regarding claims of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emisrepresentation and duress\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by a former consultant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its contractual rights with regard to the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ereview of the contract price under a long-term LNG sales agreement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein the Asian market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to the termination of a longstanding\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eshareholder relationship\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Eastern Europe and early resolution of potential LCIA arbitration proceedings in that regard.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading global provider of energy equipment\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an SCC arbitration under Russian law regarding liability for the supply of spare parts to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epower stations\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmployer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in urgent ICC proceedings to prevent its contractor\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;injuncting\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;it from drawing down on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eperformance guarantees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with a chemical plant construction project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejunior oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration regarding the existence and value of an alleged minority interest in two\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproduction sharing contracts\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of multi-million dollar disputes under the UNCITRAL Rules arising out of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efailed joint venture\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Kazakhstan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejunior oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration regarding liability for tax in connection with its sale of an\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;interest in an oil field\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Western Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute under a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejoint operating agreement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ewith respect to North Sea assets and its entitlement as operator to payment of certain costs from its co-venturers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNorthern European investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its rights under a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebilateral investment treaty\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with respect to treatment of its investment in an agro-energy project in sub-Saharan Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edrilling contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on a dispute with its South East Asian employer regarding\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etermination rights\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand payments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejunior oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an expedited LCIA arbitration regarding the applicability of\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;pre-emption rights under a joint operating agreement\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eupon the sale of an interest in an oil asset.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003econstruction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in expedited LCIA proceedings regarding disputed entitlements to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edraw down on performance guarantees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with a project to construct oil processing facilities and civil unrest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules with regard to claims for breaches of a drilling contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean oil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multi-billion dollar contentious proceedings regarding oil and gas rights in East Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean oil major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with its\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edrilling contractor\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eregarding fees for stacking and/or termination.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003econstruction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration regarding a failed road-building project in West Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproperty developer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its investment treaty rights in relation to a failed project in West Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejunior international oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on its rights in a dispute regarding allegedly unpaid cash calls under a joint operating agreement with an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil major\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor gas infrastructure company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on disputes regarding failure to pay sums due under construction and operation contracts on a project in Central Asia and related\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebank guarantee rights and obligations\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003egroup of Kuwaiti investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multi-million dollar dispute under the ICC Rules regarding a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efailed joint venture\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the oil and gas sector in Kazakhstan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEastern European engineering company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration regarding its lender\u0026rsquo;s disputed rights to execute on various\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eguarantee\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003earrangements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor shipping company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003earbitration proceedings seated in London for the return of a down-payment on a major acquisition that was frustrated by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esanctions\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003estate entity\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims brought before the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCommon Court of Justice and Arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;by an international construction company regarding the delayed construction of a hotel in North Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommercial Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Commercial Court proceedings regarding the interpretation of the contract for the sale of substantial European assets and the consideration payable for those assets (\u003cem\u003eConocoPhillips v. Chrysaor E\u0026amp;P Limited\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003egroup of Saudi investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings in the Channel Islands with respect to a failed real estate project and involving alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejunior oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Commercial Court proceedings involving allegations of fraud and duress and subsequent Court of Appeal proceedings on related claims regarding contractual interpretation of termination rights (\u003cem\u003eMonde Petroleum SA v WesternZagros Limited\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[2016] EWHC 1472 (Comm) and [2018] EWCA Civ 25).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eleading global provider of energy equipment\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings regarding liability for a series of unplanned outages at a UK power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eFraud, Enforcement, Challenges to Awards and Asset Tracing\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnion Fenosa Gas\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successful proceedings for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003erecognition of its USD 2+ billion ICSID award\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against Egypt, involving issues of sovereign immunity and the correct approach to recognition of ICSID awards in England \u0026amp; Wales (\u003cem\u003eUnion Fenosa Gas v Arab Republic of Egypt\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[2020] EWHC 1723 (Comm))\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejudgment creditor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of hearings to recover a USD 2+ billion judgment debt resulting from a substantial international fraud and involving applications maintain/extend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efreezing injunction relief, including by the exercise of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChabra\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;jurisdiction\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethree defendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to claims for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emisselling\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of certain financial instruments/conspiracy and successfully challenging the jurisdiction of the English courts on their behalf (\u003cem\u003eTsareva v Ananyev\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;[2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm)).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising a well-known\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emultinational\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on proceedings in New York, London and Central Africa on disputes arising from alleged\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebribery and corruption\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with a major power project in sub-Saharan Africa.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etrading company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;freezing injunction\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and substantive proceedings in the Commercial Court regarding allegedly fraudulent transactions in West Africa.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor shipping company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in five UNCITRAL arbitrations and English Commercial Court proceedings to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003erecover the proceeds of a fraudulent scheme\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the defendant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esovereign wealth fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a billion-dollar claim in the English Commercial Court arising out of alleged breach of contract, duress and misrepresentation, in particular successfully overturning summary judgment at an appeal hearing before Burton J (Catalyst Managerial Services v Libya Africa Investment Portfolio, unreported).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe Claimant\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in claims brought in the English Commercial Court for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efraudulent misrepresentation\u003c/strong\u003e, in particular appearing at hearings securing a worldwide freezing injunction and to resist an application for security for costs (Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v Aidar Assaubayev \u0026amp; Ors, unreported).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefending an oil and gas company against the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eattempted appeal under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of an arbitral award concerning a failed joint venture in Kazakhstan.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAppearing in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Court on jurisdictional issues\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand to secure evidence with respect to a London-seated international arbitration (\u003cem\u003eSilver Dry Bulk Company Limited v Homer Hulbert Maritime Company Limited\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[2017] EWHC 44 (Comm)).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAppearing in the Commercial Court on a challenge to an award under\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSection 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand on an application for security in related court proceedings (\u003cem\u003eMonde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;[2015] EWHC 67 (Comm)).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on a challenge to an arbitral award brought in the English Commercial Court under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and related security applications (PT Transportasi Gas Indonesia v ConocoPhillips (Grissik) Ltd [2016] EWHC 2834 (Comm)).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in English court proceedings to enforce a USD 1 billion + award against a Latin American State.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAppearing in the Commercial Court to secure an order for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003erecognition of an ICC award\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;for damages arising from a failed joint venture in Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor shipping company\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eresisting the attempted appeal of an arbitral award under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 before the Commercial Court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMoldovan investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings to enforce a USD half billion dollar award in the Commercial Court and related applications for security (\u003cem\u003eStati v Kazakhstan\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;[2015] EWHC 2542 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm)).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefending an oil and gas company against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eworldwide freezing order\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eapplications in the Commercial Court during the pendency of a related arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAfrican investment fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on strategy to recover substantial sums owed by a loan debtor in Nigeria.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eIndian car manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;to resist proceedings brought in the English Commercial Court by its former U.S. distributor to\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003echallenge and appeal\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;a final UNCITRAL arbitration award in its favour under Sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, including successful applications for security for costs and in the amount of the award.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the claimant,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003einternational construction company\u003c/strong\u003e, in multi-jurisdictional proceedings to enforce an ICC arbitration award against an African State, including appearing to secure third party debt orders in the English Commercial Court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean oil and gas major\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings to enforce an arbitral award under the SIAC Rules before the English Court and to obtain\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eurgent worldwide freezing order relief\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in support of that enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaward creditor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings to execute the award against assets of a South East Asian State and related freezing injunction proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003egroup of investors from the Middle East\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings in the English and Cayman Islands Courts involving claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLife Sciences/Product Liability/IP and Related Areas\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArbitration\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian life sciences company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ead hoc\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;arbitration regarding alleged breaches of contractual prohibitions on distribution of its pharmaceuticals in certain territories and related allegations of duress and fraud.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edrilling contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in LCIA proceedings regarding the apportionment of liability for alleged patent infringement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor engineering company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on several disputes regarding allegedly patented technology in the ship-building sector and alleged liability for defects in that technology.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAsian life sciences company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration regarding exclusive development and distribution rights with respect to pharmaceutical products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epharmaceuticals company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute regarding the break-down of its relationship for the joint development of cancer treatments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eIndian manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings seated in New Delhi regarding liability for allegedly defective electronic components and related proceedings with insurers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ewell-known multinational\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in LCIA proceedings regarding the alleged breach of a distributorship agreement for medical products in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvising a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esports federation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in relation to claims against a competitor for anti-competitive behaviour and interference with contractual rights.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emanufacturing and retail business\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of LCIA arbitration proceedings seated in London and related litigation in Italy arising from an M\u0026amp;A transaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLatin American company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in LCIA proceedings arising out of the alleged breach of an agreement for the distributorship of books and other publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSaudi company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multi-million dollar ICC arbitration claim for breach of a publishing licence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLitigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003einternational manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of claims regarding alleged defects in its household products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in English court proceedings regarding alleged breach of supply contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003einternational pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multi-jurisdictional proceedings regarding alleged patent infringement (\u003cem\u003eOtsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v GW Pharma Ltd \u0026amp; Anor\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e[2022] EWCA Civ 1462).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device multinational\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of proceedings regarding alleged product liability with respect to its surgical devices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefending a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esmall business\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against multiple claims of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebreach of copyright\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with web-based imagery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMiddle Eastern technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in English court proceedings to restrain its counterparty from drawing down on a bank guarantee.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eArbitral Appointments\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChair\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on an arbitration regarding the alleged under-delivery of contractual quantities of gas and wrongful retention of advance payments against delivery.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eActing as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSole Arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on a licensing dispute regarding fees allegedly due with respect to the use of TV trademark.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSole Arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on a dispute regarding the remedies applicable upon a buyer\u0026rsquo;s failure to pay for and take delivery of a commodity during volatile market conditions arising during the pandemic.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChair\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof an arbitral tribunal on an LCIA arbitration regarding the break-down of contractual arrangements for the sale of goods to an Indian buyer.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChair\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eon an arbitration regarding the breakdown of a tv channel joint venture in Eastern Europe.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChair\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on an LCIA arbitration seated in London between North American and Sub-Saharan African entities regarding wire transfer services.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eco-arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on two LCIA disputes seated in London regarding the alleged breach of settlement terms and involving challenges to the Tribunal\u0026rsquo;s jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esole arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on an LCIA arbitration seated in London in a dispute between a law firm and its former client regarding unpaid fees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChair\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on an ICC arbitration regarding a failed television joint venture in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eco-arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on an ICC arbitration seated in Geneva regarding the failure of a real estate venture in London involving allegations of fraud and jurisdictional challenges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esole arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on an ICC arbitration seated in London regarding the sale and purchase of commodities and alleged force majeure in connection with civil unrest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esole arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration seated in London under Illinois law in a dispute regarding alleged breach of exclusivity under a manufacturing contract involving applications for emergency relief.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSitting as\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esole arbitrator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration seated in London under English law concerning the quality of metals delivered under an international supply contract.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"highly experienced arbitration practitioner known for her prowess in the energy sector\" ","detail":"Chambers Global, 2023"},{"title":"\"highly adept at handling complex commercial and investment disputes in the energy space\" ","detail":"Chambers UK 2023"},{"title":"\"grasps the important stuff, and has a great collaborative work style – infinitely patient\" ","detail":"Legal 500 UK, 2023"},{"title":"\"Ruth Byrne is someone clients want to have in control of a case\" ","detail":"Legal 500 UK, 2023"},{"title":"\"popular among energy and life sciences sector clients\" ","detail":"Legal 500 UK, 2022"},{"title":"\"very easy to work with, very attentive ...incredibly practical in terms of how to achieve your goal\" ","detail":"Chambers UK, 2022; Chambers Global, 2022"},{"title":"\"a quick-thinking and effective oral advocate\" ","detail":"Chambers UK, 2022; Chambers Global, 2022"},{"title":"\"her analysis is always based on facts, the law and the cultural sensibilities of the jurisdictions involved\" ","detail":"Legal 500 UK, Civil Fraud, 2021"},{"title":"\"has the ability to marshal enormous doses of information...and follow through as if it were her personal matter..\"","detail":"Legal 500 UK, Civil Fraud, 2021"},{"title":"\"Ruth Byrne is an exceptional litigator and extremely calm in complex situations.\" ","detail":"Legal 500 UK, Commercial Litigation, 2021"},{"title":"\"She's an impressive clear thinker...She's very smart and experienced. She's excellent at what she does.\" ","detail":"Chambers UK, 2021; Chambers Global, 2021"},{"title":"\"The \"superb\" Ruth Byrne .. described as \"very strategic in her thinking..\" ","detail":"Chambers UK, 2020; Chambers Global, 2020"},{"title":"Clients appreciate her \"ability to cut through the nonsense and home in on the real issues.\" ","detail":"Chambers UK, 2019"},{"title":"\"An excellent advocate ... She will be a dominant character in the arbitration world for years to come\"","detail":"Who's Who Legal, Future Leaders - Arbitration 2017"},{"title":"\"Extremely bright, personable and diligent”","detail":"Chambers UK, 2016"},{"title":"\"Especially known for her expertise in energy-related disputes, and in court hearings regarding arbitration matters.\"","detail":"Chambers UK, 2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4574}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:52:04.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:52:04.000Z","searchable_text":"Byrne{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"highly experienced arbitration practitioner known for her prowess in the energy sector\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"highly adept at handling complex commercial and investment disputes in the energy space\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"grasps the important stuff, and has a great collaborative work style – infinitely patient\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 UK, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Ruth Byrne is someone clients want to have in control of a case\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 UK, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"popular among energy and life sciences sector clients\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 UK, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"very easy to work with, very attentive ...incredibly practical in terms of how to achieve your goal\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK, 2022; Chambers Global, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"a quick-thinking and effective oral advocate\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK, 2022; Chambers Global, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"her analysis is always based on facts, the law and the cultural sensibilities of the jurisdictions involved\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 UK, Civil Fraud, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"has the ability to marshal enormous doses of information...and follow through as if it were her personal matter..\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 UK, Civil Fraud, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Ruth Byrne is an exceptional litigator and extremely calm in complex situations.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 UK, Commercial Litigation, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"She's an impressive clear thinker...She's very smart and experienced. She's excellent at what she does.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK, 2021; Chambers Global, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"The \\\"superb\\\" Ruth Byrne .. described as \\\"very strategic in her thinking..\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK, 2020; Chambers Global, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Clients appreciate her \\\"ability to cut through the nonsense and home in on the real issues.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"An excellent advocate ... She will be a dominant character in the arbitration world for years to come\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal, Future Leaders - Arbitration 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Extremely bright, personable and diligent”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Especially known for her expertise in energy-related disputes, and in court hearings regarding arbitration matters.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}Energy and Related Areas\nArbitration\nRepresenting a European buyer in a series of substantial gas pricing disputes with one of the world’s largest suppliers of LNG.{{ FIELD }}Acting for a multinational oil, gas and petrochemical company in emergency ICC arbitration proceedings to restrain a counter-party from acquiring substantial gas assets alone and in breach of exclusive joint bidding arrangements.{{ FIELD }}Representing a joint venture company in a significant LNG dispute arising from repeated failures to supply by a seller and involving allegations of misrepresentation.{{ FIELD }}Representing an asset management firm in a dispute with the buyers of its of oil and gas assets in Central America regarding contingent consideration payable for those assets.{{ FIELD }}Representing a trading company in two multi billion dollar arbitrations regarding failures in LNG supply during the COVID 19 pandemic.{{ FIELD }}Representing an oil and gas major in an arbitration in Nigeria on a nine-figure dispute regarding allocation of hydrocarbon product at a handling facility.{{ FIELD }}Defending an oil and gas trader against claims as to the alleged existence of a contract to supply LNG involving questions of authority and custom and practice in the LNG sector.{{ FIELD }}Advising a major gas supplier on the applicability of force majeure provisions under its long term LNG sales agreements and potential gas pricing disputes.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major Asian energy company in an LCIA arbitration regarding the break-down of its relationship with a minority partner under a joint operating agreement.{{ FIELD }}Representing an independent oil company in a dispute with its LNG off-taker regarding quantities to be delivered under their agreed annual delivery program and a long-term sale and purchase agreement.{{ FIELD }}Advising a North American oil and gas company on its rights of first refusal upon the sale of rights in oilfield concessions in the Middle East.{{ FIELD }}Representing an energy sector contractor in LCIA proceedings regarding allegations of contractual mistake in the context of indemnity obligations of a major equipment supplier.{{ FIELD }}Representing an oil and gas company in multi-billion dollar proceedings regarding failure by a co-venturer to pay its share of exploration and development costs under a joint operating agreement and interference with recovery of those costs from government.{{ FIELD }}Representing two private equity funds in ICC proceedings against an African government regarding force majeure events that led to the failure of a substantial renewables project.{{ FIELD }}Defending a leading global provider of energy equipment against claims that milestone payments due against supply of power plant equipment were unenforceable penalties.{{ FIELD }}Representing an oil and gas drilling contractor in proceedings to recover unpaid contract sums from its former local partner in Nigeria.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major Asian energy company in a dispute with an international commodities company regarding the impact of sanctions on obligations to deliver LNG.{{ FIELD }}Advising an oil and gas major in relation to disputed payments for the sale of a significant asset in Latin America.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading global provider of energy equipment in proceedings regarding its alleged warranty liability for with respect to equipment supplied to an Eastern European power plant.{{ FIELD }}Representing an oil and gas major in an ICC arbitration regarding the defective design of a floating offshore unit located offshore South America and on related insurance claims.{{ FIELD }}Representing a junior oil and gas company in an ICC arbitration regarding claims of misrepresentation and duress by a former consultant.{{ FIELD }}Advising an oil and gas major on its contractual rights with regard to the review of the contract price under a long-term LNG sales agreement in the Asian market.{{ FIELD }}Advising an oil and gas major in relation to the termination of a longstanding shareholder relationship in Eastern Europe and early resolution of potential LCIA arbitration proceedings in that regard.{{ FIELD }}Representing a leading global provider of energy equipment in an SCC arbitration under Russian law regarding liability for the supply of spare parts to power stations.{{ FIELD }}Representing an Employer in urgent ICC proceedings to prevent its contractor injuncting it from drawing down on performance guarantees in connection with a chemical plant construction project.{{ FIELD }}Representing a junior oil and gas company in an ICC arbitration regarding the existence and value of an alleged minority interest in two production sharing contracts in the Middle East.{{ FIELD }}Representing an oil and gas company in a series of multi-million dollar disputes under the UNCITRAL Rules arising out of a failed joint venture in Kazakhstan.{{ FIELD }}Representing a junior oil and gas company in an LCIA arbitration regarding liability for tax in connection with its sale of an interest in an oil field in Western Africa.{{ FIELD }}Representing an oil and gas major in a dispute under a joint operating agreement with respect to North Sea assets and its entitlement as operator to payment of certain costs from its co-venturers.{{ FIELD }}Advising a Northern European investor on its rights under a bilateral investment treaty with respect to treatment of its investment in an agro-energy project in sub-Saharan Africa.{{ FIELD }}Advising a drilling contractor on a dispute with its South East Asian employer regarding termination rights and payments.{{ FIELD }}Representing a junior oil and gas company in an expedited LCIA arbitration regarding the applicability of pre-emption rights under a joint operating agreement upon the sale of an interest in an oil asset.{{ FIELD }}Representing a construction company in expedited LCIA proceedings regarding disputed entitlements to draw down on performance guarantees in connection with a project to construct oil processing facilities and civil unrest.{{ FIELD }}Representing an oil and gas company in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules with regard to claims for breaches of a drilling contract.{{ FIELD }}Representing an oil and gas major in multi-billion dollar contentious proceedings regarding oil and gas rights in East Africa.{{ FIELD }}Representing an oil major in a dispute with its drilling contractor regarding fees for stacking and/or termination.{{ FIELD }}Representing a construction company in an LCIA arbitration regarding a failed road-building project in West Africa.{{ FIELD }}Advising a property developer on its investment treaty rights in relation to a failed project in West Africa.{{ FIELD }}Advising a junior international oil and gas company on its rights in a dispute regarding allegedly unpaid cash calls under a joint operating agreement with an oil major.{{ FIELD }}Advising a major gas infrastructure company on disputes regarding failure to pay sums due under construction and operation contracts on a project in Central Asia and related bank guarantee rights and obligations.{{ FIELD }}Representing a group of Kuwaiti investors in a multi-million dollar dispute under the ICC Rules regarding a failed joint venture in the oil and gas sector in Kazakhstan.{{ FIELD }}Representing an Eastern European engineering company in an LCIA arbitration regarding its lender’s disputed rights to execute on various guarantee arrangements.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major shipping company in ad hoc arbitration proceedings seated in London for the return of a down-payment on a major acquisition that was frustrated by sanctions.{{ FIELD }}Defending a state entity against claims brought before the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration by an international construction company regarding the delayed construction of a hotel in North Africa.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation\nRepresenting an oil and gas major in Commercial Court proceedings regarding the interpretation of the contract for the sale of substantial European assets and the consideration payable for those assets (ConocoPhillips v. Chrysaor E\u0026amp;P Limited).\nRepresenting a group of Saudi investors in proceedings in the Channel Islands with respect to a failed real estate project and involving alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.\nSuccessfully defending a junior oil and gas company in Commercial Court proceedings involving allegations of fraud and duress and subsequent Court of Appeal proceedings on related claims regarding contractual interpretation of termination rights (Monde Petroleum SA v WesternZagros Limited [2016] EWHC 1472 (Comm) and [2018] EWCA Civ 25).\nRepresenting a leading global provider of energy equipment in proceedings regarding liability for a series of unplanned outages at a UK power plant.{{ FIELD }}Fraud, Enforcement, Challenges to Awards and Asset Tracing\nRepresenting Union Fenosa Gas in successful proceedings for the recognition of its USD 2+ billion ICSID award against Egypt, involving issues of sovereign immunity and the correct approach to recognition of ICSID awards in England \u0026amp; Wales (Union Fenosa Gas v Arab Republic of Egypt [2020] EWHC 1723 (Comm)).\nRepresenting a judgment creditor in a series of hearings to recover a USD 2+ billion judgment debt resulting from a substantial international fraud and involving applications maintain/extend freezing injunction relief, including by the exercise of Chabra jurisdiction.\nRepresenting three defendants to claims for the misselling of certain financial instruments/conspiracy and successfully challenging the jurisdiction of the English courts on their behalf (Tsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm)).\nAdvising a well-known multinational on proceedings in New York, London and Central Africa on disputes arising from alleged bribery and corruption in connection with a major power project in sub-Saharan Africa.\nRepresenting a trading company in freezing injunction and substantive proceedings in the Commercial Court regarding allegedly fraudulent transactions in West Africa.\nRepresenting a major shipping company in five UNCITRAL arbitrations and English Commercial Court proceedings to recover the proceeds of a fraudulent scheme.\nRepresenting the defendant sovereign wealth fund in a billion-dollar claim in the English Commercial Court arising out of alleged breach of contract, duress and misrepresentation, in particular successfully overturning summary judgment at an appeal hearing before Burton J (Catalyst Managerial Services v Libya Africa Investment Portfolio, unreported).\nRepresenting the Claimant in claims brought in the English Commercial Court for fraudulent misrepresentation, in particular appearing at hearings securing a worldwide freezing injunction and to resist an application for security for costs (Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v Aidar Assaubayev \u0026amp; Ors, unreported).\nDefending an oil and gas company against the attempted appeal under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 of an arbitral award concerning a failed joint venture in Kazakhstan.\nAppearing in the Commercial Court on jurisdictional issues and to secure evidence with respect to a London-seated international arbitration (Silver Dry Bulk Company Limited v Homer Hulbert Maritime Company Limited [2017] EWHC 44 (Comm)).\nAppearing in the Commercial Court on a challenge to an award under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and on an application for security in related court proceedings (Monde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros Ltd. [2015] EWHC 67 (Comm)).\nRepresenting a major oil and gas company on a challenge to an arbitral award brought in the English Commercial Court under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and related security applications (PT Transportasi Gas Indonesia v ConocoPhillips (Grissik) Ltd [2016] EWHC 2834 (Comm)).\nRepresenting a mining company in English court proceedings to enforce a USD 1 billion + award against a Latin American State.\nAppearing in the Commercial Court to secure an order for the recognition of an ICC award for damages arising from a failed joint venture in Nigeria.\nRepresenting a major shipping company resisting the attempted appeal of an arbitral award under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 before the Commercial Court.\nRepresenting a Moldovan investor in proceedings to enforce a USD half billion dollar award in the Commercial Court and related applications for security (Stati v Kazakhstan [2015] EWHC 2542 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm)).\nDefending an oil and gas company against worldwide freezing order applications in the Commercial Court during the pendency of a related arbitration.\nAdvising an African investment fund on strategy to recover substantial sums owed by a loan debtor in Nigeria.\nRepresenting an Indian car manufacturer to resist proceedings brought in the English Commercial Court by its former U.S. distributor to challenge and appeal a final UNCITRAL arbitration award in its favour under Sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, including successful applications for security for costs and in the amount of the award.\nRepresenting the claimant, an international construction company, in multi-jurisdictional proceedings to enforce an ICC arbitration award against an African State, including appearing to secure third party debt orders in the English Commercial Court.\nRepresenting an oil and gas major in proceedings to enforce an arbitral award under the SIAC Rules before the English Court and to obtain urgent worldwide freezing order relief in support of that enforcement.\nRepresenting an award creditor in proceedings to execute the award against assets of a South East Asian State and related freezing injunction proceedings.\nRepresenting a group of investors from the Middle East in proceedings in the English and Cayman Islands Courts involving claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.{{ FIELD }}Life Sciences/Product Liability/IP and Related Areas\nArbitration\nRepresenting an Asian life sciences company in an ad hoc arbitration regarding alleged breaches of contractual prohibitions on distribution of its pharmaceuticals in certain territories and related allegations of duress and fraud.\nRepresenting a drilling contractor in LCIA proceedings regarding the apportionment of liability for alleged patent infringement.\nAdvising a major engineering company on several disputes regarding allegedly patented technology in the ship-building sector and alleged liability for defects in that technology.\nRepresenting an Asian life sciences company in an UNCITRAL arbitration regarding exclusive development and distribution rights with respect to pharmaceutical products.\nRepresenting a pharmaceuticals company in a dispute regarding the break-down of its relationship for the joint development of cancer treatments.\nRepresenting an Indian manufacturing company in ICC arbitration proceedings seated in New Delhi regarding liability for allegedly defective electronic components and related proceedings with insurers.\nRepresenting a well-known multinational in LCIA proceedings regarding the alleged breach of a distributorship agreement for medical products in the Middle East.\nAdvising a sports federation in relation to claims against a competitor for anti-competitive behaviour and interference with contractual rights.\nRepresenting a manufacturing and retail business in a series of LCIA arbitration proceedings seated in London and related litigation in Italy arising from an M\u0026amp;A transaction.\nRepresenting a Latin American company in LCIA proceedings arising out of the alleged breach of an agreement for the distributorship of books and other publications.\nRepresenting a Saudi company in a multi-million dollar ICC arbitration claim for breach of a publishing licence.\nLitigation\nRepresenting an international manufacturer in a series of claims regarding alleged defects in its household products.\nRepresenting a medical device manufacturer in English court proceedings regarding alleged breach of supply contracts.\nRepresenting an international pharmaceutical company in multi-jurisdictional proceedings regarding alleged patent infringement (Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v GW Pharma Ltd \u0026amp; Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 1462).\nRepresenting a medical device multinational in a series of proceedings regarding alleged product liability with respect to its surgical devices.\nDefending a small business against multiple claims of breach of copyright in connection with web-based imagery.\nRepresenting a Middle Eastern technology company in English court proceedings to restrain its counterparty from drawing down on a bank guarantee.{{ FIELD }}Arbitral Appointments\nSitting as Chair on an arbitration regarding the alleged under-delivery of contractual quantities of gas and wrongful retention of advance payments against delivery.\nActing as Sole Arbitrator on a licensing dispute regarding fees allegedly due with respect to the use of TV trademark.\nSitting as Sole Arbitrator on a dispute regarding the remedies applicable upon a buyer’s failure to pay for and take delivery of a commodity during volatile market conditions arising during the pandemic.\nSitting as Chair of an arbitral tribunal on an LCIA arbitration regarding the break-down of contractual arrangements for the sale of goods to an Indian buyer.\nSitting as Chair on an arbitration regarding the breakdown of a tv channel joint venture in Eastern Europe.\nSitting as Chair on an LCIA arbitration seated in London between North American and Sub-Saharan African entities regarding wire transfer services.\nSitting as co-arbitrator on two LCIA disputes seated in London regarding the alleged breach of settlement terms and involving challenges to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.\nSitting as sole arbitrator on an LCIA arbitration seated in London in a dispute between a law firm and its former client regarding unpaid fees.\nSitting as Chair on an ICC arbitration regarding a failed television joint venture in the Middle East.\nSitting as co-arbitrator on an ICC arbitration seated in Geneva regarding the failure of a real estate venture in London involving allegations of fraud and jurisdictional challenges.\nSitting as sole arbitrator on an ICC arbitration seated in London regarding the sale and purchase of commodities and alleged force majeure in connection with civil unrest.\nSitting as sole arbitrator in an ICC arbitration seated in London under Illinois law in a dispute regarding alleged breach of exclusivity under a manufacturing contract involving applications for emergency relief.\nSitting as sole arbitrator in an ICC arbitration seated in London under English law concerning the quality of metals delivered under an international supply contract.{{ FIELD }}Ruth Byrne KC specialises in international commercial and investment disputes, with a particular focus on energy, life sciences, fraud and enforcement.  \nRuth has advised clients on disputes arising in multiple jurisdictions and has appeared as counsel in 100+ arbitrations as well sitting regularly as arbitrator.  She also appears frequently in the English High Court, in particular in proceedings in support of arbitration, as well as more generally in international commercial litigation.  Recognised in several legal directories over the years, Ruth is described as “superb”, “an exceptional litigator”, “an excellent advocate wise beyond her years” and “a persistent, credible case builder”.  Clients note her “ability to marshal enormous doses of information, retain key facts, be diligent and patient, and follow through as if it were her personal matter – her analysis is always based on facts, the law and the cultural sensibilities of the jurisdictions involved” and that she is “very strategic in her thinking and able to pare down arguments to what's important”.\nRuth writes and speaks regularly on a variety of international arbitration topics.  Ruth is a member of the ICC UK Selection Subcommittee, the Delos ROAP faculty and a former YIAG Co-Chair. Ruth M.D. Byrne Partner \"highly experienced arbitration practitioner known for her prowess in the energy sector\"  Chambers Global, 2023 \"highly adept at handling complex commercial and investment disputes in the energy space\"  Chambers UK 2023 \"grasps the important stuff, and has a great collaborative work style – infinitely patient\"  Legal 500 UK, 2023 \"Ruth Byrne is someone clients want to have in control of a case\"  Legal 500 UK, 2023 \"popular among energy and life sciences sector clients\"  Legal 500 UK, 2022 \"very easy to work with, very attentive ...incredibly practical in terms of how to achieve your goal\"  Chambers UK, 2022; Chambers Global, 2022 \"a quick-thinking and effective oral advocate\"  Chambers UK, 2022; Chambers Global, 2022 \"her analysis is always based on facts, the law and the cultural sensibilities of the jurisdictions involved\"  Legal 500 UK, Civil Fraud, 2021 \"has the ability to marshal enormous doses of information...and follow through as if it were her personal matter..\" Legal 500 UK, Civil Fraud, 2021 \"Ruth Byrne is an exceptional litigator and extremely calm in complex situations.\"  Legal 500 UK, Commercial Litigation, 2021 \"She's an impressive clear thinker...She's very smart and experienced. She's excellent at what she does.\"  Chambers UK, 2021; Chambers Global, 2021 \"The \"superb\" Ruth Byrne .. described as \"very strategic in her thinking..\"  Chambers UK, 2020; Chambers Global, 2020 Clients appreciate her \"ability to cut through the nonsense and home in on the real issues.\"  Chambers UK, 2019 \"An excellent advocate ... She will be a dominant character in the arbitration world for years to come\" Who's Who Legal, Future Leaders - Arbitration 2017 \"Extremely bright, personable and diligent” Chambers UK, 2016 \"Especially known for her expertise in energy-related disputes, and in court hearings regarding arbitration matters.\" Chambers UK, 2016 University College London, UK  University of Cambridge, UK  Dubai International Financial Centre Courts England and Wales The Law Society of England and Wales (2006) (#357290) Ireland The Law Society of England and Wales Energy and Related Areas\nArbitration\nRepresenting a European buyer in a series of substantial gas pricing disputes with one of the world’s largest suppliers of LNG. Acting for a multinational oil, gas and petrochemical company in emergency ICC arbitration proceedings to restrain a counter-party from acquiring substantial gas assets alone and in breach of exclusive joint bidding arrangements. Representing a joint venture company in a significant LNG dispute arising from repeated failures to supply by a seller and involving allegations of misrepresentation. Representing an asset management firm in a dispute with the buyers of its of oil and gas assets in Central America regarding contingent consideration payable for those assets. Representing a trading company in two multi billion dollar arbitrations regarding failures in LNG supply during the COVID 19 pandemic. Representing an oil and gas major in an arbitration in Nigeria on a nine-figure dispute regarding allocation of hydrocarbon product at a handling facility. Defending an oil and gas trader against claims as to the alleged existence of a contract to supply LNG involving questions of authority and custom and practice in the LNG sector. Advising a major gas supplier on the applicability of force majeure provisions under its long term LNG sales agreements and potential gas pricing disputes. Representing a major Asian energy company in an LCIA arbitration regarding the break-down of its relationship with a minority partner under a joint operating agreement. Representing an independent oil company in a dispute with its LNG off-taker regarding quantities to be delivered under their agreed annual delivery program and a long-term sale and purchase agreement. Advising a North American oil and gas company on its rights of first refusal upon the sale of rights in oilfield concessions in the Middle East. Representing an energy sector contractor in LCIA proceedings regarding allegations of contractual mistake in the context of indemnity obligations of a major equipment supplier. Representing an oil and gas company in multi-billion dollar proceedings regarding failure by a co-venturer to pay its share of exploration and development costs under a joint operating agreement and interference with recovery of those costs from government. Representing two private equity funds in ICC proceedings against an African government regarding force majeure events that led to the failure of a substantial renewables project. Defending a leading global provider of energy equipment against claims that milestone payments due against supply of power plant equipment were unenforceable penalties. Representing an oil and gas drilling contractor in proceedings to recover unpaid contract sums from its former local partner in Nigeria. Representing a major Asian energy company in a dispute with an international commodities company regarding the impact of sanctions on obligations to deliver LNG. Advising an oil and gas major in relation to disputed payments for the sale of a significant asset in Latin America. Representing a leading global provider of energy equipment in proceedings regarding its alleged warranty liability for with respect to equipment supplied to an Eastern European power plant. Representing an oil and gas major in an ICC arbitration regarding the defective design of a floating offshore unit located offshore South America and on related insurance claims. Representing a junior oil and gas company in an ICC arbitration regarding claims of misrepresentation and duress by a former consultant. Advising an oil and gas major on its contractual rights with regard to the review of the contract price under a long-term LNG sales agreement in the Asian market. Advising an oil and gas major in relation to the termination of a longstanding shareholder relationship in Eastern Europe and early resolution of potential LCIA arbitration proceedings in that regard. Representing a leading global provider of energy equipment in an SCC arbitration under Russian law regarding liability for the supply of spare parts to power stations. Representing an Employer in urgent ICC proceedings to prevent its contractor injuncting it from drawing down on performance guarantees in connection with a chemical plant construction project. Representing a junior oil and gas company in an ICC arbitration regarding the existence and value of an alleged minority interest in two production sharing contracts in the Middle East. Representing an oil and gas company in a series of multi-million dollar disputes under the UNCITRAL Rules arising out of a failed joint venture in Kazakhstan. Representing a junior oil and gas company in an LCIA arbitration regarding liability for tax in connection with its sale of an interest in an oil field in Western Africa. Representing an oil and gas major in a dispute under a joint operating agreement with respect to North Sea assets and its entitlement as operator to payment of certain costs from its co-venturers. Advising a Northern European investor on its rights under a bilateral investment treaty with respect to treatment of its investment in an agro-energy project in sub-Saharan Africa. Advising a drilling contractor on a dispute with its South East Asian employer regarding termination rights and payments. Representing a junior oil and gas company in an expedited LCIA arbitration regarding the applicability of pre-emption rights under a joint operating agreement upon the sale of an interest in an oil asset. Representing a construction company in expedited LCIA proceedings regarding disputed entitlements to draw down on performance guarantees in connection with a project to construct oil processing facilities and civil unrest. Representing an oil and gas company in an arbitration under the UNCITRAL Rules with regard to claims for breaches of a drilling contract. Representing an oil and gas major in multi-billion dollar contentious proceedings regarding oil and gas rights in East Africa. Representing an oil major in a dispute with its drilling contractor regarding fees for stacking and/or termination. Representing a construction company in an LCIA arbitration regarding a failed road-building project in West Africa. Advising a property developer on its investment treaty rights in relation to a failed project in West Africa. Advising a junior international oil and gas company on its rights in a dispute regarding allegedly unpaid cash calls under a joint operating agreement with an oil major. Advising a major gas infrastructure company on disputes regarding failure to pay sums due under construction and operation contracts on a project in Central Asia and related bank guarantee rights and obligations. Representing a group of Kuwaiti investors in a multi-million dollar dispute under the ICC Rules regarding a failed joint venture in the oil and gas sector in Kazakhstan. Representing an Eastern European engineering company in an LCIA arbitration regarding its lender’s disputed rights to execute on various guarantee arrangements. Representing a major shipping company in ad hoc arbitration proceedings seated in London for the return of a down-payment on a major acquisition that was frustrated by sanctions. Defending a state entity against claims brought before the Common Court of Justice and Arbitration by an international construction company regarding the delayed construction of a hotel in North Africa. Commercial Litigation\nRepresenting an oil and gas major in Commercial Court proceedings regarding the interpretation of the contract for the sale of substantial European assets and the consideration payable for those assets (ConocoPhillips v. Chrysaor E\u0026amp;P Limited).\nRepresenting a group of Saudi investors in proceedings in the Channel Islands with respect to a failed real estate project and involving alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.\nSuccessfully defending a junior oil and gas company in Commercial Court proceedings involving allegations of fraud and duress and subsequent Court of Appeal proceedings on related claims regarding contractual interpretation of termination rights (Monde Petroleum SA v WesternZagros Limited [2016] EWHC 1472 (Comm) and [2018] EWCA Civ 25).\nRepresenting a leading global provider of energy equipment in proceedings regarding liability for a series of unplanned outages at a UK power plant. Fraud, Enforcement, Challenges to Awards and Asset Tracing\nRepresenting Union Fenosa Gas in successful proceedings for the recognition of its USD 2+ billion ICSID award against Egypt, involving issues of sovereign immunity and the correct approach to recognition of ICSID awards in England \u0026amp; Wales (Union Fenosa Gas v Arab Republic of Egypt [2020] EWHC 1723 (Comm)).\nRepresenting a judgment creditor in a series of hearings to recover a USD 2+ billion judgment debt resulting from a substantial international fraud and involving applications maintain/extend freezing injunction relief, including by the exercise of Chabra jurisdiction.\nRepresenting three defendants to claims for the misselling of certain financial instruments/conspiracy and successfully challenging the jurisdiction of the English courts on their behalf (Tsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm)).\nAdvising a well-known multinational on proceedings in New York, London and Central Africa on disputes arising from alleged bribery and corruption in connection with a major power project in sub-Saharan Africa.\nRepresenting a trading company in freezing injunction and substantive proceedings in the Commercial Court regarding allegedly fraudulent transactions in West Africa.\nRepresenting a major shipping company in five UNCITRAL arbitrations and English Commercial Court proceedings to recover the proceeds of a fraudulent scheme.\nRepresenting the defendant sovereign wealth fund in a billion-dollar claim in the English Commercial Court arising out of alleged breach of contract, duress and misrepresentation, in particular successfully overturning summary judgment at an appeal hearing before Burton J (Catalyst Managerial Services v Libya Africa Investment Portfolio, unreported).\nRepresenting the Claimant in claims brought in the English Commercial Court for fraudulent misrepresentation, in particular appearing at hearings securing a worldwide freezing injunction and to resist an application for security for costs (Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd v Aidar Assaubayev \u0026amp; Ors, unreported).\nDefending an oil and gas company against the attempted appeal under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 of an arbitral award concerning a failed joint venture in Kazakhstan.\nAppearing in the Commercial Court on jurisdictional issues and to secure evidence with respect to a London-seated international arbitration (Silver Dry Bulk Company Limited v Homer Hulbert Maritime Company Limited [2017] EWHC 44 (Comm)).\nAppearing in the Commercial Court on a challenge to an award under Section 67 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and on an application for security in related court proceedings (Monde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros Ltd. [2015] EWHC 67 (Comm)).\nRepresenting a major oil and gas company on a challenge to an arbitral award brought in the English Commercial Court under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996 and related security applications (PT Transportasi Gas Indonesia v ConocoPhillips (Grissik) Ltd [2016] EWHC 2834 (Comm)).\nRepresenting a mining company in English court proceedings to enforce a USD 1 billion + award against a Latin American State.\nAppearing in the Commercial Court to secure an order for the recognition of an ICC award for damages arising from a failed joint venture in Nigeria.\nRepresenting a major shipping company resisting the attempted appeal of an arbitral award under Section 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996 before the Commercial Court.\nRepresenting a Moldovan investor in proceedings to enforce a USD half billion dollar award in the Commercial Court and related applications for security (Stati v Kazakhstan [2015] EWHC 2542 (Comm); [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm)).\nDefending an oil and gas company against worldwide freezing order applications in the Commercial Court during the pendency of a related arbitration.\nAdvising an African investment fund on strategy to recover substantial sums owed by a loan debtor in Nigeria.\nRepresenting an Indian car manufacturer to resist proceedings brought in the English Commercial Court by its former U.S. distributor to challenge and appeal a final UNCITRAL arbitration award in its favour under Sections 68 and 69 of the Arbitration Act 1996, including successful applications for security for costs and in the amount of the award.\nRepresenting the claimant, an international construction company, in multi-jurisdictional proceedings to enforce an ICC arbitration award against an African State, including appearing to secure third party debt orders in the English Commercial Court.\nRepresenting an oil and gas major in proceedings to enforce an arbitral award under the SIAC Rules before the English Court and to obtain urgent worldwide freezing order relief in support of that enforcement.\nRepresenting an award creditor in proceedings to execute the award against assets of a South East Asian State and related freezing injunction proceedings.\nRepresenting a group of investors from the Middle East in proceedings in the English and Cayman Islands Courts involving claims for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud. Life Sciences/Product Liability/IP and Related Areas\nArbitration\nRepresenting an Asian life sciences company in an ad hoc arbitration regarding alleged breaches of contractual prohibitions on distribution of its pharmaceuticals in certain territories and related allegations of duress and fraud.\nRepresenting a drilling contractor in LCIA proceedings regarding the apportionment of liability for alleged patent infringement.\nAdvising a major engineering company on several disputes regarding allegedly patented technology in the ship-building sector and alleged liability for defects in that technology.\nRepresenting an Asian life sciences company in an UNCITRAL arbitration regarding exclusive development and distribution rights with respect to pharmaceutical products.\nRepresenting a pharmaceuticals company in a dispute regarding the break-down of its relationship for the joint development of cancer treatments.\nRepresenting an Indian manufacturing company in ICC arbitration proceedings seated in New Delhi regarding liability for allegedly defective electronic components and related proceedings with insurers.\nRepresenting a well-known multinational in LCIA proceedings regarding the alleged breach of a distributorship agreement for medical products in the Middle East.\nAdvising a sports federation in relation to claims against a competitor for anti-competitive behaviour and interference with contractual rights.\nRepresenting a manufacturing and retail business in a series of LCIA arbitration proceedings seated in London and related litigation in Italy arising from an M\u0026amp;A transaction.\nRepresenting a Latin American company in LCIA proceedings arising out of the alleged breach of an agreement for the distributorship of books and other publications.\nRepresenting a Saudi company in a multi-million dollar ICC arbitration claim for breach of a publishing licence.\nLitigation\nRepresenting an international manufacturer in a series of claims regarding alleged defects in its household products.\nRepresenting a medical device manufacturer in English court proceedings regarding alleged breach of supply contracts.\nRepresenting an international pharmaceutical company in multi-jurisdictional proceedings regarding alleged patent infringement (Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v GW Pharma Ltd \u0026amp; Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 1462).\nRepresenting a medical device multinational in a series of proceedings regarding alleged product liability with respect to its surgical devices.\nDefending a small business against multiple claims of breach of copyright in connection with web-based imagery.\nRepresenting a Middle Eastern technology company in English court proceedings to restrain its counterparty from drawing down on a bank guarantee. Arbitral Appointments\nSitting as Chair on an arbitration regarding the alleged under-delivery of contractual quantities of gas and wrongful retention of advance payments against delivery.\nActing as Sole Arbitrator on a licensing dispute regarding fees allegedly due with respect to the use of TV trademark.\nSitting as Sole Arbitrator on a dispute regarding the remedies applicable upon a buyer’s failure to pay for and take delivery of a commodity during volatile market conditions arising during the pandemic.\nSitting as Chair of an arbitral tribunal on an LCIA arbitration regarding the break-down of contractual arrangements for the sale of goods to an Indian buyer.\nSitting as Chair on an arbitration regarding the breakdown of a tv channel joint venture in Eastern Europe.\nSitting as Chair on an LCIA arbitration seated in London between North American and Sub-Saharan African entities regarding wire transfer services.\nSitting as co-arbitrator on two LCIA disputes seated in London regarding the alleged breach of settlement terms and involving challenges to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.\nSitting as sole arbitrator on an LCIA arbitration seated in London in a dispute between a law firm and its former client regarding unpaid fees.\nSitting as Chair on an ICC arbitration regarding a failed television joint venture in the Middle East.\nSitting as co-arbitrator on an ICC arbitration seated in Geneva regarding the failure of a real estate venture in London involving allegations of fraud and jurisdictional challenges.\nSitting as sole arbitrator on an ICC arbitration seated in London regarding the sale and purchase of commodities and alleged force majeure in connection with civil unrest.\nSitting as sole arbitrator in an ICC arbitration seated in London under Illinois law in a dispute regarding alleged breach of exclusivity under a manufacturing contract involving applications for emergency relief.\nSitting as sole arbitrator in an ICC arbitration seated in London under English law concerning the quality of metals delivered under an international supply contract.","searchable_name":"Ruth M.D. Byrne, K.C.","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}]}}