{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"19","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"B","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":437134,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"david-balser","email":"dbalser@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":18}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1157,"guid":"1157.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Balser","nick_name":"David","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","years_held":"1987-1989"}],"first_name":"David","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11778}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-11T18:21:37.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-11T18:21:37.000Z","searchable_text":"Balser{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is top in class action litigation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"U.S. “Litigation Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Class Actions{{ FIELD }}Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.{{ FIELD }}Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.{{ FIELD }}Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.{{ FIELD }}Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.{{ FIELD }}Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.{{ FIELD }}Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.{{ FIELD }}Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.{{ FIELD }}Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.{{ FIELD }}Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes{{ FIELD }}Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets{{ FIELD }}Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.{{ FIELD }}Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.{{ FIELD }}Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.{{ FIELD }}Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project.{{ FIELD }}Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.{{ FIELD }}Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.”{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor.{{ FIELD }}Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.{{ FIELD }}David Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients’ most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation. \nRanked by Chambers USA as a “Star Individual” for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\n\n “He is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best.”\n“He has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation.”\n“He can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive.”\n“He is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met.”\n“He's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.”\n\nDavid’s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as Distinguished Leader by the Daily Report in 2022, which praised his “proven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.” He has also been named a “Litigation Star” by Benchmark Litigation and honored as a BTI Client Service All-Star. David’s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges. \nDavid leads the firm’s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\n  David L Balser Partner Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT “His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.”  DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022 \"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\"  Chambers USA 2023 “He is top in class action litigation\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.” CHAMBERS USA 2023 Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection) THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022 “Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation Best Lawyers in America U.S. “Litigation Star”  Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present 2018 BTI Client Service All-Star BTI, 2018 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School Georgia Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Class Actions Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products. Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services. Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit. Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit. Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court. Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality. Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial. Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees. Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company. Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website. Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act. Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment. Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds. Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance. Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island. Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action. Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019. Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project. Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia. Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.” Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment. Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims. Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor. Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.","searchable_name":"David L. Balser","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":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":436688,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3236,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation. \u0026nbsp;He regularly works with board\u0026nbsp;committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, among others, and has been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLawdragon.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;He is rated AV\u0026reg; Preeminent\u0026trade; by Martindale-Hubbel.\u0026nbsp; Client and peer reviews in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;say Paul\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.\u0026nbsp; Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he \u0026lsquo;is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u0026rsquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Securities Reporter.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"paul-bessette","email":"pbessette@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-512-940-6250","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSignificant Matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital Turbine, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSolarWinds Corp\u003c/em\u003e.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds\u0026rsquo;s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as \u0026ldquo;the largest and most sophisticated\u0026rdquo; cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhunware, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware\u0026rsquo;s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShattuck Labs\u003c/em\u003e: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re PolatityTE:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss\u0026mdash;the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE\u0026rsquo;s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolent Health, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed \u0026ldquo;rocket docket\u0026rdquo; timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdeptus Health, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFXCM, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank\u0026rsquo;s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM\u0026rsquo;s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hanger, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created \u0026ldquo;cookie jar\u0026rdquo; reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate \u0026ldquo;tone at the top.\u0026rdquo; In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003een banc,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court\u0026rsquo;s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants\u0026rsquo; state of mind. 768 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeiman v. Bulmahn, et al\u003c/em\u003e.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP\u0026rsquo;s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re SemCrude L.P.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMiyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost\u0026rsquo;s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company\u0026rsquo;s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a \u0026sect;10(b) securities-fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":132}]},"expertise":[{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bessette","nick_name":"Paul","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Paul","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America","detail":"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024"},{"title":"\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\"","detail":"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense","detail":"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide"},{"title":"\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1"},{"title":"Recognized by Best Lawyer","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023"},{"title":"\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026 responsiveness.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2021"},{"title":"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.","detail":"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2"},{"title":"\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”","detail":"U.S. News \u0026 World Report, 2015"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025"},{"title":"One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\"","detail":"Lawdragon, 2008"},{"title":"One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\"","detail":"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011"},{"title":"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers ","detail":"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation","detail":"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation. \u0026nbsp;He regularly works with board\u0026nbsp;committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, among others, and has been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLawdragon.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;He is rated AV\u0026reg; Preeminent\u0026trade; by Martindale-Hubbel.\u0026nbsp; Client and peer reviews in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;say Paul\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.\u0026nbsp; Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he \u0026lsquo;is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u0026rsquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Securities Reporter.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSignificant Matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital Turbine, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSolarWinds Corp\u003c/em\u003e.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds\u0026rsquo;s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as \u0026ldquo;the largest and most sophisticated\u0026rdquo; cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhunware, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware\u0026rsquo;s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShattuck Labs\u003c/em\u003e: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re PolatityTE:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss\u0026mdash;the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE\u0026rsquo;s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolent Health, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed \u0026ldquo;rocket docket\u0026rdquo; timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdeptus Health, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFXCM, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank\u0026rsquo;s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM\u0026rsquo;s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hanger, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created \u0026ldquo;cookie jar\u0026rdquo; reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate \u0026ldquo;tone at the top.\u0026rdquo; In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003een banc,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court\u0026rsquo;s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants\u0026rsquo; state of mind. 768 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeiman v. Bulmahn, et al\u003c/em\u003e.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP\u0026rsquo;s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re SemCrude L.P.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMiyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost\u0026rsquo;s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company\u0026rsquo;s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a \u0026sect;10(b) securities-fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America","detail":"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024"},{"title":"\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\"","detail":"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense","detail":"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide"},{"title":"\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1"},{"title":"Recognized by Best Lawyer","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023"},{"title":"\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026 responsiveness.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2021"},{"title":"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.","detail":"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2"},{"title":"\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”","detail":"U.S. News \u0026 World Report, 2015"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025"},{"title":"One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\"","detail":"Lawdragon, 2008"},{"title":"One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\"","detail":"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011"},{"title":"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers ","detail":"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation","detail":"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4186}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-04T21:52:53.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-04T21:52:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Bessette{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\\\" \\\"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Best Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026amp; responsiveness.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026amp;Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\\\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Securities Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"One of \\\"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2008\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"One of \\\"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Securities Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010\"}{{ FIELD }}Significant Matters{{ FIELD }}Digital Turbine, Inc.: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.{{ FIELD }}SolarWinds Corp.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds’ December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds’s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated” cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds’ former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.{{ FIELD }}Phunware, Inc.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware’s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware’s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.{{ FIELD }}Shattuck Labs: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply{{ FIELD }}In re PolatityTE: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss—the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE’s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.{{ FIELD }}Evolent Health, Inc.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed “rocket docket” timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.{{ FIELD }}Adeptus Health, Inc.: We defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus’s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus’s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.{{ FIELD }}FXCM, Inc.: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank’s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM’s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App’x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).{{ FIELD }}In re Hanger, Inc.: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created “cookie jar” reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate “tone at the top.” In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs’ allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants’ state of mind. 768 Fed. App’x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).{{ FIELD }}Neiman v. Bulmahn, et al.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP’s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company’s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).{{ FIELD }}In re SemCrude L.P.: Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).{{ FIELD }}Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.: Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost’s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff’s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Bell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.: Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company’s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).{{ FIELD }}In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation: Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Greenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a §10(b) securities-fraud claim.{{ FIELD }}Paul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm’s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.  For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation.  He regularly works with board committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues. \nPaul is ranked by Chambers, Best Lawyers in America, and Legal 500, among others, and has been recognized by Super Lawyers and Lawdragon.  He is rated AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbel.  Client and peer reviews in Chambers say Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.  Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he ‘is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”’  “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.”\nPaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including ABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter and The Securities Reporter. Paul R. Bessette Partner Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America Litigation Counsel of America, 2024 Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America Leading Lawyers of America, 2024 \"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\" Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024 Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide \"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\" Chambers USA 2023, Band 1 Recognized by Best Lawyer The Best Lawyers in America - 2023 \"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026amp; responsiveness.\" Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023 \"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\" Chambers, 2021 Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026amp;Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions. Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2 Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions. Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2 \"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\" Chambers USA 2018, Band 2 Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.” Chambers USA, 2016 “Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors” Chambers USA, 2016 Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.” Chambers USA, 2016 “Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.” U.S. News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015 Recognized for Securities Litigation  The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025 One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\" Lawdragon, 2008 One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\" Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011 Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers  Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019 Recognized for Securities Litigation Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010 The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Baylor University Baylor University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California New York Texas Significant Matters Digital Turbine, Inc.: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024. SolarWinds Corp.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds’ December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds’s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated” cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds’ former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement. Phunware, Inc.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware’s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware’s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim. Shattuck Labs: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply In re PolatityTE: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss—the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE’s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss. Evolent Health, Inc.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed “rocket docket” timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session. Adeptus Health, Inc.: We defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus’s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus’s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well. FXCM, Inc.: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank’s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM’s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App’x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019). In re Hanger, Inc.: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created “cookie jar” reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate “tone at the top.” In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs’ allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants’ state of mind. 768 Fed. App’x 175 (5th Cir. 2019). Neiman v. Bulmahn, et al.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP’s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company’s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017). In re SemCrude L.P.: Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015). Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.: Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost’s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff’s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013). Bell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.: Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company’s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005). In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation: Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Greenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a §10(b) securities-fraud claim.","searchable_name":"Paul R. Bessette","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446151,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6369,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatthew Biben focuses his practice on complex negotiation and litigation of disputes, including regulatory and enforcement matters on behalf of both individuals and organizations. His diverse litigation practice includes representing financial institutions and FinTech companies in civil disputes, securities and bankruptcy litigation, and complex matters involving the government.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a former general counsel of a large bank and federal prosecutor, Matthew routinely acts as counsel in litigated disputes and internal investigations of both domestic and international matters involving, among others, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Reserve Board (FRB), Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), state attorneys general and foreign regulators.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining private practice, Matthew served for three-and-a-half years at JPMorgan Chase, where he was Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Chase Consumer \u0026amp; Community Banking, which included JPMorgan Chase\u0026rsquo;s Private Wealth Management, Card and Merchant Services, Auto Finance, Student Loan, Consumer Banking, Business Banking and Mortgage Banking businesses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew also served as Executive Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation for almost seven years, becoming the second youngest person in BNY\u0026rsquo;s history to be promoted to Executive Vice President. He also served as BNY Mellon\u0026rsquo;s Global Head of Litigation and supervised various corporate functions that included the Office of the Corporate Secretary.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew spent the first 12 years of his career in government, serving in the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office for the Southern District of New York, where he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Criminal Division and received the Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s Director Award for superior performance. Previously, he was an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office. He argued numerous appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and was lead counsel in more than 25 federal and state trials.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"matthew-biben","email":"mbiben@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnti-Money Laundering\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoutinely advise banks and non-banks on BSA/AML compliance and enforcement issues including:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSociete Generale\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;before the FRB and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and separately before the NYDFS in negotiating a successful settlement regarding the bank\u0026rsquo;s BSA/AML compliance and risk management programs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMashreq Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in negotiating a favorable settlement with the NYDFS, NYFed, FRB, and OFAC resolving wide ranging BSA/AML and Sanctions issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHabib Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a $630 million lawsuit by the NYDFS and negotiating a $225 million settlement relating to long-running AML/BSA compliance issues and assisting Habib in winding down the business of their NY branch\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCoinbase\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in sweeping NYDFS investigation relating to BSA/AML and other compliance issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large foreign bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in responding to the DOJ investigation of Mossack Fonseca \u0026amp; and the \u0026ldquo;Panama Papers\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eComplex Civil Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFanDuel\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDraftKings\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a landmark victory in the NY Court of Appeals legalizing interactive fantasy sports in New York State (garnering American Lawyer Litigator of the Week runner-up honors)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFanDuel\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a New York State Court litigation brought on by the former founders of FanDuel relating to merger acquisition violation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBlackRock\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation relating to mortgage-era fraud allegations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMacquarie Asset Management\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a joint venture dispute relating to drag-along rights\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent leading\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal investment bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in arbitration relating to a joint venture dispute\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented ad hoc\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e1st lien term lenders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFanDuel\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit and settlement with the New York Attorney General (NYAG) over the legality of daily fantasy sports and later resolving allegations of false advertising whereby the NYAG dropped its claims challenging the legality of FanDuel\u0026rsquo;s contests after a change in the New York State law permitting daily fantasy sports\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented the Chairman of the board of\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Rio Tinto\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a broad ranging SEC investigation into accounting fraud\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBanks and Financial Institutions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to BSA/AML advice, I have extensively advised on bank regulatory compliance and enforcement issues, including the CFPB, the FRB, NYDFS, FDIC, OCC and others, including:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTruist\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running DOJ FIRREA investigation of their trust businesses in a cost-of-litigation settlement where all allegations were denied\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea global bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on fair lender compliance issue in relation to DFS investigation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esuperregional bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a CFPB into investigation into TISA compliance avoiding an enforcement action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efinancial institutions and individuals\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in SEC investigations, including the Chairman of the Board of a Fortune 100 company\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a leading\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFintech company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a CFPB investigation relating to FCRA and UDAAP allegations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eToyota Financial Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ and CFPB investigation and negotiating a favorable settlement relating to the indirect auto lender\u0026rsquo;s fair lending practices\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea senior executive of one of the largest global banks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of RMBS and a separate OCC investigation persuading both agencies after years of investigation to close their investigations without action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead an extensive internal investigation and representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large foreign bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;before the FRB and NYDFS concerning Regulation W compliance issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large foreign bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in responding to a multi-state attorneys general investigation of its auto lending and securitization practices\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esenior finance and actuarial employees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAMBAC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in SEC investigation of accounting fraud\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCFO of an insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation before the NYDFS which resulted in the matter being closed without action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAdmirals Bank\u003c/strong\u003e, as it restructured operations in the face of significant regulatory scrutiny and complex bank regulatory and enforcement issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRoot Insurance\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a New York Attorney General investigation relating to data breach allegations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGovernance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eServed as a Director and Chair of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGovernance Committee\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of the largest privately held bank. BNY Melon Corporate Secretary was a direct report. Extensive pro bono governance work. Write and lecture on the topic. A sample of representations include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProvided\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe Board of Directors of multiple financial institutions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with advice on their annual self-evaluation as well as broader governance issues including expectations and guidance as applied to bank boards\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBoard of Directors of Bed Bath \u0026amp; Beyond\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an internal investigation concerning compensation and disclosure issues\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3543}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":38,"guid":"38.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":923,"guid":"923.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":699,"guid":"699.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1261,"guid":"1261.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":803,"guid":"803.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1327,"guid":"1327.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Biben","nick_name":"Matt","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Matthew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for his “standout expertise” in the category of “Banking (Enforcement \u0026 Investigations)”","detail":"Chamber USA – Nationwide (Band 3) 2020-2026"},{"title":"Nationally recommended in the category of Financial Services Litigation, “tenacious but balanced litigator” ","detail":"The Legal 500 US 2016-2026"},{"title":"Recognized as Benchmark Litigation “Litigation Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation"},{"title":"Recognized as Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyer","detail":"Lawdragon, 2024-2026"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/matthew-biben-480bb2a/","seodescription":"Matthew L. Biben is a partner of our Business Litigation Practice Group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatthew Biben focuses his practice on complex negotiation and litigation of disputes, including regulatory and enforcement matters on behalf of both individuals and organizations. His diverse litigation practice includes representing financial institutions and FinTech companies in civil disputes, securities and bankruptcy litigation, and complex matters involving the government.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a former general counsel of a large bank and federal prosecutor, Matthew routinely acts as counsel in litigated disputes and internal investigations of both domestic and international matters involving, among others, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Reserve Board (FRB), Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), state attorneys general and foreign regulators.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining private practice, Matthew served for three-and-a-half years at JPMorgan Chase, where he was Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Chase Consumer \u0026amp; Community Banking, which included JPMorgan Chase\u0026rsquo;s Private Wealth Management, Card and Merchant Services, Auto Finance, Student Loan, Consumer Banking, Business Banking and Mortgage Banking businesses.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew also served as Executive Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation for almost seven years, becoming the second youngest person in BNY\u0026rsquo;s history to be promoted to Executive Vice President. He also served as BNY Mellon\u0026rsquo;s Global Head of Litigation and supervised various corporate functions that included the Office of the Corporate Secretary.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatthew spent the first 12 years of his career in government, serving in the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office for the Southern District of New York, where he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Criminal Division and received the Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s Director Award for superior performance. Previously, he was an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office. He argued numerous appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and was lead counsel in more than 25 federal and state trials.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAnti-Money Laundering\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoutinely advise banks and non-banks on BSA/AML compliance and enforcement issues including:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSociete Generale\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;before the FRB and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and separately before the NYDFS in negotiating a successful settlement regarding the bank\u0026rsquo;s BSA/AML compliance and risk management programs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMashreq Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in negotiating a favorable settlement with the NYDFS, NYFed, FRB, and OFAC resolving wide ranging BSA/AML and Sanctions issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHabib Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a $630 million lawsuit by the NYDFS and negotiating a $225 million settlement relating to long-running AML/BSA compliance issues and assisting Habib in winding down the business of their NY branch\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCoinbase\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in sweeping NYDFS investigation relating to BSA/AML and other compliance issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large foreign bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in responding to the DOJ investigation of Mossack Fonseca \u0026amp; and the \u0026ldquo;Panama Papers\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eComplex Civil Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFanDuel\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDraftKings\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a landmark victory in the NY Court of Appeals legalizing interactive fantasy sports in New York State (garnering American Lawyer Litigator of the Week runner-up honors)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFanDuel\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a New York State Court litigation brought on by the former founders of FanDuel relating to merger acquisition violation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBlackRock\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation relating to mortgage-era fraud allegations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMacquarie Asset Management\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a joint venture dispute relating to drag-along rights\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent leading\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal investment bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in arbitration relating to a joint venture dispute\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented ad hoc\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e1st lien term lenders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFanDuel\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit and settlement with the New York Attorney General (NYAG) over the legality of daily fantasy sports and later resolving allegations of false advertising whereby the NYAG dropped its claims challenging the legality of FanDuel\u0026rsquo;s contests after a change in the New York State law permitting daily fantasy sports\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented the Chairman of the board of\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Rio Tinto\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a broad ranging SEC investigation into accounting fraud\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBanks and Financial Institutions\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to BSA/AML advice, I have extensively advised on bank regulatory compliance and enforcement issues, including the CFPB, the FRB, NYDFS, FDIC, OCC and others, including:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTruist\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running DOJ FIRREA investigation of their trust businesses in a cost-of-litigation settlement where all allegations were denied\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea global bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on fair lender compliance issue in relation to DFS investigation\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esuperregional bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a CFPB into investigation into TISA compliance avoiding an enforcement action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003efinancial institutions and individuals\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in SEC investigations, including the Chairman of the Board of a Fortune 100 company\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a leading\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFintech company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a CFPB investigation relating to FCRA and UDAAP allegations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eToyota Financial Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ and CFPB investigation and negotiating a favorable settlement relating to the indirect auto lender\u0026rsquo;s fair lending practices\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea senior executive of one of the largest global banks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a DOJ investigation of RMBS and a separate OCC investigation persuading both agencies after years of investigation to close their investigations without action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead an extensive internal investigation and representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large foreign bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;before the FRB and NYDFS concerning Regulation W compliance issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large foreign bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in responding to a multi-state attorneys general investigation of its auto lending and securitization practices\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esenior finance and actuarial employees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAMBAC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in SEC investigation of accounting fraud\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCFO of an insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation before the NYDFS which resulted in the matter being closed without action\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAdmirals Bank\u003c/strong\u003e, as it restructured operations in the face of significant regulatory scrutiny and complex bank regulatory and enforcement issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRoot Insurance\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a New York Attorney General investigation relating to data breach allegations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGovernance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eServed as a Director and Chair of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGovernance Committee\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of the largest privately held bank. BNY Melon Corporate Secretary was a direct report. Extensive pro bono governance work. Write and lecture on the topic. A sample of representations include:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProvided\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe Board of Directors of multiple financial institutions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;with advice on their annual self-evaluation as well as broader governance issues including expectations and guidance as applied to bank boards\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBoard of Directors of Bed Bath \u0026amp; Beyond\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an internal investigation concerning compensation and disclosure issues\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for his “standout expertise” in the category of “Banking (Enforcement \u0026 Investigations)”","detail":"Chamber USA – Nationwide (Band 3) 2020-2026"},{"title":"Nationally recommended in the category of Financial Services Litigation, “tenacious but balanced litigator” ","detail":"The Legal 500 US 2016-2026"},{"title":"Recognized as Benchmark Litigation “Litigation Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation"},{"title":"Recognized as Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyer","detail":"Lawdragon, 2024-2026"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9814}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-24T23:17:27.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-24T23:17:27.000Z","searchable_text":"Biben{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for his “standout expertise” in the category of “Banking (Enforcement \u0026amp; Investigations)”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chamber USA – Nationwide (Band 3) 2020-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Nationally recommended in the category of Financial Services Litigation, “tenacious but balanced litigator” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US 2016-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Benchmark Litigation “Litigation Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2024-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}Anti-Money Laundering\nRoutinely advise banks and non-banks on BSA/AML compliance and enforcement issues including:{{ FIELD }}Represented Societe Generale before the FRB and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and separately before the NYDFS in negotiating a successful settlement regarding the bank’s BSA/AML compliance and risk management programs{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Mashreq Bank in negotiating a favorable settlement with the NYDFS, NYFed, FRB, and OFAC resolving wide ranging BSA/AML and Sanctions issues{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended Habib Bank against a $630 million lawsuit by the NYDFS and negotiating a $225 million settlement relating to long-running AML/BSA compliance issues and assisting Habib in winding down the business of their NY branch{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Coinbase in sweeping NYDFS investigation relating to BSA/AML and other compliance issues{{ FIELD }}Advised a large foreign bank in responding to the DOJ investigation of Mossack Fonseca \u0026amp; and the “Panama Papers”{{ FIELD }}Complex Civil Litigation\nRepresented FanDuel and DraftKings in a landmark victory in the NY Court of Appeals legalizing interactive fantasy sports in New York State (garnering American Lawyer Litigator of the Week runner-up honors){{ FIELD }}Represent FanDuel in a New York State Court litigation brought on by the former founders of FanDuel relating to merger acquisition violation{{ FIELD }}Represent BlackRock in litigation relating to mortgage-era fraud allegations{{ FIELD }}Represented Macquarie Asset Management in a joint venture dispute relating to drag-along rights{{ FIELD }}Represent leading global investment bank in arbitration relating to a joint venture dispute{{ FIELD }}Represented ad hoc 1st lien term lenders in the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy{{ FIELD }}Represented FanDuel in a lawsuit and settlement with the New York Attorney General (NYAG) over the legality of daily fantasy sports and later resolving allegations of false advertising whereby the NYAG dropped its claims challenging the legality of FanDuel’s contests after a change in the New York State law permitting daily fantasy sports{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented the Chairman of the board of Rio Tinto in a broad ranging SEC investigation into accounting fraud{{ FIELD }}Banks and Financial Institutions\nIn addition to BSA/AML advice, I have extensively advised on bank regulatory compliance and enforcement issues, including the CFPB, the FRB, NYDFS, FDIC, OCC and others, including:{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Truist in a long-running DOJ FIRREA investigation of their trust businesses in a cost-of-litigation settlement where all allegations were denied{{ FIELD }}Advised a global bank on fair lender compliance issue in relation to DFS investigation{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a superregional bank in a CFPB into investigation into TISA compliance avoiding an enforcement action{{ FIELD }}Represented financial institutions and individuals in SEC investigations, including the Chairman of the Board of a Fortune 100 company{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading Fintech company in a CFPB investigation relating to FCRA and UDAAP allegations{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Toyota Financial Services in a DOJ and CFPB investigation and negotiating a favorable settlement relating to the indirect auto lender’s fair lending practices{{ FIELD }}Represented a senior executive of one of the largest global banks in a DOJ investigation of RMBS and a separate OCC investigation persuading both agencies after years of investigation to close their investigations without action{{ FIELD }}Lead an extensive internal investigation and representing a large foreign bank before the FRB and NYDFS concerning Regulation W compliance issues{{ FIELD }}Advised a large foreign bank in responding to a multi-state attorneys general investigation of its auto lending and securitization practices{{ FIELD }}Represented senior finance and actuarial employees of AMBAC in SEC investigation of accounting fraud{{ FIELD }}Represented the CFO of an insurance company in an investigation before the NYDFS which resulted in the matter being closed without action{{ FIELD }}Represented Admirals Bank, as it restructured operations in the face of significant regulatory scrutiny and complex bank regulatory and enforcement issues{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented Root Insurance in a New York Attorney General investigation relating to data breach allegations{{ FIELD }}Governance\nServed as a Director and Chair of the Governance Committee of the largest privately held bank. BNY Melon Corporate Secretary was a direct report. Extensive pro bono governance work. Write and lecture on the topic. A sample of representations include:{{ FIELD }}Provided the Board of Directors of multiple financial institutions with advice on their annual self-evaluation as well as broader governance issues including expectations and guidance as applied to bank boards{{ FIELD }}Represented the Board of Directors of Bed Bath \u0026amp; Beyond in an internal investigation concerning compensation and disclosure issues{{ FIELD }}Matthew Biben focuses his practice on complex negotiation and litigation of disputes, including regulatory and enforcement matters on behalf of both individuals and organizations. His diverse litigation practice includes representing financial institutions and FinTech companies in civil disputes, securities and bankruptcy litigation, and complex matters involving the government.\nAs a former general counsel of a large bank and federal prosecutor, Matthew routinely acts as counsel in litigated disputes and internal investigations of both domestic and international matters involving, among others, the Department of Justice (DOJ), Securities Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Reserve Board (FRB), Office of Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), New York Department of Financial Services (NYDFS), state attorneys general and foreign regulators.\nPrior to joining private practice, Matthew served for three-and-a-half years at JPMorgan Chase, where he was Executive Vice President and General Counsel for Chase Consumer \u0026amp; Community Banking, which included JPMorgan Chase’s Private Wealth Management, Card and Merchant Services, Auto Finance, Student Loan, Consumer Banking, Business Banking and Mortgage Banking businesses.\nMatthew also served as Executive Vice President and Deputy General Counsel of The Bank of New York Mellon Corporation for almost seven years, becoming the second youngest person in BNY’s history to be promoted to Executive Vice President. He also served as BNY Mellon’s Global Head of Litigation and supervised various corporate functions that included the Office of the Corporate Secretary.\nMatthew spent the first 12 years of his career in government, serving in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, where he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Criminal Division and received the Attorney General’s Director Award for superior performance. Previously, he was an Assistant District Attorney in the New York County District Attorney’s Office. He argued numerous appeals in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and was lead counsel in more than 25 federal and state trials. Matthew Biben lawyer Partner Ranked for his “standout expertise” in the category of “Banking (Enforcement \u0026amp; Investigations)” Chamber USA – Nationwide (Band 3) 2020-2026 Nationally recommended in the category of Financial Services Litigation, “tenacious but balanced litigator”  The Legal 500 US 2016-2026 Recognized as Benchmark Litigation “Litigation Star” Benchmark Litigation Recognized as Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyer Lawdragon, 2024-2026 Cornell University Cornell Law School University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York New York University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School – Board of Trustees American Arbitration Association – Board Member New York Legal Assistance Group - Member Board of Directors New York Lawyers for the Public Interest - Director Anti-Money Laundering\nRoutinely advise banks and non-banks on BSA/AML compliance and enforcement issues including: Represented Societe Generale before the FRB and the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and separately before the NYDFS in negotiating a successful settlement regarding the bank’s BSA/AML compliance and risk management programs Successfully represented Mashreq Bank in negotiating a favorable settlement with the NYDFS, NYFed, FRB, and OFAC resolving wide ranging BSA/AML and Sanctions issues Successfully defended Habib Bank against a $630 million lawsuit by the NYDFS and negotiating a $225 million settlement relating to long-running AML/BSA compliance issues and assisting Habib in winding down the business of their NY branch Successfully represented Coinbase in sweeping NYDFS investigation relating to BSA/AML and other compliance issues Advised a large foreign bank in responding to the DOJ investigation of Mossack Fonseca \u0026amp; and the “Panama Papers” Complex Civil Litigation\nRepresented FanDuel and DraftKings in a landmark victory in the NY Court of Appeals legalizing interactive fantasy sports in New York State (garnering American Lawyer Litigator of the Week runner-up honors) Represent FanDuel in a New York State Court litigation brought on by the former founders of FanDuel relating to merger acquisition violation Represent BlackRock in litigation relating to mortgage-era fraud allegations Represented Macquarie Asset Management in a joint venture dispute relating to drag-along rights Represent leading global investment bank in arbitration relating to a joint venture dispute Represented ad hoc 1st lien term lenders in the Mallinckrodt bankruptcy Represented FanDuel in a lawsuit and settlement with the New York Attorney General (NYAG) over the legality of daily fantasy sports and later resolving allegations of false advertising whereby the NYAG dropped its claims challenging the legality of FanDuel’s contests after a change in the New York State law permitting daily fantasy sports Successfully represented the Chairman of the board of Rio Tinto in a broad ranging SEC investigation into accounting fraud Banks and Financial Institutions\nIn addition to BSA/AML advice, I have extensively advised on bank regulatory compliance and enforcement issues, including the CFPB, the FRB, NYDFS, FDIC, OCC and others, including: Successfully represented Truist in a long-running DOJ FIRREA investigation of their trust businesses in a cost-of-litigation settlement where all allegations were denied Advised a global bank on fair lender compliance issue in relation to DFS investigation Successfully represented a superregional bank in a CFPB into investigation into TISA compliance avoiding an enforcement action Represented financial institutions and individuals in SEC investigations, including the Chairman of the Board of a Fortune 100 company Represented a leading Fintech company in a CFPB investigation relating to FCRA and UDAAP allegations Successfully represented Toyota Financial Services in a DOJ and CFPB investigation and negotiating a favorable settlement relating to the indirect auto lender’s fair lending practices Represented a senior executive of one of the largest global banks in a DOJ investigation of RMBS and a separate OCC investigation persuading both agencies after years of investigation to close their investigations without action Lead an extensive internal investigation and representing a large foreign bank before the FRB and NYDFS concerning Regulation W compliance issues Advised a large foreign bank in responding to a multi-state attorneys general investigation of its auto lending and securitization practices Represented senior finance and actuarial employees of AMBAC in SEC investigation of accounting fraud Represented the CFO of an insurance company in an investigation before the NYDFS which resulted in the matter being closed without action Represented Admirals Bank, as it restructured operations in the face of significant regulatory scrutiny and complex bank regulatory and enforcement issues Successfully represented Root Insurance in a New York Attorney General investigation relating to data breach allegations Governance\nServed as a Director and Chair of the Governance Committee of the largest privately held bank. BNY Melon Corporate Secretary was a direct report. Extensive pro bono governance work. Write and lecture on the topic. A sample of representations include: Provided the Board of Directors of multiple financial institutions with advice on their annual self-evaluation as well as broader governance issues including expectations and guidance as applied to bank boards Represented the Board of Directors of Bed Bath \u0026amp; Beyond in an internal investigation concerning compensation and disclosure issues","searchable_name":"Matthew L. Biben (Matt)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445658,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":679,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePat Brumbaugh represents attorneys and accountants when their most valuable asset is on the line: their reputation. Pat\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on the representation of other professionals and their firms in all manner of litigation and in regulatory investigations and proceedings. A partner in our Professional Liability and Securities Enforcement and Regulation practices, Pat is both a seasoned litigator and a trusted counselor.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePat has represented issuers, accounting firms and underwriters in all manner of class action securities and shareholder derivative litigation. In addition, he has conducted internal investigations and represented clients before the Securities and Exchange Commission. In professional liability matters, Pat has represented other \u0026ldquo;Big Law\u0026rdquo; law firms and Big Four accounting firms in professional malpractice and related litigation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePat also serves as King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Co-General Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"john-p-brumbaugh","email":"pbrumbaugh@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 404 664 2726","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended a l\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003earge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e in legal malpractice lawsuit arising from a commercial real estate transaction. Most of the case against the firm was dismissed on summary judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e against legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from the sale of a company and related litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFlorida law firm\u003c/strong\u003e against allegations of fraud stemming from the firm\u0026rsquo;s representation of a client in bankruptcy proceedings. The court dismissed the law firm from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a legal malpractice action relating to the firm\u0026rsquo;s patent prosecution practice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBig 4\u003c/strong\u003e accounting firm in multi-year SEC investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel in\u0026nbsp;the Delaware Court of Chancery of a dispute concerning the winding up of a Delaware limited liability company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a Fortune 50 company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in securities class action litigation and related shareholder derivative litigation filed in state and federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended an Atlanta-based health care company and the former members of its board of directors in class action litigation challenging the company\u0026rsquo;s acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an underwriting syndicate of major investment banks in securities class action litigation in federal court stemming from a secondary offering underwritten by the banks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e client\u003c/strong\u003e on appeal from the denial of the client's federal habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, overturning the client's conviction for kidnapping, on the ground that his appellate counsel on direct appeal was constitutionally ineffective.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":10}]},"expertise":[{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":684,"guid":"684.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":685,"guid":"685.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":686,"guid":"686.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Brumbaugh","nick_name":"John","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Peter T. Fay, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"1997 - 1998"}],"first_name":"John","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":119,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePat Brumbaugh represents attorneys and accountants when their most valuable asset is on the line: their reputation. Pat\u0026rsquo;s practice focuses on the representation of other professionals and their firms in all manner of litigation and in regulatory investigations and proceedings. A partner in our Professional Liability and Securities Enforcement and Regulation practices, Pat is both a seasoned litigator and a trusted counselor.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePat has represented issuers, accounting firms and underwriters in all manner of class action securities and shareholder derivative litigation. In addition, he has conducted internal investigations and represented clients before the Securities and Exchange Commission. In professional liability matters, Pat has represented other \u0026ldquo;Big Law\u0026rdquo; law firms and Big Four accounting firms in professional malpractice and related litigation\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePat also serves as King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Co-General Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefended a l\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003earge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e in legal malpractice lawsuit arising from a commercial real estate transaction. Most of the case against the firm was dismissed on summary judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e against legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from the sale of a company and related litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFlorida law firm\u003c/strong\u003e against allegations of fraud stemming from the firm\u0026rsquo;s representation of a client in bankruptcy proceedings. The court dismissed the law firm from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge Southeastern law firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a legal malpractice action relating to the firm\u0026rsquo;s patent prosecution practice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBig 4\u003c/strong\u003e accounting firm in multi-year SEC investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel in\u0026nbsp;the Delaware Court of Chancery of a dispute concerning the winding up of a Delaware limited liability company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a Fortune 50 company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in securities class action litigation and related shareholder derivative litigation filed in state and federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended an Atlanta-based health care company and the former members of its board of directors in class action litigation challenging the company\u0026rsquo;s acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an underwriting syndicate of major investment banks in securities class action litigation in federal court stemming from a secondary offering underwritten by the banks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e client\u003c/strong\u003e on appeal from the denial of the client's federal habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, overturning the client's conviction for kidnapping, on the ground that his appellate counsel on direct appeal was constitutionally ineffective.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4193}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-06T22:06:07.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-06T22:06:07.000Z","searchable_text":"Brumbaugh{{ FIELD }}Defended a large Southeastern law firm in legal malpractice lawsuit arising from a commercial real estate transaction. Most of the case against the firm was dismissed on summary judgment.{{ FIELD }}Defended a large Southeastern law firm against legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from the sale of a company and related litigation.{{ FIELD }}Defended a Florida law firm against allegations of fraud stemming from the firm’s representation of a client in bankruptcy proceedings. The court dismissed the law firm from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction.{{ FIELD }}Defended a large Southeastern law firm in a legal malpractice action relating to the firm’s patent prosecution practice.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Big 4 accounting firm in multi-year SEC investigation.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel in the Delaware Court of Chancery of a dispute concerning the winding up of a Delaware limited liability company.{{ FIELD }}Defended a Fortune 50 company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in securities class action litigation and related shareholder derivative litigation filed in state and federal court.{{ FIELD }}Defended an Atlanta-based health care company and the former members of its board of directors in class action litigation challenging the company’s acquisition.{{ FIELD }}Represented an underwriting syndicate of major investment banks in securities class action litigation in federal court stemming from a secondary offering underwritten by the banks.{{ FIELD }}Represented a pro bono client on appeal from the denial of the client's federal habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, overturning the client's conviction for kidnapping, on the ground that his appellate counsel on direct appeal was constitutionally ineffective.{{ FIELD }}Pat Brumbaugh represents attorneys and accountants when their most valuable asset is on the line: their reputation. Pat’s practice focuses on the representation of other professionals and their firms in all manner of litigation and in regulatory investigations and proceedings. A partner in our Professional Liability and Securities Enforcement and Regulation practices, Pat is both a seasoned litigator and a trusted counselor.\nPat has represented issuers, accounting firms and underwriters in all manner of class action securities and shareholder derivative litigation. In addition, he has conducted internal investigations and represented clients before the Securities and Exchange Commission. In professional liability matters, Pat has represented other “Big Law” law firms and Big Four accounting firms in professional malpractice and related litigation\nPat also serves as King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Co-General Counsel. John Pat Brumbaugh Partner / General Counsel Dartmouth College  University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Florida Georgia State Bar of Georgia The Florida Bar Law Clerk, Hon. Peter T. Fay, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Defended a large Southeastern law firm in legal malpractice lawsuit arising from a commercial real estate transaction. Most of the case against the firm was dismissed on summary judgment. Defended a large Southeastern law firm against legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims arising from the sale of a company and related litigation. Defended a Florida law firm against allegations of fraud stemming from the firm’s representation of a client in bankruptcy proceedings. The court dismissed the law firm from the case for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defended a large Southeastern law firm in a legal malpractice action relating to the firm’s patent prosecution practice. Represented a Big 4 accounting firm in multi-year SEC investigation. Served as lead trial counsel in the Delaware Court of Chancery of a dispute concerning the winding up of a Delaware limited liability company. Defended a Fortune 50 company and certain of its current and former officers and directors in securities class action litigation and related shareholder derivative litigation filed in state and federal court. Defended an Atlanta-based health care company and the former members of its board of directors in class action litigation challenging the company’s acquisition. Represented an underwriting syndicate of major investment banks in securities class action litigation in federal court stemming from a secondary offering underwritten by the banks. Represented a pro bono client on appeal from the denial of the client's federal habeas corpus petition. The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed, overturning the client's conviction for kidnapping, on the ground that his appellate counsel on direct appeal was constitutionally ineffective.","searchable_name":"John P. Brumbaugh","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":436483,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5129,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLisa Bugni is a partner in the firm's Securities and Shareholder Litigation practice. Her practice focuses on a variety of securities litigation matters and other complex commercial and business-related litigation. Ms. Bugni has experience in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative suits, M\u0026amp;A litigation, appraisal actions, and post-closing transaction disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Bugni received her J.D., magna cum laude, in 2003 from the University of Miami School of Law, where she was elected to membership in the Order of the Coif and served as articles and comments editor for the University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. She received her B.A.,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e, in American Studies from the University of Notre Dame in 2000.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Bugni is admitted to practice before the state courts of California, Georgia and Florida, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Georgia, and the Southern District of Florida. She is a member of the Georgia Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association and the Atlanta Bar Association.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lisa-bugni","email":"lbugni@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 404 934 0565","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefeated a shareholder\u0026rsquo;s attempt to enjoin Apple\u0026rsquo;s merger with fingerprint sensor company, AuthenTec.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of a securities class action brought against an international power company and its directors and officers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed in a post-closing transaction arbitration for a large home improvement specialty retailer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated in arbitration a claimant\u0026rsquo;s request for tens of millions of dollars for alleged breach of a product development contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of an action brought by a former executive arising out of a merger.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of a consumer class action alleging false advertising.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as counsel in several securities class actions to companies, directors and officers, including multiple heath care companies, a large packaging company, a consumer products company, and a technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as counsel in several M\u0026amp;A litigation matters to companies, directors and officers, including matters involving technology, banking, consumer products, and health care companies.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bugni","nick_name":"Lisa","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Magistrate Stephen T. Brown, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida","years_held":"2001"}],"first_name":"Lisa","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":2236,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2003-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLisa Bugni is a partner in the firm's Securities and Shareholder Litigation practice. Her practice focuses on a variety of securities litigation matters and other complex commercial and business-related litigation. Ms. Bugni has experience in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative suits, M\u0026amp;A litigation, appraisal actions, and post-closing transaction disputes.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Bugni received her J.D., magna cum laude, in 2003 from the University of Miami School of Law, where she was elected to membership in the Order of the Coif and served as articles and comments editor for the University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. She received her B.A.,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e, in American Studies from the University of Notre Dame in 2000.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Bugni is admitted to practice before the state courts of California, Georgia and Florida, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Georgia, and the Southern District of Florida. She is a member of the Georgia Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association and the Atlanta Bar Association.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefeated a shareholder\u0026rsquo;s attempt to enjoin Apple\u0026rsquo;s merger with fingerprint sensor company, AuthenTec.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of a securities class action brought against an international power company and its directors and officers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed in a post-closing transaction arbitration for a large home improvement specialty retailer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated in arbitration a claimant\u0026rsquo;s request for tens of millions of dollars for alleged breach of a product development contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of an action brought by a former executive arising out of a merger.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal with prejudice of a consumer class action alleging false advertising.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as counsel in several securities class actions to companies, directors and officers, including multiple heath care companies, a large packaging company, a consumer products company, and a technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as counsel in several M\u0026amp;A litigation matters to companies, directors and officers, including matters involving technology, banking, consumer products, and health care companies.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5918}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:55:38.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:55:38.000Z","searchable_text":"Bugni{{ FIELD }}Defeated a shareholder’s attempt to enjoin Apple’s merger with fingerprint sensor company, AuthenTec.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a securities class action brought against an international power company and its directors and officers.{{ FIELD }}Prevailed in a post-closing transaction arbitration for a large home improvement specialty retailer.{{ FIELD }}Defeated in arbitration a claimant’s request for tens of millions of dollars for alleged breach of a product development contract.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal with prejudice of an action brought by a former executive arising out of a merger. {{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a consumer class action alleging false advertising.{{ FIELD }}Served as counsel in several securities class actions to companies, directors and officers, including multiple heath care companies, a large packaging company, a consumer products company, and a technology company.{{ FIELD }}Served as counsel in several M\u0026amp;A litigation matters to companies, directors and officers, including matters involving technology, banking, consumer products, and health care companies.{{ FIELD }}Lisa Bugni is a partner in the firm's Securities and Shareholder Litigation practice. Her practice focuses on a variety of securities litigation matters and other complex commercial and business-related litigation. Ms. Bugni has experience in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative suits, M\u0026amp;A litigation, appraisal actions, and post-closing transaction disputes.\nMs. Bugni received her J.D., magna cum laude, in 2003 from the University of Miami School of Law, where she was elected to membership in the Order of the Coif and served as articles and comments editor for the University of Miami Inter-American Law Review. She received her B.A., magna cum laude, in American Studies from the University of Notre Dame in 2000.\nMs. Bugni is admitted to practice before the state courts of California, Georgia and Florida, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and the United States District Courts for the Northern District of Georgia, the Middle District of Georgia, and the Southern District of Florida. She is a member of the Georgia Bar Association, the Florida Bar Association and the Atlanta Bar Association. Partner University of Notre Dame Notre Dame Law School University of Miami University of Miami 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 Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California U.S. District Court for the Middle 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 California Florida Georgia Dress for Success Friends of the Children Intern, Magistrate Stephen T. Brown, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Defeated a shareholder’s attempt to enjoin Apple’s merger with fingerprint sensor company, AuthenTec. Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a securities class action brought against an international power company and its directors and officers. Prevailed in a post-closing transaction arbitration for a large home improvement specialty retailer. Defeated in arbitration a claimant’s request for tens of millions of dollars for alleged breach of a product development contract. Obtained dismissal with prejudice of an action brought by a former executive arising out of a merger.  Obtained dismissal with prejudice of a consumer class action alleging false advertising. Served as counsel in several securities class actions to companies, directors and officers, including multiple heath care companies, a large packaging company, a consumer products company, and a technology company. Served as counsel in several M\u0026amp;A litigation matters to companies, directors and officers, including matters involving technology, banking, consumer products, and health care companies.","searchable_name":"Lisa Bugni","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":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},{"id":442429,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1841,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBill Burns is in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Houston office and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contracts and Business Torts practice. Bill\u0026nbsp;represents plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of high stakes complex commercial disputes.\u0026nbsp; He has substantial experience representing clients in disputes involving the energy, construction, and health care industries. Bill\u0026nbsp;has also handled significant employment-related matters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]Bill has represented numerous clients before state and federal courts and arbitration panels around the country and has successfully briefed and argued cases on appeal. Bill recently obtained a nearly $100 million arbitration award for the owners of a large power plant. While in law school, Bill served as an Associate Editor of the Texas Law Review and interned with Chief Justice (then Justice) Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Termination of Oil, Gas, and Mineral Leases: Savings Clauses and Defensive Doctrines,\u0026rdquo; 26th Advanced Oil, Gas and Energy Resources Law Course, Texas State Bar Association, 2008\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Texas Supreme Court Holds that \u0026lsquo;Reasonable Certainty\u0026rsquo; Requirement Applies to Claims for \u0026lsquo;Lost Market Value,\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo; King \u0026amp; Spalding Energy Newsletter, June 2015\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Texas High Court is Sure About Reasonable Certainty,\u0026rdquo; Law360, June 17, 2015\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Texas Supreme Court Issues Opinion on Business Judgment Rule and Double-Derivative Standing That Could Affect Closely Held Texas Energy Companies,\u0026rdquo; King \u0026amp; Spalding Energy Newsletter, July 2015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"william-burns","email":"bburns@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the owners of a power plant against the general contractor in connection with extensive construction delays and associated costs resulting from an incident during commissioning.\u0026nbsp; Obtained award of nearly $100 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Chevron Pipe Line Company in a derivative action for breach of fiduciary duty against a controlling shareholder and directors of a JV pipeline company.\u0026nbsp; Case resolved on favorable terms for the client in settlement.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Exterran Kazakhstan in a construction delay and cost dispute with the general contractor on a gas processing project in Kazakhstan.\u0026nbsp; Case resolved on favorable terms for the client in settlement. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center against Title VII employment claims brought by a former faculty member.\u0026nbsp; Case resolved favorably in settlement after a landmark victory in the United States Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and affiliates along with the former dean of the medical school and the chairman of the department of surgery in a series of high profile state and federal litigation involving healthcare and employment-related issues.\u0026nbsp; Claims against the clients were dismissed at the trial court level or on interlocutory appeal.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Burns","nick_name":"Bill","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Nathan Hecht, Texas","years_held":"2004"}],"first_name":"William","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBill Burns is in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Houston office and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contracts and Business Torts practice. Bill\u0026nbsp;represents plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of high stakes complex commercial disputes.\u0026nbsp; He has substantial experience representing clients in disputes involving the energy, construction, and health care industries. Bill\u0026nbsp;has also handled significant employment-related matters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]Bill has represented numerous clients before state and federal courts and arbitration panels around the country and has successfully briefed and argued cases on appeal. Bill recently obtained a nearly $100 million arbitration award for the owners of a large power plant. While in law school, Bill served as an Associate Editor of the Texas Law Review and interned with Chief Justice (then Justice) Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Termination of Oil, Gas, and Mineral Leases: Savings Clauses and Defensive Doctrines,\u0026rdquo; 26th Advanced Oil, Gas and Energy Resources Law Course, Texas State Bar Association, 2008\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Texas Supreme Court Holds that \u0026lsquo;Reasonable Certainty\u0026rsquo; Requirement Applies to Claims for \u0026lsquo;Lost Market Value,\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo; King \u0026amp; Spalding Energy Newsletter, June 2015\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Texas High Court is Sure About Reasonable Certainty,\u0026rdquo; Law360, June 17, 2015\u003cbr /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;Texas Supreme Court Issues Opinion on Business Judgment Rule and Double-Derivative Standing That Could Affect Closely Held Texas Energy Companies,\u0026rdquo; King \u0026amp; Spalding Energy Newsletter, July 2015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the owners of a power plant against the general contractor in connection with extensive construction delays and associated costs resulting from an incident during commissioning.\u0026nbsp; Obtained award of nearly $100 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Chevron Pipe Line Company in a derivative action for breach of fiduciary duty against a controlling shareholder and directors of a JV pipeline company.\u0026nbsp; Case resolved on favorable terms for the client in settlement.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Exterran Kazakhstan in a construction delay and cost dispute with the general contractor on a gas processing project in Kazakhstan.\u0026nbsp; Case resolved on favorable terms for the client in settlement. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center against Title VII employment claims brought by a former faculty member.\u0026nbsp; Case resolved favorably in settlement after a landmark victory in the United States Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and affiliates along with the former dean of the medical school and the chairman of the department of surgery in a series of high profile state and federal litigation involving healthcare and employment-related issues.\u0026nbsp; Claims against the clients were dismissed at the trial court level or on interlocutory appeal.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":753}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:05:31.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:05:31.000Z","searchable_text":"Burns{{ FIELD }}Representing the owners of a power plant against the general contractor in connection with extensive construction delays and associated costs resulting from an incident during commissioning.  Obtained award of nearly $100 million.{{ FIELD }}Representing Chevron Pipe Line Company in a derivative action for breach of fiduciary duty against a controlling shareholder and directors of a JV pipeline company.  Case resolved on favorable terms for the client in settlement. {{ FIELD }}Representing Exterran Kazakhstan in a construction delay and cost dispute with the general contractor on a gas processing project in Kazakhstan.  Case resolved on favorable terms for the client in settlement.    {{ FIELD }}Representing The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center against Title VII employment claims brought by a former faculty member.  Case resolved favorably in settlement after a landmark victory in the United States Supreme Court. {{ FIELD }}Representing The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and affiliates along with the former dean of the medical school and the chairman of the department of surgery in a series of high profile state and federal litigation involving healthcare and employment-related issues.  Claims against the clients were dismissed at the trial court level or on interlocutory appeal. {{ FIELD }}Bill Burns is in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Houston office and a member of the firm’s Contracts and Business Torts practice. Bill represents plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of high stakes complex commercial disputes.  He has substantial experience representing clients in disputes involving the energy, construction, and health care industries. Bill has also handled significant employment-related matters. \nBill has represented numerous clients before state and federal courts and arbitration panels around the country and has successfully briefed and argued cases on appeal. Bill recently obtained a nearly $100 million arbitration award for the owners of a large power plant. While in law school, Bill served as an Associate Editor of the Texas Law Review and interned with Chief Justice (then Justice) Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court.\n \nPublications\n\n“Termination of Oil, Gas, and Mineral Leases: Savings Clauses and Defensive Doctrines,” 26th Advanced Oil, Gas and Energy Resources Law Course, Texas State Bar Association, 2008\n“Texas Supreme Court Holds that ‘Reasonable Certainty’ Requirement Applies to Claims for ‘Lost Market Value,’” King \u0026amp; Spalding Energy Newsletter, June 2015\n“Texas High Court is Sure About Reasonable Certainty,” Law360, June 17, 2015\n“Texas Supreme Court Issues Opinion on Business Judgment Rule and Double-Derivative Standing That Could Affect Closely Held Texas Energy Companies,” King \u0026amp; Spalding Energy Newsletter, July 2015\n Counsel 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. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Texas American Bar Association Houston Bar Association American Health Lawyers Association Intern, Nathan Hecht, Texas Representing the owners of a power plant against the general contractor in connection with extensive construction delays and associated costs resulting from an incident during commissioning.  Obtained award of nearly $100 million. Representing Chevron Pipe Line Company in a derivative action for breach of fiduciary duty against a controlling shareholder and directors of a JV pipeline company.  Case resolved on favorable terms for the client in settlement.  Representing Exterran Kazakhstan in a construction delay and cost dispute with the general contractor on a gas processing project in Kazakhstan.  Case resolved on favorable terms for the client in settlement.     Representing The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center against Title VII employment claims brought by a former faculty member.  Case resolved favorably in settlement after a landmark victory in the United States Supreme Court.  Representing The University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center and affiliates along with the former dean of the medical school and the chairman of the department of surgery in a series of high profile state and federal litigation involving healthcare and employment-related issues.  Claims against the clients were dismissed at the trial court level or on interlocutory appeal. ","searchable_name":"William R. Burns (Bill)","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":430893,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6958,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWayne Beckermann\u0026nbsp;is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Trial and Global Disputes group. His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, including purported class actions, business torts, and securities and shareholder matters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"wayne-beckermann","email":"wbeckermann@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Beckermann","nick_name":"Wayne","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Edith H. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","years_held":"2021 - 2022"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Charles R. Eskridge III, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas","years_held":"2020 - 2021"},{"name":"Intern, Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","years_held":"2019 - 2019"},{"name":"Intern, Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas","years_held":"2019 - 2019"}],"first_name":"Wayne","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWayne Beckermann\u0026nbsp;is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Trial and Global Disputes group. His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, including purported class actions, business torts, and securities and shareholder matters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12831}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-06-27T16:01:53.000Z","updated_at":"2025-06-27T16:01:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Beckermann{{ FIELD }}Wayne Beckermann is an associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Trial and Global Disputes group. His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, including purported class actions, business torts, and securities and shareholder matters.  Associate Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law University of Texas  Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law 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 Law Clerk, Hon. Edith H. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Law Clerk, Hon. Charles R. Eskridge III, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Intern, Hon. Jennifer Walker Elrod, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Intern, Hon. Lee H. Rosenthal, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas","searchable_name":"Wayne R. Beckermann","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":443244,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6301,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJacob\u0026nbsp;is an\u0026nbsp;Associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Atlanta office and is part of the firm's Business Litigation Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; His practice primarily focuses on representing businesses in high-stakes commercial litigation, including\u0026nbsp;class actions, breach of contract cases, and other complex business disputes.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJacob graduated with high honors\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003efrom Emory University School of Law.\u0026nbsp; During law school, Jacob interned for two federal judges in Atlanta and for the\u0026nbsp;Solicitor General Unit of Georgia's Office\u0026nbsp;of the Attorney General.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Upon graduation, Jacob\u0026nbsp;was inducted into the Order of the Coif.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter graduation, Jacob served as a law clerk for the Honorable Ed Carnes on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jacob-bristol","email":"jbristol@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bristol","nick_name":"Jacob","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Hon. William M. Ray, II, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","years_held":"2022 - 2022"},{"name":"Intern, Hon. J. P. Boulee, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","years_held":"2023 - 2023"},{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. Edward E. Carnes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"2024 - 2025"}],"first_name":"Jacob","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":659,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"high honors, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2024-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":2,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJacob\u0026nbsp;is an\u0026nbsp;Associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Atlanta office and is part of the firm's Business Litigation Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; His practice primarily focuses on representing businesses in high-stakes commercial litigation, including\u0026nbsp;class actions, breach of contract cases, and other complex business disputes.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJacob graduated with high honors\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003efrom Emory University School of Law.\u0026nbsp; During law school, Jacob interned for two federal judges in Atlanta and for the\u0026nbsp;Solicitor General Unit of Georgia's Office\u0026nbsp;of the Attorney General.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Upon graduation, Jacob\u0026nbsp;was inducted into the Order of the Coif.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAfter graduation, Jacob served as a law clerk for the Honorable Ed Carnes on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13221}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-24T19:42:14.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-24T19:42:14.000Z","searchable_text":"Bristol{{ FIELD }}Jacob is an Associate in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Atlanta office and is part of the firm's Business Litigation Practice Group.  His practice primarily focuses on representing businesses in high-stakes commercial litigation, including class actions, breach of contract cases, and other complex business disputes. \nJacob graduated with high honors from Emory University School of Law.  During law school, Jacob interned for two federal judges in Atlanta and for the Solicitor General Unit of Georgia's Office of the Attorney General.  Upon graduation, Jacob was inducted into the Order of the Coif. \nAfter graduation, Jacob served as a law clerk for the Honorable Ed Carnes on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Associate Georgia Institute of Technology  Emory University Emory University School of Law Intern, Hon. William M. Ray, II, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Intern, Hon. J. P. Boulee, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Judicial Clerk, Hon. Edward E. Carnes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","searchable_name":"Jacob Bristol","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}]}}