{"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":"3","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"B","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":442365,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBruce Baber focuses his practice\u0026nbsp;in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e. He has also been listed in multiple editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Trademark Professionals\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Trademark Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, numerous\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;lists and other leading industry publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e","slug":"bruce-baber","email":"bbaber@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-917-749-1247","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":17}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baber","nick_name":"Bruce","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Bruce","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"W.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucebaber/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBruce Baber focuses his practice\u0026nbsp;in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e. He has also been listed in multiple editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Trademark Professionals\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Trademark Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, numerous\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;lists and other leading industry publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:34.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:34.000Z","searchable_text":"Baber{{ FIELD }}Bruce Baber focuses his practice in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.\nBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\nBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\nFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by Chambers USA. He has also been listed in multiple editions of The Best Lawyers in America, The Legal 500, The World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World’s Leading Trademark Professionals, The International Who’s Who of Trademark Lawyers, numerous Super Lawyer lists and other leading industry publications.\nA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\n \nAdmitted only in Georgia. Bruce W Baber Partner Princeton University  Duke University Duke University School of Law Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Best Lawyers In America.","searchable_name":"Bruce W. Baber","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":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":442360,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":852,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.\u0026nbsp; Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: \u003cstrong\u003eBrown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences,\u0026nbsp;Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s office in Miami.\u0026nbsp; He serves as Managing Partner of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Miami office.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"w-randall-bassett","email":"rbassett@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3D22-0320.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":5}]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bassett","nick_name":"Randy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"W. Randall","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2010–2016"},{"title":"Chambers USA","detail":"2010–2015"},{"title":"Legal 500","detail":"2010–2016"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/wrandallbassett/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":126,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.\u0026nbsp; Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: \u003cstrong\u003eBrown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences,\u0026nbsp;Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s office in Miami.\u0026nbsp; He serves as Managing Partner of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Miami office.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUnited Parcel Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eR.J. Reynolds\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3D22-0320.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2010–2016"},{"title":"Chambers USA","detail":"2010–2015"},{"title":"Legal 500","detail":"2010–2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5463}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:28.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:28.000Z","searchable_text":"Bassett{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2010–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for United Parcel Service in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for R.J. Reynolds in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA, No. 3D22-0320.{{ FIELD }}Randy Bassett is a first chair trial lawyer, who has tried 40 cases to juries.  Randy has represented both foreign and domestic companies in federal and state courts across the United States in individual cases, multidistrict proceedings, and class actions. He focuses on the trial of high exposure cases on behalf of corporate defendants in difficult jurisdictions.\nRandy has represented companies in a range of industries, including consumer products, pharmaceutical, transportation, technology. His clients include: Brown-Forman Corporation, General Motors, Gilead Sciences, Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A., Imetric 4D, Logitech, Purdue Pharma LP, R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and United Parcel Service, Inc.\nRandy has handled cases throughout the United States with particular emphasis in jurisdictions designated \"judicial hellholes\" by the American Tort Reform Association. He has tried cases in the state courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Texas and North Carolina and in the U.S. district courts for the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Florida. He also has handled appeals on behalf of clients in the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fourth, Sixth and Eleventh Circuits, and has appeared in the state appellate courts of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, North Carolina and Tennessee.\nRecently, Randy relocated his practice to Miami, Florida, to establish King \u0026amp; Spalding’s office in Miami.  He serves as Managing Partner of the firm’s Miami office. W Randall Bassett Partner Best Lawyers in America 2010–2016 Chambers USA 2010–2015 Legal 500 2010–2016 The Citadel  University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Florida Georgia Hawaii American Bar Association Litigation Counsel of America American Bar Fellow State Bar of Georgia Lawyers Club of Atlanta Defense Research Institute State Bar of Florida Georgia Defense Lawyers Association International Association of Defense Counsel International Society of Barristers Product Liability Advisory Council Served as lead trial counsel for United Parcel Service in multiple wrongful death and personal injury lawsuits in Alabama, Florida and Texas. Served as lead trial counsel for R.J. Reynolds in dozens of Engle progeny lawsuits in South Florida achieving results far below demands made by plaintiffs, including complete defense verdicts in Miami-Dade and Broward counties. Served as lead trial counsel for Gol Linhas Aereas Inteligentes, SA in a three-day virtual trial in Miami-Dade Circuit Court defending Gol from a breach of contract claim involving the sale of six 737 jet aircraft. The court entered judgment in favor of Gol on all claims, which was affirmed by the 3rd DCA in ZGA Aircraft Leasing, Inc. v. Webjet Linhas Aereas, SA, No. 3D22-0320.","searchable_name":"W. Randall Bassett (Randy)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446413,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":826,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability,\u0026nbsp;toxic tort, and other tort\u0026nbsp;cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability,\u0026rdquo; the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax\u0026reg; and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.\u0026nbsp; He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the \u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac \u003c/em\u003eMDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e recognized Andy as a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for that victory.\u0026nbsp; In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy\u0026rsquo;s client\u0026rsquo;s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.\u0026nbsp; Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled \u0026ldquo;Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants\u0026rsquo; counsel, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.\u0026nbsp; At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.\u0026nbsp; After excluding the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003eand in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He served for five years as the\u0026nbsp;Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"andrew-bayman","email":"abayman@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability\u0026rdquo; in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg;. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK\u0026rsquo;s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK\u0026rsquo;s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (\u003cem\u003eGlynn v. Merck)\u003c/em\u003e, in a case alleging that Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis drug Fosamax\u0026reg; caused the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax\u0026reg; atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMerck v. Albrecht\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServes as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGSK\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eantidepressant, Paxil\u0026reg;, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil\u0026reg; consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e\u0026shy; cigarette products, including to minors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAllergan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan\u0026rsquo;s product Juviderm\u0026reg;, a Class III medical device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national coordinating counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large consumer healthcare product manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major medical device manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a defense verdict for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNissan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Smith-Green v. Nissan).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuest Diagnostics Incorporated,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe country\u0026rsquo;s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":131}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1223,"guid":"1223.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bayman","nick_name":"Andy","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Andrew","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2442,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1989-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"T.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named Distinguished Leader","detail":"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Week","detail":"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024"},{"title":"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.","detail":"Benchmark, 2019"},{"title":"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2015"},{"title":"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” ","detail":"CHAMBER USA"},{"title":"Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation","detail":"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022"},{"title":"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022"},{"title":"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014"},{"title":"Named by The Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2006–2022"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAndy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability,\u0026nbsp;toxic tort, and other tort\u0026nbsp;cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability,\u0026rdquo; the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax\u0026reg; and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.\u0026nbsp; He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the \u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac \u003c/em\u003eMDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e recognized Andy as a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for that victory.\u0026nbsp; In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy\u0026rsquo;s client\u0026rsquo;s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.\u0026nbsp; Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association\u0026rsquo;s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled \u0026ldquo;Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants\u0026rsquo; counsel, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.\u0026nbsp; At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.\u0026nbsp; After excluding the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003eand in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He served for five years as the\u0026nbsp;Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re Zantac\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (\u0026ldquo;GSK\u0026rdquo;) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of \u0026ldquo;Innovator Liability\u0026rdquo; in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant Paxil\u0026reg;. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK\u0026rsquo;s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK\u0026rsquo;s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (\u003cem\u003eGlynn v. Merck)\u003c/em\u003e, in a case alleging that Merck\u0026rsquo;s osteoporosis drug Fosamax\u0026reg; caused the plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax\u0026reg; atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMerck v. Albrecht\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServes as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGSK\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eantidepressant, Paxil\u0026reg;, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil\u0026reg; consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActing as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e\u0026shy; cigarette products, including to minors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAllergan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan\u0026rsquo;s product Juviderm\u0026reg;, a Class III medical device.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national coordinating counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large consumer healthcare product manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major medical device manufacturer\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a defense verdict for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNissan\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eas trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e(Smith-Green v. Nissan).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as national trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eQuest Diagnostics Incorporated,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ethe country\u0026rsquo;s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named Distinguished Leader","detail":"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024"},{"title":"Named Litigator of the Week","detail":"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024"},{"title":"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.","detail":"Benchmark, 2019"},{"title":"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2015"},{"title":"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” ","detail":"CHAMBER USA"},{"title":"Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\" ","detail":"CHAMBERS USA"},{"title":"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”","detail":"Chambers USA"},{"title":"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation","detail":"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022"},{"title":"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022"},{"title":"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” ","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014"},{"title":"Named by The Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2006–2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":719}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T21:41:51.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T21:41:51.000Z","searchable_text":"Bayman{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Distinguished Leader\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBER USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Representing \\\"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named by The Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2006–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions.{{ FIELD }}Acting as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru.{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs’ lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business.{{ FIELD }}Represented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of “Innovator Liability” in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm’s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK’s antidepressant Paxil®. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK’s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK’s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Glynn v. Merck), in a case alleging that Merck’s osteoporosis drug Fosamax® caused the plaintiff’s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax® atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court. Merck v. Albrecht, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019).{{ FIELD }}Serves as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that GSK’s antidepressant, Paxil®, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil® consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations.{{ FIELD }}Acted as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation.{{ FIELD }}Acting as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e­ cigarette products, including to minors.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for Allergan in a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan’s product Juviderm®, a Class III medical device.{{ FIELD }}Acted as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama.{{ FIELD }}Served as national coordinating counsel for a large consumer healthcare product manufacturer and has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major medical device manufacturer as national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a defense verdict for Nissan as trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system (Smith-Green v. Nissan).{{ FIELD }}Served as national trial counsel for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, the country’s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens.{{ FIELD }}Acted as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.{{ FIELD }}Andy Bayman is a trial lawyer who represents pharmaceutical companies, medical device manufacturers, retailers, automotive manufacturers and other major companies in complex and novel product liability, toxic tort, and other tort cases. He has tried over 20 cases in state and federal courts, many of which are first of kind such as the first pharmaceutical products liability lawsuit ever tried under the theory of “Innovator Liability,” the first MDL bellwether trial involving an atypical femur fracture allegedly caused by Merck’s osteoporosis medicine, Fosamax® and, more recently, the first Zantac case to go to trial.\nAndy is often called upon as coordinating and lead counsel on some of the most brand-threatening, high-profile crisis matters for major manufacturers, many of which are in MDLs.  He is lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and in coordinated state court proceedings in various states.\nAndy successfully tried the first Zantac case to a defense verdict in Cook County, IL. The plaintiff claimed that ingestion of Zantac for heartburn caused her colon cancer and asked the jury to award $640 million.  The American Lawyer recognized Andy as a “Litigator of the Week” for that victory.  In his second Zantac trial in Cook County, the jury deadlocked 11-1 in Andy’s client’s favor. In his third Zantac trial (involving the retrial of two plaintiffs whose cases had previously mistried), Andy and his team won a complete defense verdict in less than 90 minutes.  He and his team also won two subsequent Zantac trials in Cook County.  Cook County continues to be ranked in the American Tort Reform Association’s list of most difficult jurisdictions for corporate defendants and has been labelled “Gound Zero for Nuclear Verdicts in the State.”\nHe led a King \u0026amp; Spalding team that successfully argued, alongside co-defendants’ counsel, that the plaintiffs’ general causation experts in the Zantac MDL should be excluded under FRE 702.  At the Daubert hearing, Andy argued, among other things, that the plaintiffs’ testing expert used unreliable and unvalidated methodologies with a lack of documentation on how experiments were conducted, and that the expert offered to opine on the testing did not perform any of the analyses or assess their reliability himself but rather parroted the results given to him.  After excluding the plaintiffs’ experts in a 340+ page Order, the MDL Court entered summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing thousands of cases and claims and effectively terminating the MDL before any case-specific discovery had begun. The Zantac Daubert win is considered as by far the largest in scale and magnitude of any MDL Daubert win. \nAndy has frequently been recognized for his leading practice including by being named as a Product Liability MVP by Law360 and in Chambers Nationwide and Legal 500. He is notably a fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers.\nIn addition to his client work, Andy also is the Co-Chair of the firm’s new Product Liability and Mass Tort Practice Group.  He served for five years as the Practice Group Leader of King \u0026amp; Spalding’s former Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice group, a diverse group of over 550 litigators in 22 offices globally. Andrew T Bayman Partner Named Distinguished Leader DAILY REPORT’S SOUTHEASTERN LEGAL AWARDS, 2024 Named Litigator of the Week THE AMERICAN LAWYER, MAY 2024 “Highly Reputable, Skilled and a Phenomenal Counselor” CHAMBERS USA Named National Practice Area Star for Health Care and Mass Tort; Local Litigation Star. Benchmark, 2019 Named a 2017 Product Liability MVP Law360 Named Atlanta Product Liability Litigation-Defendants “Lawyer of the Year” Best Lawyers, 2015 Ranked in Product Liability and Mass Torts (Nationwide) Chambers USA Representing “major pharmaceutical companies on their most significant product liability cases.”  CHAMBER USA Representing \"market-leading MDLs in the life sciences sector.\"  CHAMBERS USA “Accessible, responsive and will move heaven and earth to accommodate the client’s needs.” Chambers USA Ranked as a top defense lawyer in the nation Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel, 2009–2022 Selected as a Georgia “Super Lawyer” Law \u0026amp; Politics and Atlanta magazine, 2006–2022 Recognized as having “substantial lead trial expertise”  Legal 500 An “excellent lawyer” who “gets results at a great value in automotive and pharmaceutical products litigation.”  Legal 500 Elected Fellow of the Litigation Counsel of America, an honorary society limited to less than .05% of U.S. lawyers Litigation Counsel of America, 2014 Named by The Best Lawyers in America 2006–2022 Miami University-Oxford  Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Federal Bar Association Acting as lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and as one of four Defense Co-Leads in personal injury and class actions in the In Re Zantac MDL with more than 100,000 claimants in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, as well as in various state courts and States Attorneys General actions. Acting as co-lead counsel for The Renco Group, Inc. and Doe Run Resources Corp. in connection with thousands of lawsuits pending in the E.D. Missouri (St. Louis) filed on behalf of Peruvian children allegedly injured from exposure to lead and other contaminants at a metallurgical facility in La Oroya, Peru. Acting as lead counsel for ride share company in defending against claims of driver assault. Successfully represented 3M in defeating two Combat Arms Earplugs plaintiffs’ lawsuit to enjoin 3M from issuing dividends and spinning off its healthcare business. Represented pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”) in the first lawsuit ever tried under a theory of “Innovator Liability” in which the plaintiff alleged that GSK was liable for the suicide of her late husband, the Chair of a global law firm’s Corporate and Securities practice following his ingestion of a generic version of GSK’s antidepressant Paxil®. The lawsuit alleged that the company had been negligent in its failure to warn of an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adult patients over the age of twenty-four. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied GSK’s motion for summary judgment and the case proceeded to trial with the plaintiff seeking to hold GSK liable for injuries stemming from the ingestion of a product it did not manufacture. The case was the subject of extensive media coverage. After a five-week jury trial of which three days were spent deliberating, the jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $3 million. This award was significantly less than the $39 million in damages that the plaintiff requested and less than the $14 million in economic losses that was put in front of the jury. The Seventh Circuit reversed the verdict and rendered judgment in GSK’s favor on federal preemption grounds in August 2018. Obtained a complete defense verdict for Merck in the first bellwether trial in an MDL in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Glynn v. Merck), in a case alleging that Merck’s osteoporosis drug Fosamax® caused the plaintiff’s atypical femur fracture. Following that trial, Judge Joel Pisano entered an Order to Show Cause dismissing Glynn and hundreds of other Fosamax® atypical femur fracture cases in the MDL on federal preemption grounds. Merck ultimately prevailed on preemption in that case in the United States Supreme Court. Merck v. Albrecht, 139 S.Ct. 1668 (2019). Serves as lead, national coordinating counsel and trial counsel in product liability litigation involving allegations that GSK’s antidepressant, Paxil®, causes birth defects. In this role, which has spanned more than a decade and involves emotionally charged cases that are brand and business threatening, Andy and the King \u0026amp; Spalding team have defeated certification of both state and national classes of Paxil® consumers on consumer fraud, medical monitoring and personal injury allegations. Acted as trial counsel for an international medical device company in female pelvic mesh litigation. Acting as lead counsel for a Fortune 50 company in an MDL pending in the Northern District of California alleging that it marketed and sold purportedly defective JUUL e­ cigarette products, including to minors. Achieved a motion to dismiss from the U.S. District Court of South Carolina as lead counsel for Allergan in a case alleging lip lesions and Lyme-disease-like symptoms after receiving injections with Allergan’s product Juviderm®, a Class III medical device. Acted as Lead trial counsel or second chair trial counsel in 16 automotive product liability cases and in a dealership termination trial in the federal and state courts in New York, New Jersey, Georgia, Mississippi and Alabama. Served as national coordinating counsel for a large consumer healthcare product manufacturer and has supervised a national document collection and company-wide interviews for that client. Represented a major medical device manufacturer as national coordinating counsel and lead trial counsel in product liability class actions and individual lawsuits involving a recalled medical device in which death or serious injury was alleged. Achieved a defense verdict for Nissan as trial counsel in the first-ever case tried involving an alleged defect in a motorized seatbelt system (Smith-Green v. Nissan). Served as national trial counsel for Quest Diagnostics Incorporated, the country’s largest private clinical laboratory company, in lawsuits arising out of the interpretation of laboratory specimens. Acted as lead trial counsel in cases in Missouri and Ohio in which it was alleged that a misread Pap smear led to a delay in the diagnosis of cervical cancer and caused wrongful death or the loss of fertility.","searchable_name":"Andrew T. Bayman (Andy)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445014,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3436,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLohr's practice focuses on high-stakes business disputes with an emphasis on antitrust matters and consumer protection matters. Lohr\u0026nbsp;represents clients in relation to high exposure civil litigation, including class actions, multi-district litigation, and matters with complex e-discovery issues. Lohr also represents clients in relation to government investigations and counsels clients regarding antitrust and consumer protection issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeadership and\u0026nbsp;Community Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCenter for Puppetry Arts, Board member\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeorgia Lawyers for the Arts,\u0026nbsp;Board member\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAtlanta Women's Foundation, Inspire Atlanta Leadership Program Class of 2019\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lohr-beck","email":"lohr.beck@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovo Nordisk Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against pharmaceutical company manufacturers of diabetes medications alleging conspiracy to artificially fix prices of diabetes medications by agreeing to coordinate and eliminate, reduce, or limit the availability of Contract Pharmacy 340B Drug Discounts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of \u003cstrong\u003eECI Management, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e in antitrust MDL proceeding in Nashville, Tennessee alleging that owners and managers of multifamily rental housing conspired to raise prices through use of algorithmic revenue management software.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSix Continents Hotels, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against Six Continents and other major hotel companies alleging that defendant hotel companies conspired to eliminate competition for branded keyword search advertising against each other, illegally raising consumers\u0026rsquo; costs to find and book hotel rooms, and seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKemira Chemicals Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding in Newark, New Jersey, alleging conspiracy to fix prices in sale of liquid aluminum sulfate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKan Am (US)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation filed by Simon Property Group affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery involving the interpretation of buy/sell provisions in joint venture agreements regarding major retail shopping malls throughout the United States.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3205}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Beck","nick_name":"Lohr","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Lohr","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":659,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"with honors, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2014-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Lohr Beck is a partner at King \u0026 Spalding. Read more about her.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLohr's practice focuses on high-stakes business disputes with an emphasis on antitrust matters and consumer protection matters. Lohr\u0026nbsp;represents clients in relation to high exposure civil litigation, including class actions, multi-district litigation, and matters with complex e-discovery issues. Lohr also represents clients in relation to government investigations and counsels clients regarding antitrust and consumer protection issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLeadership and\u0026nbsp;Community Service\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCenter for Puppetry Arts, Board member\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGeorgia Lawyers for the Arts,\u0026nbsp;Board member\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAtlanta Women's Foundation, Inspire Atlanta Leadership Program Class of 2019\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovo Nordisk Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against pharmaceutical company manufacturers of diabetes medications alleging conspiracy to artificially fix prices of diabetes medications by agreeing to coordinate and eliminate, reduce, or limit the availability of Contract Pharmacy 340B Drug Discounts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of \u003cstrong\u003eECI Management, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e in antitrust MDL proceeding in Nashville, Tennessee alleging that owners and managers of multifamily rental housing conspired to raise prices through use of algorithmic revenue management software.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSix Continents Hotels, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against Six Continents and other major hotel companies alleging that defendant hotel companies conspired to eliminate competition for branded keyword search advertising against each other, illegally raising consumers\u0026rsquo; costs to find and book hotel rooms, and seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKemira Chemicals Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in MDL proceeding in Newark, New Jersey, alleging conspiracy to fix prices in sale of liquid aluminum sulfate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eKan Am (US)\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation filed by Simon Property Group affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery involving the interpretation of buy/sell provisions in joint venture agreements regarding major retail shopping malls throughout the United States.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11787}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-13T21:27:06.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-13T21:27:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Beck{{ FIELD }}Defense of Novo Nordisk Inc. in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against pharmaceutical company manufacturers of diabetes medications alleging conspiracy to artificially fix prices of diabetes medications by agreeing to coordinate and eliminate, reduce, or limit the availability of Contract Pharmacy 340B Drug Discounts.{{ FIELD }}Defense of ECI Management, LLC in antitrust MDL proceeding in Nashville, Tennessee alleging that owners and managers of multifamily rental housing conspired to raise prices through use of algorithmic revenue management software.{{ FIELD }}Defense of Six Continents Hotels, Inc. in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against Six Continents and other major hotel companies alleging that defendant hotel companies conspired to eliminate competition for branded keyword search advertising against each other, illegally raising consumers’ costs to find and book hotel rooms, and seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act.{{ FIELD }}Defense of Kemira Chemicals Inc. in MDL proceeding in Newark, New Jersey, alleging conspiracy to fix prices in sale of liquid aluminum sulfate.{{ FIELD }}Defense of Kan Am (US) in litigation filed by Simon Property Group affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery involving the interpretation of buy/sell provisions in joint venture agreements regarding major retail shopping malls throughout the United States.{{ FIELD }}Lohr's practice focuses on high-stakes business disputes with an emphasis on antitrust matters and consumer protection matters. Lohr represents clients in relation to high exposure civil litigation, including class actions, multi-district litigation, and matters with complex e-discovery issues. Lohr also represents clients in relation to government investigations and counsels clients regarding antitrust and consumer protection issues. \nLeadership and Community Service\nCenter for Puppetry Arts, Board member\nGeorgia Lawyers for the Arts, Board member\nAtlanta Women's Foundation, Inspire Atlanta Leadership Program Class of 2019 Lohr Beck lawyer Partner George Washington University George Washington University Law School Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia Defense of Novo Nordisk Inc. in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against pharmaceutical company manufacturers of diabetes medications alleging conspiracy to artificially fix prices of diabetes medications by agreeing to coordinate and eliminate, reduce, or limit the availability of Contract Pharmacy 340B Drug Discounts. Defense of ECI Management, LLC in antitrust MDL proceeding in Nashville, Tennessee alleging that owners and managers of multifamily rental housing conspired to raise prices through use of algorithmic revenue management software. Defense of Six Continents Hotels, Inc. in a nationwide antitrust putative class action filed against Six Continents and other major hotel companies alleging that defendant hotel companies conspired to eliminate competition for branded keyword search advertising against each other, illegally raising consumers’ costs to find and book hotel rooms, and seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Sherman Act. Defense of Kemira Chemicals Inc. in MDL proceeding in Newark, New Jersey, alleging conspiracy to fix prices in sale of liquid aluminum sulfate. Defense of Kan Am (US) in litigation filed by Simon Property Group affiliates in the Delaware Court of Chancery involving the interpretation of buy/sell provisions in joint venture agreements regarding major retail shopping malls throughout the United States.","searchable_name":"Lohr A. Beck","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426841,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5738,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"craig-bessenger","email":"cbessenger@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment on behalf of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emovie studio, directors, and producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor movie studio\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor media company\u003c/strong\u003e, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclosely held corporation\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented publicly-traded\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in numerous class actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforeign national\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebank directors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproducer of high-quality automotive images\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bessenger","nick_name":"Craig","clerkships":[{"name":"Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"2010 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Craig","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna Cum Laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2006-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"H.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained summary judgment on behalf of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emovie studio, directors, and producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor movie studio\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor media company\u003c/strong\u003e, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court\u0026rsquo;s ruling on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclosely held corporation\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented publicly-traded\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in numerous class actions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eforeign national\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebank directors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emedical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eproducer of high-quality automotive images\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8096}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:19.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:57:19.000Z","searchable_text":"Bessenger{{ FIELD }}Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the movie studio, directors, and producer involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a major movie studio against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal.{{ FIELD }}Defeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a major media company, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal.{{ FIELD }}Achieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a closely held corporation.{{ FIELD }}Represented publicly-traded healthcare company in numerous class actions.{{ FIELD }}Represented a foreign national in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations.{{ FIELD }}Represented bank directors in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities.{{ FIELD }}Represented a medical device manufacturer in an investigation by state regulatory authorities.{{ FIELD }}Represented a producer of high-quality automotive images in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Craig Bessenger focuses on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense. His clients include Fortune 200 companies, entertainment companies, healthcare providers, and financial institutions. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in federal and state courts. Craig has litigated business, partnership, and contractual disputes, professional liability, banking and mortgage cases, and intellectual property matters. His white-collar experience spans various areas, including securities, antitrust, healthcare, and environmental violations, complex fraud and money laundering schemes, and internal investigations. Partner Brown University  University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California District of Columbia Judicial Clerk, Hon. A. Howard Matz, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Obtained summary judgment on behalf of the movie studio, directors, and producer involved in the creation of a multibillion-dollar movie franchise in a copyright infringement case. Successfully defended a major movie studio against claims relating to the collection of foreign revenue, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal. Defeated an anti-SLAPP motion brought against a major media company, and obtained an affirmance of the trial court’s ruling on appeal. Achieved a multimillion-dollar settlement in a professional liability action brought on behalf of a closely held corporation. Represented publicly-traded healthcare company in numerous class actions. Represented a foreign national in a federal criminal investigation into an allegedly fraudulent scheme to circumvent state and federal environmental regulations. Represented bank directors in civil enforcement actions brought by federal regulatory authorities. Represented a medical device manufacturer in an investigation by state regulatory authorities. Represented a producer of high-quality automotive images in a copyright infringement action against an online tech company arising from the unauthorized use of its photographs. A confidential settlement agreement was reached on the eve of trial.","searchable_name":"Craig H. Bessenger","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":436688,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3236,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation. \u0026nbsp;He regularly works with board\u0026nbsp;committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, among others, and has been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLawdragon.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;He is rated AV\u0026reg; Preeminent\u0026trade; by Martindale-Hubbel.\u0026nbsp; Client and peer reviews in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;say Paul\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.\u0026nbsp; Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he \u0026lsquo;is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u0026rsquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Securities Reporter.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"paul-bessette","email":"pbessette@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-512-940-6250","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSignificant Matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital Turbine, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSolarWinds Corp\u003c/em\u003e.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds\u0026rsquo;s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as \u0026ldquo;the largest and most sophisticated\u0026rdquo; cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhunware, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware\u0026rsquo;s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShattuck Labs\u003c/em\u003e: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re PolatityTE:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss\u0026mdash;the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE\u0026rsquo;s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolent Health, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed \u0026ldquo;rocket docket\u0026rdquo; timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdeptus Health, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFXCM, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank\u0026rsquo;s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM\u0026rsquo;s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hanger, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created \u0026ldquo;cookie jar\u0026rdquo; reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate \u0026ldquo;tone at the top.\u0026rdquo; In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003een banc,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court\u0026rsquo;s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants\u0026rsquo; state of mind. 768 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeiman v. Bulmahn, et al\u003c/em\u003e.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP\u0026rsquo;s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re SemCrude L.P.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMiyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost\u0026rsquo;s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company\u0026rsquo;s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a \u0026sect;10(b) securities-fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":132}]},"expertise":[{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bessette","nick_name":"Paul","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Paul","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America","detail":"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024"},{"title":"\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\"","detail":"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense","detail":"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide"},{"title":"\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1"},{"title":"Recognized by Best Lawyer","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023"},{"title":"\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026 responsiveness.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2021"},{"title":"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.","detail":"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2"},{"title":"\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”","detail":"U.S. News \u0026 World Report, 2015"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025"},{"title":"One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\"","detail":"Lawdragon, 2008"},{"title":"One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\"","detail":"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011"},{"title":"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers ","detail":"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation","detail":"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation. \u0026nbsp;He regularly works with board\u0026nbsp;committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, among others, and has been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLawdragon.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;He is rated AV\u0026reg; Preeminent\u0026trade; by Martindale-Hubbel.\u0026nbsp; Client and peer reviews in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;say Paul\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.\u0026nbsp; Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he \u0026lsquo;is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u0026rsquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Securities Reporter.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSignificant Matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital Turbine, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSolarWinds Corp\u003c/em\u003e.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds\u0026rsquo;s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as \u0026ldquo;the largest and most sophisticated\u0026rdquo; cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhunware, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware\u0026rsquo;s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShattuck Labs\u003c/em\u003e: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re PolatityTE:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss\u0026mdash;the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE\u0026rsquo;s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolent Health, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed \u0026ldquo;rocket docket\u0026rdquo; timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdeptus Health, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFXCM, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank\u0026rsquo;s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM\u0026rsquo;s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hanger, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created \u0026ldquo;cookie jar\u0026rdquo; reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate \u0026ldquo;tone at the top.\u0026rdquo; In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003een banc,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court\u0026rsquo;s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants\u0026rsquo; state of mind. 768 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeiman v. Bulmahn, et al\u003c/em\u003e.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP\u0026rsquo;s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re SemCrude L.P.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMiyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost\u0026rsquo;s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company\u0026rsquo;s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a \u0026sect;10(b) securities-fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America","detail":"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024"},{"title":"\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\"","detail":"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense","detail":"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide"},{"title":"\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1"},{"title":"Recognized by Best Lawyer","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023"},{"title":"\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026 responsiveness.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2021"},{"title":"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.","detail":"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2"},{"title":"\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”","detail":"U.S. News \u0026 World Report, 2015"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025"},{"title":"One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\"","detail":"Lawdragon, 2008"},{"title":"One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\"","detail":"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011"},{"title":"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers ","detail":"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation","detail":"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4186}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-04T21:52:53.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-04T21:52:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Bessette{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\\\" \\\"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Best Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026amp; responsiveness.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026amp;Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\\\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Securities Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"One of \\\"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2008\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"One of \\\"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Securities Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010\"}{{ FIELD }}Significant Matters{{ FIELD }}Digital Turbine, Inc.: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.{{ FIELD }}SolarWinds Corp.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds’ December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds’s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated” cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds’ former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.{{ FIELD }}Phunware, Inc.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware’s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware’s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.{{ FIELD }}Shattuck Labs: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply{{ FIELD }}In re PolatityTE: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss—the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE’s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.{{ FIELD }}Evolent Health, Inc.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed “rocket docket” timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.{{ FIELD }}Adeptus Health, Inc.: We defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus’s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus’s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.{{ FIELD }}FXCM, Inc.: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank’s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM’s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App’x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).{{ FIELD }}In re Hanger, Inc.: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created “cookie jar” reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate “tone at the top.” In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs’ allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants’ state of mind. 768 Fed. App’x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).{{ FIELD }}Neiman v. Bulmahn, et al.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP’s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company’s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).{{ FIELD }}In re SemCrude L.P.: Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).{{ FIELD }}Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.: Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost’s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff’s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Bell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.: Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company’s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).{{ FIELD }}In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation: Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Greenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a §10(b) securities-fraud claim.{{ FIELD }}Paul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm’s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.  For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation.  He regularly works with board committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues. \nPaul is ranked by Chambers, Best Lawyers in America, and Legal 500, among others, and has been recognized by Super Lawyers and Lawdragon.  He is rated AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbel.  Client and peer reviews in Chambers say Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.  Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he ‘is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”’  “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.”\nPaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including ABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter and The Securities Reporter. Paul R. Bessette Partner Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America Litigation Counsel of America, 2024 Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America Leading Lawyers of America, 2024 \"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\" Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024 Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide \"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\" Chambers USA 2023, Band 1 Recognized by Best Lawyer The Best Lawyers in America - 2023 \"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026amp; responsiveness.\" Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023 \"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\" Chambers, 2021 Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026amp;Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions. Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2 Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions. Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2 \"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\" Chambers USA 2018, Band 2 Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.” Chambers USA, 2016 “Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors” Chambers USA, 2016 Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.” Chambers USA, 2016 “Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.” U.S. News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015 Recognized for Securities Litigation  The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025 One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\" Lawdragon, 2008 One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\" Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011 Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers  Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019 Recognized for Securities Litigation Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010 The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Baylor University Baylor University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California New York Texas Significant Matters Digital Turbine, Inc.: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024. SolarWinds Corp.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds’ December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds’s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated” cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds’ former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement. Phunware, Inc.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware’s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware’s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim. Shattuck Labs: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply In re PolatityTE: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss—the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE’s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss. Evolent Health, Inc.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed “rocket docket” timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session. Adeptus Health, Inc.: We defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus’s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus’s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well. FXCM, Inc.: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank’s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM’s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App’x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019). In re Hanger, Inc.: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created “cookie jar” reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate “tone at the top.” In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs’ allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants’ state of mind. 768 Fed. App’x 175 (5th Cir. 2019). Neiman v. Bulmahn, et al.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP’s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company’s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017). In re SemCrude L.P.: Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015). Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.: Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost’s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff’s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013). Bell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.: Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company’s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005). In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation: Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Greenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a §10(b) securities-fraud claim.","searchable_name":"Paul R. Bessette","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":443887,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6347,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKeri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri is ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;and was recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of four MVP\u0026rsquo;s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"keri-borders","email":"kborders@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e--- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Borders","nick_name":"Keri","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Judge Robert J. Timlin, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"1998 - 1998"}],"first_name":"Keri","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1997-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026 Beverages: Regulatory \u0026 Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023"},{"title":"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)","detail":"2020"},{"title":"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Attorneys","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021"},{"title":"Named Women of Influence","detail":"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021"},{"title":"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner","detail":"Diversity Law Journal"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/keri-borders-36814112/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKeri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri is ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;and was recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of four MVP\u0026rsquo;s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e--- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026 Beverages: Regulatory \u0026 Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023"},{"title":"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)","detail":"2020"},{"title":"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Attorneys","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021"},{"title":"Named Women of Influence","detail":"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021"},{"title":"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner","detail":"Diversity Law Journal"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9734}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:07.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:07.000Z","searchable_text":"Borders{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Next Generation Partner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026amp; Beverages: Regulatory \u0026amp; Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Women of Influence\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Diversity Law Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products.{{ FIELD }}Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.{{ FIELD }}Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.{{ FIELD }}Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.{{ FIELD }}Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., --- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.{{ FIELD }}Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.{{ FIELD }}Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.{{ FIELD }}Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.{{ FIELD }}Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’”{{ FIELD }}Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.{{ FIELD }}Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.{{ FIELD }}Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.{{ FIELD }}In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue.{{ FIELD }}Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products.{{ FIELD }}Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.{{ FIELD }}Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements.{{ FIELD }}Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products.{{ FIELD }}Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.{{ FIELD }}Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.{{ FIELD }}Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.{{ FIELD }}Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy.{{ FIELD }}Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.{{ FIELD }}Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).{{ FIELD }}Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.{{ FIELD }}Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.”{{ FIELD }}In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.{{ FIELD }}Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).{{ FIELD }}Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.{{ FIELD }}Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.{{ FIELD }}Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”{{ FIELD }}Keri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.\nKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\nKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\nKeri is ranked in Chambers USA, Legal 500, and was recognized by Law360 as one of four MVP’s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020. Partner Next Generation Partner Legal 500, 2023 Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026amp; Beverages: Regulatory \u0026amp; Litigation Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023 Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability) 2020 Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021 Named Women of Influence Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021 2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner Diversity Law Journal University of California  University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Member, American Bar Association Board of Governors, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Los Angeles Chapter Member, Food and Drug Law Institute Member, Consumer Brands Association Law Clerk, Judge Robert J. Timlin, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products. Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement. Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted. Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil. Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., --- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022). Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims. Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022). Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product. Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product. Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses. Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’” Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed. Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case. Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client. In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue. Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products. Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements. Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements. Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products. Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted. Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products. Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice. Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy. Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013). Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception. Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.). Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four. Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.” In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013). Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement. Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay). Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend. Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”","searchable_name":"Keri Borders","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442372,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":883,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"mark-brown","email":"mbrown@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePhillip Morris USA\u003c/strong\u003e v. FDA\u003c/em\u003e, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eUnited States v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFranck's Lab\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDuring his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990\u0026ndash;1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e (2008 and 2015), \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eThe General Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e (2007) and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBaxter Healthcare\u003c/strong\u003e (2006).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSince 2002, served on the national counsel team for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eO'Neal v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFrom 1995 to 2001, served on \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eConnaught Laboratories v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNext Nutrition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003ev. SportPharma USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies\u003c/strong\u003e to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Top 10 pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea top tier biotechnology company\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed numerous internal investigations for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ebiotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eseveral drug and device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":51}]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Brown","nick_name":"Mark","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Mark","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":196,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney ","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017"},{"title":"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. ","detail":"Legal 500, 2016"},{"title":"Named Life Sciences Star ","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016"},{"title":"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers ","detail":"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016"},{"title":"Superior Achievement Award ","detail":"U.S. Department of Health \u0026 Human Services, 1992"},{"title":"Commendable Service Award ","detail":"FDA, 1992–1994"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePhillip Morris USA\u003c/strong\u003e v. FDA\u003c/em\u003e, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eUnited States v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFranck's Lab\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDuring his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990\u0026ndash;1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e (2008 and 2015), \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eThe General Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e (2007) and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBaxter Healthcare\u003c/strong\u003e (2006).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSince 2002, served on the national counsel team for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eO'Neal v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFrom 1995 to 2001, served on \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eConnaught Laboratories v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNext Nutrition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003ev. SportPharma USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies\u003c/strong\u003e to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Top 10 pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea top tier biotechnology company\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed numerous internal investigations for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ebiotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eseveral drug and device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney ","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017"},{"title":"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. ","detail":"Legal 500, 2016"},{"title":"Named Life Sciences Star ","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016"},{"title":"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers ","detail":"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016"},{"title":"Superior Achievement Award ","detail":"U.S. Department of Health \u0026 Human Services, 1992"},{"title":"Commendable Service Award ","detail":"FDA, 1992–1994"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":746}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:44.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Brown{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law \u0026amp; Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Life Sciences Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Superior Achievement Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Department of Health \u0026amp; Human Services, 1992\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendable Service Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"FDA, 1992–1994\"}{{ FIELD }}Phillip Morris USA v. FDA, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.{{ FIELD }}United States v. Franck's Lab, 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.{{ FIELD }}During his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990–1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including Medtronic (2008 and 2015), The General Electric Company (2007) and Baxter Healthcare (2006).{{ FIELD }}Since 2002, served on the national counsel team for GlaxoSmithKline in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in O'Neal v. SmithKline Beecham (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.{{ FIELD }}From 1995 to 2001, served on 3M's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.{{ FIELD }}Connaught Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham, 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.{{ FIELD }}Next Nutrition, Inc. v. SportPharma USA, Inc., No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.{{ FIELD }}Represented pharmaceutical manufacturers in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.{{ FIELD }}Conducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of multiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.{{ FIELD }}Conducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for a Top 10 pharmaceutical company’s blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.{{ FIELD }}Conducted a risk assessment for a top tier biotechnology company’s drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.{{ FIELD }}Led numerous internal investigations for biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented several drug and device manufacturers concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation’s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.{{ FIELD }}Represented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.{{ FIELD }}Represented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.{{ FIELD }}Conducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.{{ FIELD }}Assisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.{{ FIELD }}Mark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.\nMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\nMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\nMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\nBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients. Mark S Brown Partner Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney  Law \u0026amp; Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017 Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S.  Legal 500, 2016 Named Life Sciences Star  LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016 Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers  Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016 Superior Achievement Award  U.S. Department of Health \u0026amp; Human Services, 1992 Commendable Service Award  FDA, 1992–1994 University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School St. Louis University  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania District of Columbia Bar Maryland State Bar Phillip Morris USA v. FDA, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products. United States v. Franck's Lab, 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs. During his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990–1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including Medtronic (2008 and 2015), The General Electric Company (2007) and Baxter Healthcare (2006). Since 2002, served on the national counsel team for GlaxoSmithKline in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in O'Neal v. SmithKline Beecham (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil. From 1995 to 2001, served on 3M's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues. Connaught Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham, 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine. Next Nutrition, Inc. v. SportPharma USA, Inc., No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award. Represented pharmaceutical manufacturers in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation. Conducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of multiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure. Conducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for a Top 10 pharmaceutical company’s blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas. Conducted a risk assessment for a top tier biotechnology company’s drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making. Led numerous internal investigations for biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues. Represented several drug and device manufacturers concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues. Represented one of the nation’s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement. Represented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product. Represented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments. Conducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices. Assisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.","searchable_name":"Mark S. Brown","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":196,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447936,"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":"Pat","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":"2026-04-30T05:12:23.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-30T05:12:23.000Z","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 (Pat)","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}]}}