{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":null,"value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"5","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"M","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":445532,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7304,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRex Mann is a trial lawyer who focuses his practice on patent litigation and other complex commercial litigation matters. Although his patent litigation practice is nationwide, he has extensive experience specifically in patent-heavy districts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. On commercial matters he often represents technology companies or works on matters involving complex technology, and his background in engineering enables him to deeply understand clients\u0026rsquo; technologies and businesses to help them better achieve their goals. Rex\u0026rsquo;s work continues to garner him honors from legal publications such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026reg;\u003c/sup\u003e,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;IAM Patent 1000, Lawdragon\u003c/em\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex\u0026rsquo;s intellectual property practice primarily consists of complex patent and trade secret litigation. He has handled bet-the-company patent and trade secret matters, including taking them to trial, and winning. Outside of litigation, he advises his clients on technology licensing issues, policies relating to intellectual property, and targeted patent prosecution advice relating to licensing and litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Rex\u0026rsquo;s patent litigation practice is heavily concentrated on matters arising in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. In fact, he began his legal career as a law clerk for the Honorable T. John Ward in the Eastern District of Texas, where he gained significant experience in federal trial practice and patent litigation, given the district\u0026rsquo;s intense patent trial docket.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex has significant trial experience and has tried more than 20 cases or arbitrations as first chair or in an otherwise stand-up role, and he has experience in all phases of trial. In addition to his civil trial work, Rex spent three months on loan as an assistant district attorney in Dallas County, where he tried numerous criminal jury trials to verdict and obtained a guilty verdict in each one.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex\u0026rsquo;s commercial litigation practice has included a wide variety of matters, including breach of contract, business torts, consumer class actions, RICO violations, securities laws violations, whistleblower or False Claims Act litigation, employment, fraud, suits against the government or government officials, and other related disputes. Given his background in engineering, the work Rex does for his commercial clients often involves technology issues. Moreover, his undergraduate and graduate degrees in civil and environmental engineering are helpful when working on matters in the environmental and oil and gas industries.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"rex-mann","email":"rmann@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) As trial counsel, prevailed for \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Well Services\u003c/strong\u003e in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that U.S. Well Services infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of U.S. Well Services\u0026rsquo; fracturing sites\u0026mdash;a win that\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAm Law\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognized with a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; first-runner-up nod. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Halliburton\u0026rsquo;s technical experts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(ITC) Served as trial counsel to defend \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD)\u003c/strong\u003e in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron\u0026nbsp;Elliot\u0026rsquo;s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. Rex conducted multiple cross-examinations and direct examinations of expert witnesses and fact witnesses in the five-day trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFlypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for plaintiff \u003cstrong\u003eFlypsi\u003c/strong\u003e, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google\u0026rsquo;s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flypsi\u0026rsquo;s invention, the jury rejected Google\u0026rsquo;s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flypsi US$12 million for Google\u0026rsquo;s infringement. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Google\u0026rsquo;s expert and company representative at trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. Rex conducted a key cross-examination of the inventor and put on Medtronic\u0026rsquo;s noninfringement and invalidity expert. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Rex and his team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eRyan Hardin and Andrew Hill\u003c/strong\u003e, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;issues, the case settled days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFreshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) Lead counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eFreshworks\u003c/strong\u003e in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSieler v. Atieva Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) Lead trial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eAtieva Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMatch Group v. Muzmatch Limited\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Served as counsel for defendants and obtained a defense verdict in jury trial on claims of trade secret misappropriation, fraud, and patent infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al\u003c/em\u003e. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly US$300 million for the defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client \u003cstrong\u003eUnbnd\u003c/strong\u003e and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing that Rex led, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party\u0026rsquo;s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd\u0026rsquo;s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. LifeVantage Corporation et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Utah) Counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eLifeVantage\u003c/strong\u003e in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, antitrust violations, securities laws violations, and unjust enrichment. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won a motion to dismiss on several of the claims, and the case proceeded through class discovery on remaining claims, where the team prevailed for LifeVantage in achieving denial of class certification. The case settled shortly after class certification was denied.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConfidential AAA Arbitration in Dallas. Trial counsel for respondent in a confidential arbitration brought by a plaintiff CEO with breach of contract claims close to US$10 million. After a multiday evidentiary hearing where Rex put on a key witness for the company, Rex and the Winston team achieved a complete defense victory and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees against the claimant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConfidential JAMS Arbitration in San Francisco. Lead trial counsel for then-\u003cstrong\u003eNFL player\u003c/strong\u003e in a JAMS arbitration wherein a marketing agency filed for arbitration against the NFL player for breach of contract alleging millions of dollars in damages. Brought counterclaims on behalf of the NFL player for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among others. Achieved a settlement prior to the evidentiary hearing whereby the marketing agency, despite being the initial plaintiff/claimant, actually paid the client a six-figure payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRanieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eAdvoCare\u003c/strong\u003e in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States of America ex. rel. Magee v. Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Counsel for relators in a kickback case, wherein relators brought claims under the False Claims Act. Shortly before trial, the defendants settled for US$48 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWaterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented developer of a billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFee Smith Sharp \u0026amp; Vitullo LLP et al. v. Deana Strunk et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Dallas, Tex. Dist. Ct.) Trial counsel for defendant in a breach of contract action seeking close to US$10 million in damages. After successfully defeating a motion to compel arbitration through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and completing discovery, the case settled on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Woodbridge Investments Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(C.D. Cal.) Counsel for defendant in a class action proceeding brought against the bank for aiding and abetting fraud claims, among others, relating to the Woodbridge billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Case settled after class certification briefing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProphet Equity LP et al. v. Twin City Insurance Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(5th Cir.) Counsel for appellant wherein a reversal was achieved of a summary judgment ruling against client on contractual insurance issues. The case settled shortly after the decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCrothers et al. v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Wyo.) Trial counsel for plaintiffs in an action alleging multiple constitutional violations by various law enforcement officials and agencies in the Teton County area. Also served as appellate counsel for a related criminal proceeding wherein an appeal was sought for various\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrady\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;violations, and argued at the court, along with co-counsel Alan Dershowitz, in the post-trial and appellate phase.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRysher Entertainment et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Cal.) Represented \u003cstrong\u003eRysher Entertainment, 2929 Entertainment, and Qualia Capital\u003c/strong\u003e as plaintiffs in a contractual indemnification case arising out of underlying litigation brought by actor Don Johnson related to the television series\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNash Bridges\u003c/em\u003e. Obtained summary judgment from the trial court holding that Cox was liable under the contract, and the case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSabre Corporation, et al. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.Y. Com. Div.) Represented \u003cstrong\u003eSabre\u003c/strong\u003e and related entities in an insurance coverage case against two insurance companies relating to the insurers\u0026rsquo; failure to indemnify Sabre in a major piece of litigation. Obtained summary judgment at the trial court level declaring that the insurers had a duty to defend Sabre, and a disqualifying conflict of interest prevented insurers from controlling the defense. The case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mann","nick_name":"Rex","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable T. John Ward, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","years_held":"2010 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Rex","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":176,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"high honors","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as “Up and Coming” and Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2024-2025"},{"title":"Recognized within the “Top 50” in Patent Litigation Report","detail":"Patexia, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Ranked by IAM Patent 1000","detail":"2025"},{"title":"Litigation – Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026"},{"title":"Litigation – Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Intellectual Property, and Intellectual Property Law","detail":"Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch in America, 2021–2023"},{"title":"“Green 500: Leading Environmental Lawyers”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023–2025"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2021–2026"},{"title":"“Texas Lawyer on the Rise” ","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2020"},{"title":"“Up-and-Coming 100: Texas Rising Stars”","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2019–2021"},{"title":"“Rising Star”","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2016–2024"},{"title":"Order of the Chancellors","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"},{"title":"Order of the Barristers","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRex Mann is a trial lawyer who focuses his practice on patent litigation and other complex commercial litigation matters. Although his patent litigation practice is nationwide, he has extensive experience specifically in patent-heavy districts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. On commercial matters he often represents technology companies or works on matters involving complex technology, and his background in engineering enables him to deeply understand clients\u0026rsquo; technologies and businesses to help them better achieve their goals. Rex\u0026rsquo;s work continues to garner him honors from legal publications such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e\u0026reg;\u003c/sup\u003e,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;IAM Patent 1000, Lawdragon\u003c/em\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex\u0026rsquo;s intellectual property practice primarily consists of complex patent and trade secret litigation. He has handled bet-the-company patent and trade secret matters, including taking them to trial, and winning. Outside of litigation, he advises his clients on technology licensing issues, policies relating to intellectual property, and targeted patent prosecution advice relating to licensing and litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Rex\u0026rsquo;s patent litigation practice is heavily concentrated on matters arising in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. In fact, he began his legal career as a law clerk for the Honorable T. John Ward in the Eastern District of Texas, where he gained significant experience in federal trial practice and patent litigation, given the district\u0026rsquo;s intense patent trial docket.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex has significant trial experience and has tried more than 20 cases or arbitrations as first chair or in an otherwise stand-up role, and he has experience in all phases of trial. In addition to his civil trial work, Rex spent three months on loan as an assistant district attorney in Dallas County, where he tried numerous criminal jury trials to verdict and obtained a guilty verdict in each one.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRex\u0026rsquo;s commercial litigation practice has included a wide variety of matters, including breach of contract, business torts, consumer class actions, RICO violations, securities laws violations, whistleblower or False Claims Act litigation, employment, fraud, suits against the government or government officials, and other related disputes. Given his background in engineering, the work Rex does for his commercial clients often involves technology issues. Moreover, his undergraduate and graduate degrees in civil and environmental engineering are helpful when working on matters in the environmental and oil and gas industries.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePatent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHalliburton v. U.S. Well Services\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(W.D. Tex.) As trial counsel, prevailed for \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Well Services\u003c/strong\u003e in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that U.S. Well Services infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of U.S. Well Services\u0026rsquo; fracturing sites\u0026mdash;a win that\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAm Law\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognized with a \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; first-runner-up nod. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Halliburton\u0026rsquo;s technical experts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(ITC) Served as trial counsel to defend \u003cstrong\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD)\u003c/strong\u003e in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron\u0026nbsp;Elliot\u0026rsquo;s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. Rex conducted multiple cross-examinations and direct examinations of expert witnesses and fact witnesses in the five-day trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFlypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for plaintiff \u003cstrong\u003eFlypsi\u003c/strong\u003e, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google\u0026rsquo;s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flypsi\u0026rsquo;s invention, the jury rejected Google\u0026rsquo;s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flypsi US$12 million for Google\u0026rsquo;s infringement. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Google\u0026rsquo;s expert and company representative at trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. Rex conducted a key cross-examination of the inventor and put on Medtronic\u0026rsquo;s noninfringement and invalidity expert. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Rex and his team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eHardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eRyan Hardin and Andrew Hill\u003c/strong\u003e, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaubert\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;issues, the case settled days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFreshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Del.) Lead counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eFreshworks\u003c/strong\u003e in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSieler v. Atieva Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Cal.) Lead trial counsel for \u003cstrong\u003eAtieva Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMatch Group v. Muzmatch Limited\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(W.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Served as counsel for defendants and obtained a defense verdict in jury trial on claims of trade secret misappropriation, fraud, and patent infringement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCeats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al\u003c/em\u003e. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly US$300 million for the defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client \u003cstrong\u003eUnbnd\u003c/strong\u003e and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing that Rex led, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party\u0026rsquo;s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd\u0026rsquo;s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSmith v. LifeVantage Corporation et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Utah) Counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eLifeVantage\u003c/strong\u003e in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, antitrust violations, securities laws violations, and unjust enrichment. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won a motion to dismiss on several of the claims, and the case proceeded through class discovery on remaining claims, where the team prevailed for LifeVantage in achieving denial of class certification. The case settled shortly after class certification was denied.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConfidential AAA Arbitration in Dallas. Trial counsel for respondent in a confidential arbitration brought by a plaintiff CEO with breach of contract claims close to US$10 million. After a multiday evidentiary hearing where Rex put on a key witness for the company, Rex and the Winston team achieved a complete defense victory and an award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees against the claimant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConfidential JAMS Arbitration in San Francisco. Lead trial counsel for then-\u003cstrong\u003eNFL player\u003c/strong\u003e in a JAMS arbitration wherein a marketing agency filed for arbitration against the NFL player for breach of contract alleging millions of dollars in damages. Brought counterclaims on behalf of the NFL player for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among others. Achieved a settlement prior to the evidentiary hearing whereby the marketing agency, despite being the initial plaintiff/claimant, actually paid the client a six-figure payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRanieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant \u003cstrong\u003eAdvoCare\u003c/strong\u003e in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eUnited States of America ex. rel. Magee v. Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(E.D. Tex.) Counsel for relators in a kickback case, wherein relators brought claims under the False Claims Act. Shortly before trial, the defendants settled for US$48 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWaterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(Texas State Court) Represented developer of a billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFee Smith Sharp \u0026amp; Vitullo LLP et al. v. Deana Strunk et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(Dallas, Tex. Dist. Ct.) Trial counsel for defendant in a breach of contract action seeking close to US$10 million in damages. After successfully defeating a motion to compel arbitration through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and completing discovery, the case settled on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Woodbridge Investments Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(C.D. Cal.) Counsel for defendant in a class action proceeding brought against the bank for aiding and abetting fraud claims, among others, relating to the Woodbridge billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Case settled after class certification briefing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eProphet Equity LP et al. v. Twin City Insurance Company\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(5th Cir.) Counsel for appellant wherein a reversal was achieved of a summary judgment ruling against client on contractual insurance issues. The case settled shortly after the decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCrothers et al. v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(D. Wyo.) Trial counsel for plaintiffs in an action alleging multiple constitutional violations by various law enforcement officials and agencies in the Teton County area. Also served as appellate counsel for a related criminal proceeding wherein an appeal was sought for various\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBrady\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;violations, and argued at the court, along with co-counsel Alan Dershowitz, in the post-trial and appellate phase.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRysher Entertainment et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Cal.) Represented \u003cstrong\u003eRysher Entertainment, 2929 Entertainment, and Qualia Capital\u003c/strong\u003e as plaintiffs in a contractual indemnification case arising out of underlying litigation brought by actor Don Johnson related to the television series\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNash Bridges\u003c/em\u003e. Obtained summary judgment from the trial court holding that Cox was liable under the contract, and the case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSabre Corporation, et al. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(N.Y. Com. Div.) Represented \u003cstrong\u003eSabre\u003c/strong\u003e and related entities in an insurance coverage case against two insurance companies relating to the insurers\u0026rsquo; failure to indemnify Sabre in a major piece of litigation. Obtained summary judgment at the trial court level declaring that the insurers had a duty to defend Sabre, and a disqualifying conflict of interest prevented insurers from controlling the defense. The case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as “Up and Coming” and Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas","detail":"Chambers USA, 2024-2025"},{"title":"Recognized within the “Top 50” in Patent Litigation Report","detail":"Patexia, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Ranked by IAM Patent 1000","detail":"2025"},{"title":"Litigation – Intellectual Property","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026"},{"title":"Litigation – Patent","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Intellectual Property, and Intellectual Property Law","detail":"Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch in America, 2021–2023"},{"title":"“Green 500: Leading Environmental Lawyers”","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023–2025"},{"title":"“Future Star”","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2021–2026"},{"title":"“Texas Lawyer on the Rise” ","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2020"},{"title":"“Up-and-Coming 100: Texas Rising Stars”","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2019–2021"},{"title":"“Rising Star”","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2016–2024"},{"title":"Order of the Chancellors","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"},{"title":"Order of the Coif","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"},{"title":"Order of the Barristers","detail":"University of Texas School of Law"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13343}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:53.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Mann{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as “Up and Coming” and Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2024-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized within the “Top 50” in Patent Litigation Report\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Patexia, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked by IAM Patent 1000\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation – Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation – Patent\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Intellectual Property, and Intellectual Property Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch in America, 2021–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Green 500: Leading Environmental Lawyers”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2023–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Future Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2021–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Texas Lawyer on the Rise” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Up-and-Coming 100: Texas Rising Stars”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2019–2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Rising Star”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2016–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Chancellors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Texas School of Law\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Coif\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Texas School of Law\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Order of the Barristers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Texas School of Law\"}{{ FIELD }}Patent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation{{ FIELD }}Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) As trial counsel, prevailed for U.S. Well Services in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that U.S. Well Services infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of U.S. Well Services’ fracturing sites—a win that Am Law recognized with a “Litigator of the Week” first-runner-up nod. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Halliburton’s technical experts.{{ FIELD }}In the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (ITC) Served as trial counsel to defend Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot’s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. Rex conducted multiple cross-examinations and direct examinations of expert witnesses and fact witnesses in the five-day trial.{{ FIELD }}Flypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC (W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for plaintiff Flypsi, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google’s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flypsi’s invention, the jury rejected Google’s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flypsi US$12 million for Google’s infringement. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Google’s expert and company representative at trial.{{ FIELD }}TMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant Medtronic in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. Rex conducted a key cross-examination of the inventor and put on Medtronic’s noninfringement and invalidity expert. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Rex and his team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement.{{ FIELD }}Hardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Ryan Hardin and Andrew Hill, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and Daubert issues, the case settled days before trial.{{ FIELD }}Freshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC (D. Del.) Lead counsel for Freshworks in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled.{{ FIELD }}Sieler v. Atieva Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Lead trial counsel for Atieva Inc. in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva.{{ FIELD }}Match Group v. Muzmatch Limited (W.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution.{{ FIELD }}Tech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC et al. (E.D. Tex.) Served as counsel for defendants and obtained a defense verdict in jury trial on claims of trade secret misappropriation, fraud, and patent infringement.{{ FIELD }}Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly US$300 million for the defendants.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation and Other Matters{{ FIELD }}Unbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al. (FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client Unbnd and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing that Rex led, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party’s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd’s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award.{{ FIELD }}Smith v. LifeVantage Corporation et al. (D. Utah) Counsel for defendant LifeVantage in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, antitrust violations, securities laws violations, and unjust enrichment. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won a motion to dismiss on several of the claims, and the case proceeded through class discovery on remaining claims, where the team prevailed for LifeVantage in achieving denial of class certification. The case settled shortly after class certification was denied.{{ FIELD }}Confidential AAA Arbitration in Dallas. Trial counsel for respondent in a confidential arbitration brought by a plaintiff CEO with breach of contract claims close to US$10 million. After a multiday evidentiary hearing where Rex put on a key witness for the company, Rex and the Winston team achieved a complete defense victory and an award of attorneys’ fees against the claimant.{{ FIELD }}Confidential JAMS Arbitration in San Francisco. Lead trial counsel for then-NFL player in a JAMS arbitration wherein a marketing agency filed for arbitration against the NFL player for breach of contract alleging millions of dollars in damages. Brought counterclaims on behalf of the NFL player for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among others. Achieved a settlement prior to the evidentiary hearing whereby the marketing agency, despite being the initial plaintiff/claimant, actually paid the client a six-figure payment.{{ FIELD }}Ranieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al. (N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant AdvoCare in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery.{{ FIELD }}United States of America ex. rel. Magee v. Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP et al. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for relators in a kickback case, wherein relators brought claims under the False Claims Act. Shortly before trial, the defendants settled for US$48 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act.{{ FIELD }}Waterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC (Texas State Court) Represented developer of a billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer.{{ FIELD }}Fee Smith Sharp \u0026amp; Vitullo LLP et al. v. Deana Strunk et al. (Dallas, Tex. Dist. Ct.) Trial counsel for defendant in a breach of contract action seeking close to US$10 million in damages. After successfully defeating a motion to compel arbitration through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and completing discovery, the case settled on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation (C.D. Cal.) Counsel for defendant in a class action proceeding brought against the bank for aiding and abetting fraud claims, among others, relating to the Woodbridge billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Case settled after class certification briefing.{{ FIELD }}Prophet Equity LP et al. v. Twin City Insurance Company (5th Cir.) Counsel for appellant wherein a reversal was achieved of a summary judgment ruling against client on contractual insurance issues. The case settled shortly after the decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.{{ FIELD }}Crothers et al. v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners et al. (D. Wyo.) Trial counsel for plaintiffs in an action alleging multiple constitutional violations by various law enforcement officials and agencies in the Teton County area. Also served as appellate counsel for a related criminal proceeding wherein an appeal was sought for various Brady violations, and argued at the court, along with co-counsel Alan Dershowitz, in the post-trial and appellate phase.{{ FIELD }}Rysher Entertainment et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc. (L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Cal.) Represented Rysher Entertainment, 2929 Entertainment, and Qualia Capital as plaintiffs in a contractual indemnification case arising out of underlying litigation brought by actor Don Johnson related to the television series Nash Bridges. Obtained summary judgment from the trial court holding that Cox was liable under the contract, and the case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.{{ FIELD }}Sabre Corporation, et al. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, et al. (N.Y. Com. Div.) Represented Sabre and related entities in an insurance coverage case against two insurance companies relating to the insurers’ failure to indemnify Sabre in a major piece of litigation. Obtained summary judgment at the trial court level declaring that the insurers had a duty to defend Sabre, and a disqualifying conflict of interest prevented insurers from controlling the defense. The case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.{{ FIELD }}Rex Mann is a trial lawyer who focuses his practice on patent litigation and other complex commercial litigation matters. Although his patent litigation practice is nationwide, he has extensive experience specifically in patent-heavy districts, including the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. On commercial matters he often represents technology companies or works on matters involving complex technology, and his background in engineering enables him to deeply understand clients’ technologies and businesses to help them better achieve their goals. Rex’s work continues to garner him honors from legal publications such as The Best Lawyers in America®, IAM Patent 1000, Lawdragon, and Benchmark Litigation.\nRex’s intellectual property practice primarily consists of complex patent and trade secret litigation. He has handled bet-the-company patent and trade secret matters, including taking them to trial, and winning. Outside of litigation, he advises his clients on technology licensing issues, policies relating to intellectual property, and targeted patent prosecution advice relating to licensing and litigation.\n“Rex’s patent litigation practice is heavily concentrated on matters arising in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas. In fact, he began his legal career as a law clerk for the Honorable T. John Ward in the Eastern District of Texas, where he gained significant experience in federal trial practice and patent litigation, given the district’s intense patent trial docket.\nRex has significant trial experience and has tried more than 20 cases or arbitrations as first chair or in an otherwise stand-up role, and he has experience in all phases of trial. In addition to his civil trial work, Rex spent three months on loan as an assistant district attorney in Dallas County, where he tried numerous criminal jury trials to verdict and obtained a guilty verdict in each one.\nRex’s commercial litigation practice has included a wide variety of matters, including breach of contract, business torts, consumer class actions, RICO violations, securities laws violations, whistleblower or False Claims Act litigation, employment, fraud, suits against the government or government officials, and other related disputes. Given his background in engineering, the work Rex does for his commercial clients often involves technology issues. Moreover, his undergraduate and graduate degrees in civil and environmental engineering are helpful when working on matters in the environmental and oil and gas industries. Partner Recognized as “Up and Coming” and Ranked for Intellectual Property – Texas Chambers USA, 2024-2025 Recognized within the “Top 50” in Patent Litigation Report Patexia, 2024–2025 Ranked by IAM Patent 1000 2025 Litigation – Intellectual Property The Best Lawyers in America®, 2025-2026 Litigation – Patent The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026 Commercial Litigation, Litigation – Intellectual Property, and Intellectual Property Law Best Lawyers®: Ones to Watch in America, 2021–2023 “Green 500: Leading Environmental Lawyers” Lawdragon, 2023–2025 “Future Star” Benchmark Litigation US, 2021–2026 “Texas Lawyer on the Rise”  Texas Lawyer, 2020 “Up-and-Coming 100: Texas Rising Stars” Super Lawyers, 2019–2021 “Rising Star” Super Lawyers, 2016–2024 Order of the Chancellors University of Texas School of Law Order of the Coif University of Texas School of Law Order of the Barristers University of Texas School of Law Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Texas A\u0026amp;M University Texas A\u0026amp;M School of Law Texas Board of Trustees, Dallas Children’s Advocacy Center, 2016–2022 Board Member, Dallas Association of Young Lawyers, 2017–2018 District 6 Grievance Committee Member, State Bar of Texas, 2015–2018 Co-Chair of the Judiciary Committee, Dallas Association of Young Lawyers, 2015–2017 Co-Chair of the Business and Career Development Committee, Dallas Association of Young Lawyers, 2015–2016 Law Clerk, Honorable T. John Ward, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Patent, Trade Secret, and Other Intellectual Property Litigation Halliburton v. U.S. Well Services (W.D. Tex.) As trial counsel, prevailed for U.S. Well Services in the trial of the first of three patent infringement litigations filed by competitor Halliburton, which claimed that U.S. Well Services infringed certain patents involving use of hydraulic fracturing software, as well as methods related to the operation and powering of U.S. Well Services’ fracturing sites—a win that Am Law recognized with a “Litigator of the Week” first-runner-up nod. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Halliburton’s technical experts. In the Matter of Certain Integrated Circuits, Components Thereof, and Products Containing the Same (ITC) Served as trial counsel to defend Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) in a massive ITC action brought against AMD by its competitor Realtek Semiconductor Corp. Realtek accused AMD of infringing three patents relating to integrated circuit designs. AMD faced an exclusion order and a cease-and-desist order at the ITC. Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Cameron Elliot’s decision found that all asserted claims of two of the patents were invalid for multiple reasons. For the third patent, he ruled that all asserted claims were not infringed by AMD, and that all but one of those claims were also invalid. Rex conducted multiple cross-examinations and direct examinations of expert witnesses and fact witnesses in the five-day trial. Flypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC (W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for plaintiff Flypsi, an inventor of a novel solution for setting up and connecting telephone calls using multiple phone numbers on a single mobile device, in a dispute alleging Google infringed five of its U.S. patents. Despite Google’s argument that it had launched a competing Google Voice product before Flypsi’s invention, the jury rejected Google’s invalidity and prior use defenses and awarded Flypsi US$12 million for Google’s infringement. Rex conducted key cross-examinations of Google’s expert and company representative at trial. TMT Systems, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. (W.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for defendant Medtronic in a patent infringement suit relating to a patent on a design for an abdominal aortic aneurysm stent graft. Rex conducted a key cross-examination of the inventor and put on Medtronic’s noninfringement and invalidity expert. The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a hung jury, but post-trial, Rex and his team at Winston were able to get a new favorable claim construction ruling that resulted in a stipulation of noninfringement. Hardin et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) Trial counsel for Ryan Hardin and Andrew Hill, inventors on a patent related to geofencing technology, in a patent infringement suit brought against Samsung. After prevailing for the inventors on key claim construction, summary judgment, and Daubert issues, the case settled days before trial. Freshworks v. LiveHelpNow, LLC (D. Del.) Lead counsel for Freshworks in a declaratory judgment action filed against LiveHelpNow, LLC involving patents related to chat software. After extensive disputes relating to venue, including a parallel action filed in the Western District of Texas, the case settled. Sieler v. Atieva Inc. (N.D. Cal.) Lead trial counsel for Atieva Inc. in a patent inventorship dispute with a former employee, which also included counterclaims for breach of contract, among others. Case settled shortly before trial after summary judgment motions filed by Atieva. Match Group v. Muzmatch Limited (W.D. Tex.) Lead counsel for defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement, patent infringement, trade dress infringement, trademark dilution, and unfair competition. After extensive motion to dismiss briefing, the parties reached a resolution. Tech Pharmacy Services, LLC v. Alixa Rx LLC et al. (E.D. Tex.) Served as counsel for defendants and obtained a defense verdict in jury trial on claims of trade secret misappropriation, fraud, and patent infringement. Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, et al. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendants in patent infringement case related to online ticketing, in which the jury returned a verdict of invalidity on all claims, thus avoiding alleged past and future damages of nearly US$300 million for the defendants. Commercial Litigation and Other Matters Unbnd Group Pty Ltd. v. Park Lane, LLC et al. (FINRA Arbitration and S.D.N.Y.) Lead trial counsel in a FINRA arbitration involving contractual and business tort claims, where opposing party sought approximately US$3 million in damages from client Unbnd and sought significant equitable relief in the form of equity in the company. After a six-day evidentiary hearing that Rex led, the FINRA arbitration panel rejected the opposing party’s request for more than US$3M and agreed with Unbnd’s position on equity in the company. The Southern District of New York confirmed the award. Smith v. LifeVantage Corporation et al. (D. Utah) Counsel for defendant LifeVantage in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, antitrust violations, securities laws violations, and unjust enrichment. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won a motion to dismiss on several of the claims, and the case proceeded through class discovery on remaining claims, where the team prevailed for LifeVantage in achieving denial of class certification. The case settled shortly after class certification was denied. Confidential AAA Arbitration in Dallas. Trial counsel for respondent in a confidential arbitration brought by a plaintiff CEO with breach of contract claims close to US$10 million. After a multiday evidentiary hearing where Rex put on a key witness for the company, Rex and the Winston team achieved a complete defense victory and an award of attorneys’ fees against the claimant. Confidential JAMS Arbitration in San Francisco. Lead trial counsel for then-NFL player in a JAMS arbitration wherein a marketing agency filed for arbitration against the NFL player for breach of contract alleging millions of dollars in damages. Brought counterclaims on behalf of the NFL player for fraudulent inducement and breach of contract, among others. Achieved a settlement prior to the evidentiary hearing whereby the marketing agency, despite being the initial plaintiff/claimant, actually paid the client a six-figure payment. Ranieri et al. v. AdvoCare International LP et al. (N.D. Tex.) Counsel for defendant AdvoCare in a class action lawsuit involving pyramid scheme allegations and claims of RICO violations, securities laws violations, and others. Hundreds of millions of dollars were at issue. Won multiple motions to dismiss, including getting the RICO claims dismissed. Class settlement was reached during class discovery. United States of America ex. rel. Magee v. Texas Heart Hospital of the Southwest LLP et al. (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for relators in a kickback case, wherein relators brought claims under the False Claims Act. Shortly before trial, the defendants settled for US$48 million to resolve allegations that they violated the False Claims Act. Waterside Corporation, et al. v. Bayside Land Partners, LLC (Texas State Court) Represented developer of a billion-dollar lakeside real estate project outside Dallas in this dispute, in which the client faced an injunction in favor of the marina owner restricting development, obtaining dissolution of the injunction in favor of marina owner and dismissal of all claims against developer. Fee Smith Sharp \u0026amp; Vitullo LLP et al. v. Deana Strunk et al. (Dallas, Tex. Dist. Ct.) Trial counsel for defendant in a breach of contract action seeking close to US$10 million in damages. After successfully defeating a motion to compel arbitration through the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and completing discovery, the case settled on the eve of trial. In re Woodbridge Investments Litigation (C.D. Cal.) Counsel for defendant in a class action proceeding brought against the bank for aiding and abetting fraud claims, among others, relating to the Woodbridge billion-dollar Ponzi scheme. Case settled after class certification briefing. Prophet Equity LP et al. v. Twin City Insurance Company (5th Cir.) Counsel for appellant wherein a reversal was achieved of a summary judgment ruling against client on contractual insurance issues. The case settled shortly after the decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Crothers et al. v. Teton County Board of County Commissioners et al. (D. Wyo.) Trial counsel for plaintiffs in an action alleging multiple constitutional violations by various law enforcement officials and agencies in the Teton County area. Also served as appellate counsel for a related criminal proceeding wherein an appeal was sought for various Brady violations, and argued at the court, along with co-counsel Alan Dershowitz, in the post-trial and appellate phase. Rysher Entertainment et al. v. Cox Media Group, Inc. (L.A. Cnty. Super. Ct., Cal.) Represented Rysher Entertainment, 2929 Entertainment, and Qualia Capital as plaintiffs in a contractual indemnification case arising out of underlying litigation brought by actor Don Johnson related to the television series Nash Bridges. Obtained summary judgment from the trial court holding that Cox was liable under the contract, and the case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages. Sabre Corporation, et al. v. The Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania, et al. (N.Y. Com. Div.) Represented Sabre and related entities in an insurance coverage case against two insurance companies relating to the insurers’ failure to indemnify Sabre in a major piece of litigation. Obtained summary judgment at the trial court level declaring that the insurers had a duty to defend Sabre, and a disqualifying conflict of interest prevented insurers from controlling the defense. The case settled shortly before a scheduled trial on damages.","searchable_name":"Rex A. Mann","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":176,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447464,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":894,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRichard Marooney is Managing Partner of the New York office and one of the practice leaders of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice. He is an experienced trial lawyer who has tried cases before juries, judges and arbitration panels. His practice focuses on complex litigation, securities, general commercial and international disputes in the financial services, accounting and energy industries.\u0026nbsp; He represents both plaintiffs and defendants. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003ehas identified Rich as one of the top litigators in New York, where it states that he is \"a great trial lawyer, with excellent instincts on case strategy.\"\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognizes Rich as a top M\u0026amp;A litigator, stating he is \"a consummate trial lawyer, quick on his feet....\"\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation \u003c/em\u003eranks Rich as a National Practice Area Star.\u0026nbsp; In 2017, \u003cem\u003eBenchmark\u003c/em\u003e named him General Commercial Attorney of the Year and one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America. \u0026nbsp;He has been recognized as a Litigator of the Week by \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and is a New York Super Lawyer. Rich has served two terms on both the firm's Policy Committee and Compensation Committee.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"richard-marooney","email":"rmarooney@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eKPMG\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic Bank.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eEY LLP (UK)\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation concerning NMC Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending financial services company in DE Chancery in connection with a post-purchase M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend former CEO of Indivior in a securities class action in the SDNY.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eJPMorgan\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation concerning hedge arrangements arising out Winter Storm Uri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent private equity firm in AAA arbitration in a contractual dispute with a competing wind farm concerning wake impacts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eTurbonomic, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in DE Chancery concerning a dispute with a competitor arising out of IBM\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of \u003cstrong\u003eTurbonomic\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eHillrom\u003c/strong\u003e in DE Chancery concerning an MAE dispute arising from its acquisition of BardyDx.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a private equity firm in an action against another private equity firm arising from a failed bid to purchase assets in the telecommunications industry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFollowing a two-day trial in New York Supreme Court, successfully enjoined the Xerox-Fuji merger on behalf of two of Xerox\u0026rsquo;s largest shareholders,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDarwin Deason and Carl Icahn\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eClarion Partners\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action alleging civil RICO violations arising from investments in Mexico.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eClarion Partners\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action for breach of contract arising from a potential joint venture in Europe.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGenuine Parts Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Delaware Chancery Court in an action arising from the termination of an M\u0026amp;A agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFollowing a three-day bench trial in the Southern District of New York, achieved confirmation of $465 million arbitration award against the state-owned oil company of Mexico on behalf of a subsidiary of KBR, Inc. after the arbitration award had been annulled by Mexico\u0026rsquo;s courts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with disputes with Yahoo! concerning data breach matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-week jury trial for Middle Eastern private equity group in an action involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other claims relating to Shari\u0026rsquo;ah-compliant financial structure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Big Four accounting firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action by a hedge fund arising out of the failure of one of the largest providers of brokerage and clearing services in the international derivatives, currency and futures market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-week trial for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRoyal Bank of Canada and RBC Capital Markets\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in actions involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting liability.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a former CFO of a medical device manufacturer in securities litigation arising out of a restatement of financial statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGE Capital Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and other lenders in a lawsuit against former CFO of insolvent retailer concerning misrepresentations and accounting issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a defamation action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eJulian H. Robertson, Jr\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against internet bloggers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAmbac\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit filed by the City of New Orleans arising out of a variable rate municipal bond issuance and related interest rate swaps.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-day trial in New York Supreme Court on behalf of board of directors\u0026rsquo; special committee in connection with shareholder derivative action concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe underwriter syndicate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a securities class action in connection with an equity offering of Majesco Entertainment Company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea hedge fund company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with investigation by New York Attorney General concerning equity research practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved early dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe underwriter syndicate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a securities class action concerning an equity offering of Inspire Pharmaceuticals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea privately held Latin American conglomerate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with shareholder disputes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of Russia\u0026rsquo;s largest financial institutions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging RICO and securities fraud claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international private equity company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit arising out of the sale of a natural gas storage facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Middle Eastern financial services company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;from lawsuits arising out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal investigation on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;concerning alleged accounting irregularities relating to revenue recognition, return reserves and \u0026ldquo;channel stuffing.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved successful resolution for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean energy trading company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a class action in the Southern District of New York concerning alleged market manipulation under the Commodities Exchange Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea private equity group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with its investment in a power project in Guatemala.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean energy trading firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in class action litigation and FERC proceedings arising out of California\u0026rsquo;s energy crisis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved favorable jury verdict in two-week jury trial on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean independent power producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a contract dispute with a leading energy trading company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-week jury trial on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea nuclear power plant owner/operator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a contract dispute with co-owners concerning allegations that the owner/operator mismanaged the plant.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":38,"guid":"38.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.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":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":14,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1157,"guid":"1157.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1241,"guid":"1241.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1261,"guid":"1261.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":18,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":19,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1715,"guid":"1715.smart_tags","index":20,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Marooney","nick_name":"Richard","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Richard","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"T.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"...\"a great trial lawyer, with excellent instincts on case strategy.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"General Commercial Litigation, Dispute Resolution, M\u0026A Litigation","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2017"},{"title":"General Commercial Attorney of the Year","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2017"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"The American Lawyer, 2017"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":56,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRichard Marooney is Managing Partner of the New York office and one of the practice leaders of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice. He is an experienced trial lawyer who has tried cases before juries, judges and arbitration panels. His practice focuses on complex litigation, securities, general commercial and international disputes in the financial services, accounting and energy industries.\u0026nbsp; He represents both plaintiffs and defendants. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003ehas identified Rich as one of the top litigators in New York, where it states that he is \"a great trial lawyer, with excellent instincts on case strategy.\"\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;recognizes Rich as a top M\u0026amp;A litigator, stating he is \"a consummate trial lawyer, quick on his feet....\"\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation \u003c/em\u003eranks Rich as a National Practice Area Star.\u0026nbsp; In 2017, \u003cem\u003eBenchmark\u003c/em\u003e named him General Commercial Attorney of the Year and one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America. \u0026nbsp;He has been recognized as a Litigator of the Week by \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and is a New York Super Lawyer. Rich has served two terms on both the firm's Policy Committee and Compensation Committee.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eKPMG\u003c/strong\u003e in connection with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic Bank.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eEY LLP (UK)\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation concerning NMC Healthcare.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending financial services company in DE Chancery in connection with a post-purchase M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend former CEO of Indivior in a securities class action in the SDNY.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eJPMorgan\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation concerning hedge arrangements arising out Winter Storm Uri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent private equity firm in AAA arbitration in a contractual dispute with a competing wind farm concerning wake impacts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003eTurbonomic, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in DE Chancery concerning a dispute with a competitor arising out of IBM\u0026rsquo;s acquisition of \u003cstrong\u003eTurbonomic\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003eHillrom\u003c/strong\u003e in DE Chancery concerning an MAE dispute arising from its acquisition of BardyDx.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a private equity firm in an action against another private equity firm arising from a failed bid to purchase assets in the telecommunications industry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFollowing a two-day trial in New York Supreme Court, successfully enjoined the Xerox-Fuji merger on behalf of two of Xerox\u0026rsquo;s largest shareholders,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDarwin Deason and Carl Icahn\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eClarion Partners\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action alleging civil RICO violations arising from investments in Mexico.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eClarion Partners\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action for breach of contract arising from a potential joint venture in Europe.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGenuine Parts Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Delaware Chancery Court in an action arising from the termination of an M\u0026amp;A agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFollowing a three-day bench trial in the Southern District of New York, achieved confirmation of $465 million arbitration award against the state-owned oil company of Mexico on behalf of a subsidiary of KBR, Inc. after the arbitration award had been annulled by Mexico\u0026rsquo;s courts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with disputes with Yahoo! concerning data breach matters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-week jury trial for Middle Eastern private equity group in an action involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other claims relating to Shari\u0026rsquo;ah-compliant financial structure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Big Four accounting firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action by a hedge fund arising out of the failure of one of the largest providers of brokerage and clearing services in the international derivatives, currency and futures market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-week trial for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRoyal Bank of Canada and RBC Capital Markets\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in actions involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting liability.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a former CFO of a medical device manufacturer in securities litigation arising out of a restatement of financial statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGE Capital Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and other lenders in a lawsuit against former CFO of insolvent retailer concerning misrepresentations and accounting issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a defamation action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eJulian H. Robertson, Jr\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against internet bloggers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eAmbac\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit filed by the City of New Orleans arising out of a variable rate municipal bond issuance and related interest rate swaps.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-day trial in New York Supreme Court on behalf of board of directors\u0026rsquo; special committee in connection with shareholder derivative action concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe underwriter syndicate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a securities class action in connection with an equity offering of Majesco Entertainment Company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea hedge fund company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with investigation by New York Attorney General concerning equity research practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved early dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ethe underwriter syndicate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a securities class action concerning an equity offering of Inspire Pharmaceuticals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea privately held Latin American conglomerate\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with shareholder disputes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of Russia\u0026rsquo;s largest financial institutions\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging RICO and securities fraud claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international private equity company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a lawsuit arising out of the sale of a natural gas storage facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Middle Eastern financial services company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;from lawsuits arising out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal investigation on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;concerning alleged accounting irregularities relating to revenue recognition, return reserves and \u0026ldquo;channel stuffing.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved successful resolution for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean energy trading company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a class action in the Southern District of New York concerning alleged market manipulation under the Commodities Exchange Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea private equity group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with its investment in a power project in Guatemala.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean energy trading firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in class action litigation and FERC proceedings arising out of California\u0026rsquo;s energy crisis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAchieved favorable jury verdict in two-week jury trial on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean independent power producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a contract dispute with a leading energy trading company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a three-week jury trial on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea nuclear power plant owner/operator\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a contract dispute with co-owners concerning allegations that the owner/operator mismanaged the plant.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"...\"a great trial lawyer, with excellent instincts on case strategy.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"General Commercial Litigation, Dispute Resolution, M\u0026A Litigation","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2017"},{"title":"General Commercial Attorney of the Year","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2017"},{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"The American Lawyer, 2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":62}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-10T22:27:26.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-10T22:27:26.000Z","searchable_text":"Marooney{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"...\\\"a great trial lawyer, with excellent instincts on case strategy.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"General Commercial Litigation, Dispute Resolution, M\u0026amp;A Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"General Commercial Attorney of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Lawyer, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing KPMG in connection with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic Bank.{{ FIELD }}Representing EY LLP (UK) in litigation concerning NMC Healthcare.{{ FIELD }}Defending financial services company in DE Chancery in connection with a post-purchase M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Defend former CEO of Indivior in a securities class action in the SDNY.{{ FIELD }}Representing JPMorgan in litigation concerning hedge arrangements arising out Winter Storm Uri.{{ FIELD }}Represent private equity firm in AAA arbitration in a contractual dispute with a competing wind farm concerning wake impacts.{{ FIELD }}Representing Turbonomic, Inc. in DE Chancery concerning a dispute with a competitor arising out of IBM’s acquisition of Turbonomic.{{ FIELD }}Represented Hillrom in DE Chancery concerning an MAE dispute arising from its acquisition of BardyDx.{{ FIELD }}Representing a private equity firm in an action against another private equity firm arising from a failed bid to purchase assets in the telecommunications industry.{{ FIELD }}Following a two-day trial in New York Supreme Court, successfully enjoined the Xerox-Fuji merger on behalf of two of Xerox’s largest shareholders, Darwin Deason and Carl Icahn.{{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment for Clarion Partners in an action alleging civil RICO violations arising from investments in Mexico.{{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment for Clarion Partners in an action for breach of contract arising from a potential joint venture in Europe.{{ FIELD }}Representing Genuine Parts Company in Delaware Chancery Court in an action arising from the termination of an M\u0026amp;A agreement.{{ FIELD }}Following a three-day bench trial in the Southern District of New York, achieved confirmation of $465 million arbitration award against the state-owned oil company of Mexico on behalf of a subsidiary of KBR, Inc. after the arbitration award had been annulled by Mexico’s courts.{{ FIELD }}Represented AT\u0026amp;T in connection with disputes with Yahoo! concerning data breach matters.{{ FIELD }}Won a three-week jury trial for Middle Eastern private equity group in an action involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other claims relating to Shari’ah-compliant financial structure.{{ FIELD }}Defended a Big Four accounting firm in an action by a hedge fund arising out of the failure of one of the largest providers of brokerage and clearing services in the international derivatives, currency and futures market.{{ FIELD }}Won a three-week trial for Royal Bank of Canada and RBC Capital Markets in actions involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting liability.{{ FIELD }}Represented a former CFO of a medical device manufacturer in securities litigation arising out of a restatement of financial statements.{{ FIELD }}Represented GE Capital Corporation and other lenders in a lawsuit against former CFO of insolvent retailer concerning misrepresentations and accounting issues.{{ FIELD }}Won a defamation action on behalf of Julian H. Robertson, Jr. against internet bloggers.{{ FIELD }}Achieved dismissal for Ambac in a lawsuit filed by the City of New Orleans arising out of a variable rate municipal bond issuance and related interest rate swaps.{{ FIELD }}Won a three-day trial in New York Supreme Court on behalf of board of directors’ special committee in connection with shareholder derivative action concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duty.{{ FIELD }}Defended the underwriter syndicate in a securities class action in connection with an equity offering of Majesco Entertainment Company.{{ FIELD }}Represented a hedge fund company in connection with investigation by New York Attorney General concerning equity research practices.{{ FIELD }}Achieved early dismissal for the underwriter syndicate in a securities class action concerning an equity offering of Inspire Pharmaceuticals.{{ FIELD }}Representing a privately held Latin American conglomerate in connection with shareholder disputes.{{ FIELD }}Achieved dismissal for one of Russia’s largest financial institutions in a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging RICO and securities fraud claims.{{ FIELD }}Defending an international private equity company in a lawsuit arising out of the sale of a natural gas storage facility.{{ FIELD }}Secured dismissal of a Middle Eastern financial services company from lawsuits arising out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.{{ FIELD }}Conducted an internal investigation on behalf of a European company concerning alleged accounting irregularities relating to revenue recognition, return reserves and “channel stuffing.”{{ FIELD }}Achieved successful resolution for an energy trading company in a class action in the Southern District of New York concerning alleged market manipulation under the Commodities Exchange Act.{{ FIELD }}Advised a private equity group in connection with its investment in a power project in Guatemala.{{ FIELD }}Represented an energy trading firm in class action litigation and FERC proceedings arising out of California’s energy crisis.{{ FIELD }}Achieved favorable jury verdict in two-week jury trial on behalf of an independent power producer arising from a contract dispute with a leading energy trading company.{{ FIELD }}Won a three-week jury trial on behalf of a nuclear power plant owner/operator in a contract dispute with co-owners concerning allegations that the owner/operator mismanaged the plant.{{ FIELD }}Richard Marooney is Managing Partner of the New York office and one of the practice leaders of the firm’s Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice. He is an experienced trial lawyer who has tried cases before juries, judges and arbitration panels. His practice focuses on complex litigation, securities, general commercial and international disputes in the financial services, accounting and energy industries.  He represents both plaintiffs and defendants. \nChambers USA has identified Rich as one of the top litigators in New York, where it states that he is \"a great trial lawyer, with excellent instincts on case strategy.\"  Legal 500 recognizes Rich as a top M\u0026amp;A litigator, stating he is \"a consummate trial lawyer, quick on his feet....\"  Benchmark Litigation ranks Rich as a National Practice Area Star.  In 2017, Benchmark named him General Commercial Attorney of the Year and one of the Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America.  He has been recognized as a Litigator of the Week by The American Lawyer and is a New York Super Lawyer. Rich has served two terms on both the firm's Policy Committee and Compensation Committee. Partner ...\"a great trial lawyer, with excellent instincts on case strategy.\"  Chambers USA, 2023 General Commercial Litigation, Dispute Resolution, M\u0026amp;A Litigation Legal 500 Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America Benchmark Litigation, 2017 General Commercial Attorney of the Year Benchmark Litigation, 2017 Litigator of the Week The American Lawyer, 2017 Boston College Boston College Law School Hofstra University Hofstra University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York New York New York State Bar Association Federal Bar Council Supreme Court Historical Society Representing KPMG in connection with the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic Bank. Representing EY LLP (UK) in litigation concerning NMC Healthcare. Defending financial services company in DE Chancery in connection with a post-purchase M\u0026amp;A dispute. Defend former CEO of Indivior in a securities class action in the SDNY. Representing JPMorgan in litigation concerning hedge arrangements arising out Winter Storm Uri. Represent private equity firm in AAA arbitration in a contractual dispute with a competing wind farm concerning wake impacts. Representing Turbonomic, Inc. in DE Chancery concerning a dispute with a competitor arising out of IBM’s acquisition of Turbonomic. Represented Hillrom in DE Chancery concerning an MAE dispute arising from its acquisition of BardyDx. Representing a private equity firm in an action against another private equity firm arising from a failed bid to purchase assets in the telecommunications industry. Following a two-day trial in New York Supreme Court, successfully enjoined the Xerox-Fuji merger on behalf of two of Xerox’s largest shareholders, Darwin Deason and Carl Icahn. Won summary judgment for Clarion Partners in an action alleging civil RICO violations arising from investments in Mexico. Won summary judgment for Clarion Partners in an action for breach of contract arising from a potential joint venture in Europe. Representing Genuine Parts Company in Delaware Chancery Court in an action arising from the termination of an M\u0026amp;A agreement. Following a three-day bench trial in the Southern District of New York, achieved confirmation of $465 million arbitration award against the state-owned oil company of Mexico on behalf of a subsidiary of KBR, Inc. after the arbitration award had been annulled by Mexico’s courts. Represented AT\u0026amp;T in connection with disputes with Yahoo! concerning data breach matters. Won a three-week jury trial for Middle Eastern private equity group in an action involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and other claims relating to Shari’ah-compliant financial structure. Defended a Big Four accounting firm in an action by a hedge fund arising out of the failure of one of the largest providers of brokerage and clearing services in the international derivatives, currency and futures market. Won a three-week trial for Royal Bank of Canada and RBC Capital Markets in actions involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting liability. Represented a former CFO of a medical device manufacturer in securities litigation arising out of a restatement of financial statements. Represented GE Capital Corporation and other lenders in a lawsuit against former CFO of insolvent retailer concerning misrepresentations and accounting issues. Won a defamation action on behalf of Julian H. Robertson, Jr. against internet bloggers. Achieved dismissal for Ambac in a lawsuit filed by the City of New Orleans arising out of a variable rate municipal bond issuance and related interest rate swaps. Won a three-day trial in New York Supreme Court on behalf of board of directors’ special committee in connection with shareholder derivative action concerning alleged breaches of fiduciary duty. Defended the underwriter syndicate in a securities class action in connection with an equity offering of Majesco Entertainment Company. Represented a hedge fund company in connection with investigation by New York Attorney General concerning equity research practices. Achieved early dismissal for the underwriter syndicate in a securities class action concerning an equity offering of Inspire Pharmaceuticals. Representing a privately held Latin American conglomerate in connection with shareholder disputes. Achieved dismissal for one of Russia’s largest financial institutions in a lawsuit in the Southern District of New York alleging RICO and securities fraud claims. Defending an international private equity company in a lawsuit arising out of the sale of a natural gas storage facility. Secured dismissal of a Middle Eastern financial services company from lawsuits arising out of the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Conducted an internal investigation on behalf of a European company concerning alleged accounting irregularities relating to revenue recognition, return reserves and “channel stuffing.” Achieved successful resolution for an energy trading company in a class action in the Southern District of New York concerning alleged market manipulation under the Commodities Exchange Act. Advised a private equity group in connection with its investment in a power project in Guatemala. Represented an energy trading firm in class action litigation and FERC proceedings arising out of California’s energy crisis. Achieved favorable jury verdict in two-week jury trial on behalf of an independent power producer arising from a contract dispute with a leading energy trading company. Won a three-week jury trial on behalf of a nuclear power plant owner/operator in a contract dispute with co-owners concerning allegations that the owner/operator mismanaged the plant.","searchable_name":"Richard T. Marooney","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":442807,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5777,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDamien Marshall is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group and Co-Head of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Business Litigation Practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses on the resolution of complex business disputes over a broad range of substantive areas, including corporate governance and shareholder disputes, antitrust, securities, consumer protection and general commercial disputes.\u0026nbsp; Damien has extensive experience representing clients on a broad range of litigation and regulatory matters with particular emphasis on defending financial institutions and technology companies in class action and MDL proceedings.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien has successfully represented clients in significant matters for more than 20 years, including: American Express in antitrust litigation against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record breaking $4 billion; BNY Mellon in a RICO suit \u0026nbsp;brought by the Russian Federal Tax Authority and venued in the Russian Arbitrage Court where BNY Mellon resolved the matter for less than 1 percent of claimed damages; DraftKings in a class action lawsuit challenging the use of college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests, where DraftKings obtained summary judgment; DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports, where the matter was resolved for play credits; Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging the sale of an unregistered security where Ripple obtained summary judgment; HSBC in all civil litigation related to its RMBS issuance business; and Goldman Sachs in a partnership dispute in which Goldman Sachs obtained a complete defense victory after an arbitration hearing. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrently, Damien\u0026rsquo;s disclosable work includes representation of: Madison Square Garden in litigation and administrative matters; EarthLink LLC in a partnership dispute with Charter Communications; a group of 14 hospital systems in antitrust litigation against Blue Cross Blue Shield; and Ripple Labs in numerous matters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout the nation.\u0026nbsp; His clients include large global financial institutions, as well as companies in the media and entertainment space, technology companies, Fintech companies, hedge funds and private equity funds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegardless of the client or forum, Damien focuses on achieving his client\u0026rsquo;s legal and business goals in an efficient and effective manner.\u0026nbsp; Damien is recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe Legal500 \u003c/em\u003efor his general litigation practice and GAR for his antitrust practice. In addition to his dispute resolution practice, Damien provides risk analysis and advice to clients regarding potential exposures and risk mitigation strategies.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"damien-marshall","email":"dmarshall@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefense of HSBC in a series of civil litigations and government investigations relating to its RMBS issuance business\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe successful representation of American Express in its antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record-breaking $4 billion\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessful defense of DraftKings in a class action challenging the use of the college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of HSBC in MDL proceedings alleging antitrust and Commodity Exchange Act violations involving the precious metals markets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging sale of an unregistered security\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3779}]},"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":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":38,"guid":"38.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1165,"guid":"1165.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1179,"guid":"1179.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1261,"guid":"1261.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Marshall","nick_name":"Damien","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Rosemary Barkett, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"2000 - 2001"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida","years_held":"1999 - 2000"}],"first_name":"Damien","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":755,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna Cum Laude, Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1999-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked Individual for Litigation: General Commercial","detail":"Chambers \u0026 Partners, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized in Commercial Litigation by The Legal 500","detail":""},{"title":"Named to New York Metro Super Lawyers","detail":""},{"title":"Client Service All Star","detail":"BTI, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Damien Marshall is a lawyer of our Business Litigation Practice Group. Read more.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDamien Marshall is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group and Co-Head of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Business Litigation Practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses on the resolution of complex business disputes over a broad range of substantive areas, including corporate governance and shareholder disputes, antitrust, securities, consumer protection and general commercial disputes.\u0026nbsp; Damien has extensive experience representing clients on a broad range of litigation and regulatory matters with particular emphasis on defending financial institutions and technology companies in class action and MDL proceedings.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien has successfully represented clients in significant matters for more than 20 years, including: American Express in antitrust litigation against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record breaking $4 billion; BNY Mellon in a RICO suit \u0026nbsp;brought by the Russian Federal Tax Authority and venued in the Russian Arbitrage Court where BNY Mellon resolved the matter for less than 1 percent of claimed damages; DraftKings in a class action lawsuit challenging the use of college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests, where DraftKings obtained summary judgment; DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports, where the matter was resolved for play credits; Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging the sale of an unregistered security where Ripple obtained summary judgment; HSBC in all civil litigation related to its RMBS issuance business; and Goldman Sachs in a partnership dispute in which Goldman Sachs obtained a complete defense victory after an arbitration hearing. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrently, Damien\u0026rsquo;s disclosable work includes representation of: Madison Square Garden in litigation and administrative matters; EarthLink LLC in a partnership dispute with Charter Communications; a group of 14 hospital systems in antitrust litigation against Blue Cross Blue Shield; and Ripple Labs in numerous matters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDamien regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout the nation.\u0026nbsp; His clients include large global financial institutions, as well as companies in the media and entertainment space, technology companies, Fintech companies, hedge funds and private equity funds.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRegardless of the client or forum, Damien focuses on achieving his client\u0026rsquo;s legal and business goals in an efficient and effective manner.\u0026nbsp; Damien is recognized by \u003cem\u003eThe Legal500 \u003c/em\u003efor his general litigation practice and GAR for his antitrust practice. In addition to his dispute resolution practice, Damien provides risk analysis and advice to clients regarding potential exposures and risk mitigation strategies.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefense of HSBC in a series of civil litigations and government investigations relating to its RMBS issuance business\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe successful representation of American Express in its antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record-breaking $4 billion\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessful defense of DraftKings in a class action challenging the use of the college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of HSBC in MDL proceedings alleging antitrust and Commodity Exchange Act violations involving the precious metals markets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading defense of Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging sale of an unregistered security\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked Individual for Litigation: General Commercial","detail":"Chambers \u0026 Partners, 2025"},{"title":"Recognized in Commercial Litigation by The Legal 500","detail":""},{"title":"Named to New York Metro Super Lawyers","detail":""},{"title":"Client Service All Star","detail":"BTI, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11377}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:50.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:50.000Z","searchable_text":"Marshall{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Individual for Litigation: General Commercial\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers \u0026amp; Partners, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized in Commercial Litigation by The Legal 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to New York Metro Super Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Client Service All Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Defense of HSBC in a series of civil litigations and government investigations relating to its RMBS issuance business{{ FIELD }}The successful representation of American Express in its antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record-breaking $4 billion{{ FIELD }}Successful defense of DraftKings in a class action challenging the use of the college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests{{ FIELD }}Leading defense of DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports{{ FIELD }}Leading defense of HSBC in MDL proceedings alleging antitrust and Commodity Exchange Act violations involving the precious metals markets{{ FIELD }}Leading defense of Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging sale of an unregistered security{{ FIELD }}Damien Marshall is a partner in the Trial and Global Disputes Practice Group and Co-Head of the Firm’s Business Litigation Practice.  His practice focuses on the resolution of complex business disputes over a broad range of substantive areas, including corporate governance and shareholder disputes, antitrust, securities, consumer protection and general commercial disputes.  Damien has extensive experience representing clients on a broad range of litigation and regulatory matters with particular emphasis on defending financial institutions and technology companies in class action and MDL proceedings.  \nDamien has successfully represented clients in significant matters for more than 20 years, including: American Express in antitrust litigation against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record breaking $4 billion; BNY Mellon in a RICO suit  brought by the Russian Federal Tax Authority and venued in the Russian Arbitrage Court where BNY Mellon resolved the matter for less than 1 percent of claimed damages; DraftKings in a class action lawsuit challenging the use of college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests, where DraftKings obtained summary judgment; DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports, where the matter was resolved for play credits; Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging the sale of an unregistered security where Ripple obtained summary judgment; HSBC in all civil litigation related to its RMBS issuance business; and Goldman Sachs in a partnership dispute in which Goldman Sachs obtained a complete defense victory after an arbitration hearing.  \nCurrently, Damien’s disclosable work includes representation of: Madison Square Garden in litigation and administrative matters; EarthLink LLC in a partnership dispute with Charter Communications; a group of 14 hospital systems in antitrust litigation against Blue Cross Blue Shield; and Ripple Labs in numerous matters. \nDamien regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout the nation.  His clients include large global financial institutions, as well as companies in the media and entertainment space, technology companies, Fintech companies, hedge funds and private equity funds.\nRegardless of the client or forum, Damien focuses on achieving his client’s legal and business goals in an efficient and effective manner.  Damien is recognized by The Legal500 for his general litigation practice and GAR for his antitrust practice. In addition to his dispute resolution practice, Damien provides risk analysis and advice to clients regarding potential exposures and risk mitigation strategies. Damien Marshall lawyer Partner Ranked Individual for Litigation: General Commercial Chambers \u0026amp; Partners, 2025 Recognized in Commercial Litigation by The Legal 500  Named to New York Metro Super Lawyers  Client Service All Star BTI, 2020 University of California-Los Angeles UCLA School of Law Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Florida New York Member, Georgetown University Law Alumni Board Member, UCLA New York Regional Alumni Committee Trustee, The Fredrick Gunn School Law Clerk, Hon. Rosemary Barkett, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Law Clerk, Hon. Donald M. Middlebrooks, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Defense of HSBC in a series of civil litigations and government investigations relating to its RMBS issuance business The successful representation of American Express in its antitrust case against Visa and MasterCard, in which American Express recovered a record-breaking $4 billion Successful defense of DraftKings in a class action challenging the use of the college athlete statistics in daily fantasy sports contests Leading defense of DraftKings in MDL proceedings challenging the legality of daily fantasy sports Leading defense of HSBC in MDL proceedings alleging antitrust and Commodity Exchange Act violations involving the precious metals markets Leading defense of Ripple Labs in a federal securities class action alleging sale of an unregistered security","searchable_name":"Damien Marshall","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":442796,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5647,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSimon Maynard combines strategic acumen with tenacious advocacy to resolve complex commercial disputes in a way that maximizes commercial impact. Simon was honoured as Lawyer of the Year at the 2022 Legal Business Awards and is recognized as a Rising Star for international arbitration by Legal 500.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimon focuses his practice on international commercial and investment treaty arbitration, as well as arbitration-related litigation before the English courts, in disputes concerning upstream oil and gas, renewables and the energy transition, mining, aerospace and defence, and financial services. He is also acknowledged for his international law expertise, in particular in the outer space and deep-sea mining sectors. His approach is outcome-focused, applying rigorous legal analysis with creative thinking to devise legal solutions that are delivered with clarity and flair.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his practice, Simon is a leading advocate for disability inclusion in the legal profession and beyond. He is Co-Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Task Force on Disability Inclusion and International Arbitration, as well as a member of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA)\u0026rsquo;s Disability Committee. In this regard, Simon appears regularly in print media, including the Financial Times, Global Arbitration Review and Law.com.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"simon-maynard","email":"smaynard@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an investor in an LCIA arbitration concerning a hospitality project in the Balkans.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a State-owned Petroleum company in an LCIA arbitration against the counterparty to a long-term LNG supply agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a diversified natural resources company in parallel ad hoc arbitrations against the host State and a national oil company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a product manufacturer in a dispute concerning disputed payments under a design services agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a multinational utilities company in a price review arbitration under a long-term gas supply agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several infrastructure funds in ICSID arbitrations against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty arising from regulatory measures affecting investments in the renewables sector.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an oil major in an UNCITRAL arbitration against a Southeast Asian State and its national oil company concerning adverse taxation measures and breach of two PSCs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Middle Eastern State in an ICSID arbitration concerning a dispute arising from a long-term energy infrastructure contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised an oil major in relation to a tax stabilisation claim under a PSC against an African national oil company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented for a high net-worth individual in an LCIA arbitration concerning the disputed ownership of a valuable real estate asset in Russia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a South Asian State in parallel investment treaty arbitrations brought by a company and its principal shareholder arising out of an energy infrastructure investment.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1166,"guid":"1166.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1143,"guid":"1143.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1237,"guid":"1237.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":131,"guid":"131.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Maynard","nick_name":"Simon","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Simon","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Shortlisted for \"Rising Star\"","detail":"British Legal Awards 2022"},{"title":"Winner of Lawyer of the Year ","detail":"Legal Business Awards 2022"},{"title":"Rising Star and Key Lawyer in International Arbitration","detail":"Legal 500 UK 2022"},{"title":"Rising Star in International Arbitration","detail":"Euromoney Expert Guides, 2018-2022"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSimon Maynard combines strategic acumen with tenacious advocacy to resolve complex commercial disputes in a way that maximizes commercial impact. Simon was honoured as Lawyer of the Year at the 2022 Legal Business Awards and is recognized as a Rising Star for international arbitration by Legal 500.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSimon focuses his practice on international commercial and investment treaty arbitration, as well as arbitration-related litigation before the English courts, in disputes concerning upstream oil and gas, renewables and the energy transition, mining, aerospace and defence, and financial services. He is also acknowledged for his international law expertise, in particular in the outer space and deep-sea mining sectors. His approach is outcome-focused, applying rigorous legal analysis with creative thinking to devise legal solutions that are delivered with clarity and flair.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his practice, Simon is a leading advocate for disability inclusion in the legal profession and beyond. He is Co-Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Task Force on Disability Inclusion and International Arbitration, as well as a member of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA)\u0026rsquo;s Disability Committee. In this regard, Simon appears regularly in print media, including the Financial Times, Global Arbitration Review and Law.com.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an investor in an LCIA arbitration concerning a hospitality project in the Balkans.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a State-owned Petroleum company in an LCIA arbitration against the counterparty to a long-term LNG supply agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a diversified natural resources company in parallel ad hoc arbitrations against the host State and a national oil company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising a product manufacturer in a dispute concerning disputed payments under a design services agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a multinational utilities company in a price review arbitration under a long-term gas supply agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several infrastructure funds in ICSID arbitrations against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty arising from regulatory measures affecting investments in the renewables sector.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an oil major in an UNCITRAL arbitration against a Southeast Asian State and its national oil company concerning adverse taxation measures and breach of two PSCs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Middle Eastern State in an ICSID arbitration concerning a dispute arising from a long-term energy infrastructure contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised an oil major in relation to a tax stabilisation claim under a PSC against an African national oil company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented for a high net-worth individual in an LCIA arbitration concerning the disputed ownership of a valuable real estate asset in Russia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a South Asian State in parallel investment treaty arbitrations brought by a company and its principal shareholder arising out of an energy infrastructure investment.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Shortlisted for \"Rising Star\"","detail":"British Legal Awards 2022"},{"title":"Winner of Lawyer of the Year ","detail":"Legal Business Awards 2022"},{"title":"Rising Star and Key Lawyer in International Arbitration","detail":"Legal 500 UK 2022"},{"title":"Rising Star in International Arbitration","detail":"Euromoney Expert Guides, 2018-2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":8331}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:30.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:30.000Z","searchable_text":"Maynard{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Shortlisted for \\\"Rising Star\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"British Legal Awards 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Winner of Lawyer of the Year \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal Business Awards 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star and Key Lawyer in International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 UK 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star in International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Euromoney Expert Guides, 2018-2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing an investor in an LCIA arbitration concerning a hospitality project in the Balkans.{{ FIELD }}Representing a State-owned Petroleum company in an LCIA arbitration against the counterparty to a long-term LNG supply agreement.{{ FIELD }}Representing a diversified natural resources company in parallel ad hoc arbitrations against the host State and a national oil company.{{ FIELD }}Advising a product manufacturer in a dispute concerning disputed payments under a design services agreement.{{ FIELD }}Representing a multinational utilities company in a price review arbitration under a long-term gas supply agreement.{{ FIELD }}Represented several infrastructure funds in ICSID arbitrations against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty arising from regulatory measures affecting investments in the renewables sector.{{ FIELD }}Represented an oil major in an UNCITRAL arbitration against a Southeast Asian State and its national oil company concerning adverse taxation measures and breach of two PSCs.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Middle Eastern State in an ICSID arbitration concerning a dispute arising from a long-term energy infrastructure contract.{{ FIELD }}Advised an oil major in relation to a tax stabilisation claim under a PSC against an African national oil company.{{ FIELD }}Represented for a high net-worth individual in an LCIA arbitration concerning the disputed ownership of a valuable real estate asset in Russia.{{ FIELD }}Represented a South Asian State in parallel investment treaty arbitrations brought by a company and its principal shareholder arising out of an energy infrastructure investment.{{ FIELD }}Simon Maynard combines strategic acumen with tenacious advocacy to resolve complex commercial disputes in a way that maximizes commercial impact. Simon was honoured as Lawyer of the Year at the 2022 Legal Business Awards and is recognized as a Rising Star for international arbitration by Legal 500.\nSimon focuses his practice on international commercial and investment treaty arbitration, as well as arbitration-related litigation before the English courts, in disputes concerning upstream oil and gas, renewables and the energy transition, mining, aerospace and defence, and financial services. He is also acknowledged for his international law expertise, in particular in the outer space and deep-sea mining sectors. His approach is outcome-focused, applying rigorous legal analysis with creative thinking to devise legal solutions that are delivered with clarity and flair.\nIn addition to his practice, Simon is a leading advocate for disability inclusion in the legal profession and beyond. He is Co-Chair of the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) Task Force on Disability Inclusion and International Arbitration, as well as a member of the International Council for Commercial Arbitration (ICCA)’s Disability Committee. In this regard, Simon appears regularly in print media, including the Financial Times, Global Arbitration Review and Law.com. Partner Shortlisted for \"Rising Star\" British Legal Awards 2022 Winner of Lawyer of the Year  Legal Business Awards 2022 Rising Star and Key Lawyer in International Arbitration Legal 500 UK 2022 Rising Star in International Arbitration Euromoney Expert Guides, 2018-2022 University of Cambridge, UK  University of Law, London University of Law, London England and Wales Law Society of England \u0026amp; Wales (Admitted 09/15/2011; Reg#476516) Representing an investor in an LCIA arbitration concerning a hospitality project in the Balkans. Representing a State-owned Petroleum company in an LCIA arbitration against the counterparty to a long-term LNG supply agreement. Representing a diversified natural resources company in parallel ad hoc arbitrations against the host State and a national oil company. Advising a product manufacturer in a dispute concerning disputed payments under a design services agreement. Representing a multinational utilities company in a price review arbitration under a long-term gas supply agreement. Represented several infrastructure funds in ICSID arbitrations against a European State under the Energy Charter Treaty arising from regulatory measures affecting investments in the renewables sector. Represented an oil major in an UNCITRAL arbitration against a Southeast Asian State and its national oil company concerning adverse taxation measures and breach of two PSCs. Represented a Middle Eastern State in an ICSID arbitration concerning a dispute arising from a long-term energy infrastructure contract. Advised an oil major in relation to a tax stabilisation claim under a PSC against an African national oil company. Represented for a high net-worth individual in an LCIA arbitration concerning the disputed ownership of a valuable real estate asset in Russia. Represented a South Asian State in parallel investment treaty arbitrations brought by a company and its principal shareholder arising out of an energy infrastructure investment.","searchable_name":"Simon Maynard","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":436361,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2118,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKatie McCarthy focuses on trademark, copyright, design, advertising and internet law. As a partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice, Katie represents clients in a wide array of industries including consumer products, pharmaceuticals, retail, internet services, sports and entertainment, cosmetics, and food and beverages. Katie appears on behalf of clients in federal court and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Katie also develops domestic and international protection and enforcement programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring her more than 30 years of experience, Katie has first-chaired numerous trials and preliminary injunction hearings. Katie actively polices online infringement and scams for several clients. In addition to litigation and contested matters, Katie directs international and domestic trademark clearance and prosecution programs, manages domain name disputes and acquisitions, and develops social media and other intellectual property-related policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie also counsels clients on a broad range of IP-related matters, helping to find creative and practical solutions to legal challenges, and developing legal strategies and policies that advance their business goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has served on the Board of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association for years, recently finishing a term as President during which she organized and moderated a forum of key discussion leaders debating online platform liability. Katie served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Trademark Association peer-reviewed scholarly journal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Trademark Reporter\u003c/em\u003e, having\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eserved on the committee soliciting and editing articles for the journal for more than 20 years. Katie\u0026rsquo;s article, \u0026ldquo;Free Ride or Free Speech: Predicting Results and Providing Advice for Trademark Disputes Involving Parody\u0026rdquo; won INTA\u0026rsquo;s 2020 Ladas Memorial Award for best paper in the professional category. Katie has presented at and co-chaired PLI's IP Enforcement Update program annually since 2011 and frequently writes and speaks for PLI, INTA, NYIPLA and other organizations on trademark, copyright and false advertising topics.\u0026nbsp; Katie is the author of PLI\u0026rsquo;s one volume treatise, \u0026ldquo;Kane on Trademark Law: A Practitioner\u0026rsquo;s Guide.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has been recognized in the 2012\u0026ndash;2016 editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for her trademark work.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kathleen-mccarthy","email":"kmccarthy@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eA Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBaldino\u0026rsquo;s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eValerus Field Solutions LP\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn Site Energy Co. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMTU Onsite Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSpanx, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFritz Hansen A/S\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc\u003c/strong\u003e. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include:\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":109,"guid":"109.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"McCarthy","nick_name":"Katie","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Kathleen","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":485,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1986-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"E.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"},{"title":"Named for Trademark Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2023"},{"title":"Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York","detail":"World Trademark Review 1000"},{"title":"Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/kathleenekatiemccarthy/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKatie McCarthy focuses on trademark, copyright, design, advertising and internet law. As a partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice, Katie represents clients in a wide array of industries including consumer products, pharmaceuticals, retail, internet services, sports and entertainment, cosmetics, and food and beverages. Katie appears on behalf of clients in federal court and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Katie also develops domestic and international protection and enforcement programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring her more than 30 years of experience, Katie has first-chaired numerous trials and preliminary injunction hearings. Katie actively polices online infringement and scams for several clients. In addition to litigation and contested matters, Katie directs international and domestic trademark clearance and prosecution programs, manages domain name disputes and acquisitions, and develops social media and other intellectual property-related policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie also counsels clients on a broad range of IP-related matters, helping to find creative and practical solutions to legal challenges, and developing legal strategies and policies that advance their business goals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has served on the Board of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association for years, recently finishing a term as President during which she organized and moderated a forum of key discussion leaders debating online platform liability. Katie served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Trademark Association peer-reviewed scholarly journal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Trademark Reporter\u003c/em\u003e, having\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eserved on the committee soliciting and editing articles for the journal for more than 20 years. Katie\u0026rsquo;s article, \u0026ldquo;Free Ride or Free Speech: Predicting Results and Providing Advice for Trademark Disputes Involving Parody\u0026rdquo; won INTA\u0026rsquo;s 2020 Ladas Memorial Award for best paper in the professional category. Katie has presented at and co-chaired PLI's IP Enforcement Update program annually since 2011 and frequently writes and speaks for PLI, INTA, NYIPLA and other organizations on trademark, copyright and false advertising topics.\u0026nbsp; Katie is the author of PLI\u0026rsquo;s one volume treatise, \u0026ldquo;Kane on Trademark Law: A Practitioner\u0026rsquo;s Guide.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKatie has been recognized in the 2012\u0026ndash;2016 editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for her trademark work.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eA Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBaldino\u0026rsquo;s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGoogle Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eValerus Field Solutions LP\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn Site Energy Co. v.\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMTU Onsite Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSpanx, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFritz Hansen A/S\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc\u003c/strong\u003e. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include:\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999);\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRolex Watch U.S.A., Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation","detail":"Legal 500, 2022"},{"title":"Named for Trademark Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2023"},{"title":"Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York","detail":"World Trademark Review 1000"},{"title":"Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP","detail":"Managing Intellectual Property, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4266},{"id":4266}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:50:27.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:50:27.000Z","searchable_text":"McCarthy{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named for Trademark Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"World Trademark Review 1000\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Managing Intellectual Property, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}A Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v. Google Inc. et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision).{{ FIELD }}Baldino’s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v. Google Inc. et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims).{{ FIELD }}Valerus Field Solutions LP v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion).{{ FIELD }}On Site Energy Co. v. MTU Onsite Energy (EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense).{{ FIELD }}Spanx, Inc. v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter).{{ FIELD }}Fritz Hansen A/S v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution).{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include: Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999);{{ FIELD }}Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).{{ FIELD }}Katie McCarthy focuses on trademark, copyright, design, advertising and internet law. As a partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent, Trademark and Copyright Litigation practice, Katie represents clients in a wide array of industries including consumer products, pharmaceuticals, retail, internet services, sports and entertainment, cosmetics, and food and beverages. Katie appears on behalf of clients in federal court and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Katie also develops domestic and international protection and enforcement programs.\nDuring her more than 30 years of experience, Katie has first-chaired numerous trials and preliminary injunction hearings. Katie actively polices online infringement and scams for several clients. In addition to litigation and contested matters, Katie directs international and domestic trademark clearance and prosecution programs, manages domain name disputes and acquisitions, and develops social media and other intellectual property-related policies.\nKatie also counsels clients on a broad range of IP-related matters, helping to find creative and practical solutions to legal challenges, and developing legal strategies and policies that advance their business goals.\nKatie has served on the Board of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association for years, recently finishing a term as President during which she organized and moderated a forum of key discussion leaders debating online platform liability. Katie served as Editor-in-Chief of the International Trademark Association peer-reviewed scholarly journal, The Trademark Reporter, having served on the committee soliciting and editing articles for the journal for more than 20 years. Katie’s article, “Free Ride or Free Speech: Predicting Results and Providing Advice for Trademark Disputes Involving Parody” won INTA’s 2020 Ladas Memorial Award for best paper in the professional category. Katie has presented at and co-chaired PLI's IP Enforcement Update program annually since 2011 and frequently writes and speaks for PLI, INTA, NYIPLA and other organizations on trademark, copyright and false advertising topics.  Katie is the author of PLI’s one volume treatise, “Kane on Trademark Law: A Practitioner’s Guide.”\nKatie has been recognized in the 2012–2016 editions of Legal 500 for her trademark work. Partner Named as a recommended lawyer for Trademarks: Non-Contentious and Tradmarks: Litigation Legal 500, 2022 Named for Trademark Law Best Lawyers, 2023 Named a Trademark Star nationwide and in New York Managing Intellectual Property, 2022 Ranked for Trademark Law nationwide and in New York World Trademark Review 1000 Named to Managing Intellectual Property’s Global Top 250 Women in IP Managing Intellectual Property, 2020 College of the Holy Cross  Columbia University Columbia University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York New York New York A Better Choice Lock \u0026amp; Key LLC v. Google Inc. et al (DC Cir., filed 2016) (Lead counsel for defendant in Lanham Act, antitrust class action case with CDA Section 230 defense motion to dismiss granted and affirmed on appeal in precedential decision). Baldino’s Lock \u0026amp; Key Inc. v. Google Inc. et al (EDVA and 4th Cir., filed 2014) (Lead counsel for defendant securing CDA Section 230 defense on motion to dismiss in case involving Lanham Act and RICO claims). Valerus Field Solutions LP v. Valerus Specialty Chemicals (SDTX, filed 2015) (Lead counsel for plaintiff in trademark infringement action, securing settlement prior to preliminary injunction motion). On Site Energy Co. v. MTU Onsite Energy (EDNY, filed 2010; jury trial August 2012) (Lead counsel in trademark infringement action challenging the use of the term ON SITE ENERGY in connection with power generators, securing jury verdict for the defense). Spanx, Inc. v. Times Three Clothiers d/b/a Yummie Tummie (NDGA, SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in design patent infringement declaratory judgment action and related design patent and utility patent infringement action, securing decision invalidating two patents with case resolved and dismissed thereafter). Fritz Hansen A/S v. Restoration Hardware (SDNY, filed 2013) (Lead counsel in trademark and trade dress infringement action involving copies of chair designs, securing resolution). Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. PRL Holdings (SDNY 2012) (Lead counsel in appeal of TTAB decision involving marks RLX RALPH LAUREN and RALPH LAUREN RLX, securing resolution prior to trial). Prior cases include: Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Capetown Diamond Corp. et al (N.D. Georgia 2003-2007) (Lead counsel in the latest of a series of cases establishing that genuine Rolex watches altered with non-genuine integral parts such as diamond bezels and bracelets are counterfeit); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Town \u0026amp; Country Jewelers (2005); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. JBJ Distributors, Inc. (5th Cir. July 29, 2003) (per curiam); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Zeotec Diamonds, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5595 (C.D. Cal., Mar. 7, 2003) (Lead counsel); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Michel Co., 179 F.3d 704 (9th Cir. 1999); Rolex Watch U.S.A., Inc. v. Meece, 158 F.3d 816 (5th Cir. 1998).","searchable_name":"Kathleen E. McCarthy (Katie)","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":442357,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":827,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTish McDonald focuses on complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis in fiduciary litigation, trust and estate litigation, litigation involving non-profits, real estate litigation, and litigation involving governmental entities.\u0026nbsp;A partner in our Trial and Global Practice Group, Tish represents trustees, executors, beneficiaries, developers, financial institutions, foundations and other non-profit entities and others in a variety of proceedings. A Fellow of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, Tish has litigated a wide range of fiduciary disputes, including breach of fiduciary duty actions brought by beneficiaries against executors and trustees (on both sides), including financial institutions; will/trust interpretation cases; trustee removal cases; trust modification matters; contested conservatorships; trust issues in divorce cases; matters involving the appropriate measure of fiduciary compensation; cases involving the alleged failure to notify or communicate with beneficiaries; cases involving statutes of limitation with respect to actions of fiduciaries; and matters involving the alleged malfeasance of an agent under a financial power of attorney. She has also handled cases involving the Attorney General of Georgia and the oversight of charitable trusts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTish has handled appeals before the Georgia appellate courts, including oral arguments. Tish represents clients in commercial and fiduciary litigation, as well as litigation involving real estate transactions and governmental matters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePast Publications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \"Emerging Issues in Fiduciary Litigation,\" Estate Planning Institute (2012)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \"It's Not About the Teacups: Proper Estate Planning May Prevent Family Blowups,\"\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Woman Magazine (2008)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \"The Modern Estate Planning Lawyer: Avoiding the Maelstrom of Malpractice Claims,\" Probate and Property, American Bar Association (2008)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePast Speaking Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"Can you Trust Trusts? Implications of Using Trusts in Divorce Cases,\"\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Bar Association,\u0026nbsp;February\u0026nbsp;2016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"That was Then, This is Now - Examining the Consequences of Estate Planning in a Subsequent Divorce Action When the Objectives of Fiduciary and Family Law Compete\u0026rdquo;, Fiduciary Law Institute, July\u0026nbsp;2015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"Special Considerations in Trust and Family Business Entities\",\u0026nbsp;presented to Judges on the Metro-Atlanta Business Court Division for the Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta, Georgia, February\u0026nbsp;2012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"Avoiding the Pitfalls of a Malpractice Claim in the Modern Estate Planning World\u0026rdquo;, Fiduciary Law Institute, July\u0026nbsp;2009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"letitia-mcdonald","email":"tmcdonald@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-404-822-8860","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":109,"guid":"109.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1064,"guid":"1064.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"McDonald","nick_name":"Tish","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Letitia","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTish McDonald focuses on complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis in fiduciary litigation, trust and estate litigation, litigation involving non-profits, real estate litigation, and litigation involving governmental entities.\u0026nbsp;A partner in our Trial and Global Practice Group, Tish represents trustees, executors, beneficiaries, developers, financial institutions, foundations and other non-profit entities and others in a variety of proceedings. A Fellow of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, Tish has litigated a wide range of fiduciary disputes, including breach of fiduciary duty actions brought by beneficiaries against executors and trustees (on both sides), including financial institutions; will/trust interpretation cases; trustee removal cases; trust modification matters; contested conservatorships; trust issues in divorce cases; matters involving the appropriate measure of fiduciary compensation; cases involving the alleged failure to notify or communicate with beneficiaries; cases involving statutes of limitation with respect to actions of fiduciaries; and matters involving the alleged malfeasance of an agent under a financial power of attorney. She has also handled cases involving the Attorney General of Georgia and the oversight of charitable trusts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTish has handled appeals before the Georgia appellate courts, including oral arguments. Tish represents clients in commercial and fiduciary litigation, as well as litigation involving real estate transactions and governmental matters.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePast Publications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \"Emerging Issues in Fiduciary Litigation,\" Estate Planning Institute (2012)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \"It's Not About the Teacups: Proper Estate Planning May Prevent Family Blowups,\"\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Woman Magazine (2008)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCo-author, \"The Modern Estate Planning Lawyer: Avoiding the Maelstrom of Malpractice Claims,\" Probate and Property, American Bar Association (2008)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePast Speaking Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"Can you Trust Trusts? Implications of Using Trusts in Divorce Cases,\"\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Bar Association,\u0026nbsp;February\u0026nbsp;2016\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"That was Then, This is Now - Examining the Consequences of Estate Planning in a Subsequent Divorce Action When the Objectives of Fiduciary and Family Law Compete\u0026rdquo;, Fiduciary Law Institute, July\u0026nbsp;2015\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"Special Considerations in Trust and Family Business Entities\",\u0026nbsp;presented to Judges on the Metro-Atlanta Business Court Division for the Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta, Georgia, February\u0026nbsp;2012\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\"Avoiding the Pitfalls of a Malpractice Claim in the Modern Estate Planning World\u0026rdquo;, Fiduciary Law Institute, July\u0026nbsp;2009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1049}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:24.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:24.000Z","searchable_text":"McDonald{{ FIELD }}Tish McDonald focuses on complex commercial litigation, with an emphasis in fiduciary litigation, trust and estate litigation, litigation involving non-profits, real estate litigation, and litigation involving governmental entities. A partner in our Trial and Global Practice Group, Tish represents trustees, executors, beneficiaries, developers, financial institutions, foundations and other non-profit entities and others in a variety of proceedings. A Fellow of The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, Tish has litigated a wide range of fiduciary disputes, including breach of fiduciary duty actions brought by beneficiaries against executors and trustees (on both sides), including financial institutions; will/trust interpretation cases; trustee removal cases; trust modification matters; contested conservatorships; trust issues in divorce cases; matters involving the appropriate measure of fiduciary compensation; cases involving the alleged failure to notify or communicate with beneficiaries; cases involving statutes of limitation with respect to actions of fiduciaries; and matters involving the alleged malfeasance of an agent under a financial power of attorney. She has also handled cases involving the Attorney General of Georgia and the oversight of charitable trusts.\nTish has handled appeals before the Georgia appellate courts, including oral arguments. Tish represents clients in commercial and fiduciary litigation, as well as litigation involving real estate transactions and governmental matters. \nPast Publications\n\nCo-author, \"Emerging Issues in Fiduciary Litigation,\" Estate Planning Institute (2012)\nCo-author, \"It's Not About the Teacups: Proper Estate Planning May Prevent Family Blowups,\" Atlanta Woman Magazine (2008)\nCo-author, \"The Modern Estate Planning Lawyer: Avoiding the Maelstrom of Malpractice Claims,\" Probate and Property, American Bar Association (2008)\n\nPast Speaking Engagements\n\n\"Can you Trust Trusts? Implications of Using Trusts in Divorce Cases,\" Atlanta Bar Association, February 2016\n\"That was Then, This is Now - Examining the Consequences of Estate Planning in a Subsequent Divorce Action When the Objectives of Fiduciary and Family Law Compete”, Fiduciary Law Institute, July 2015\n\"Special Considerations in Trust and Family Business Entities\", presented to Judges on the Metro-Atlanta Business Court Division for the Fulton County Superior Court in Atlanta, Georgia, February 2012\n\"Avoiding the Pitfalls of a Malpractice Claim in the Modern Estate Planning World”, Fiduciary Law Institute, July 2009\n Partner Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Tax Court Georgia Member, Atlanta Bar Association (Estate Planning \u0026amp; Probate, Family Law, and Litigation Sections) Member, State Bar of Georgia, (Fiduciary, Non Profit, Family, Real Property, General Practice \u0026amp; Trial, School \u0026amp; College, and Local Government Sections), 1989 - Present Member, Board of Governors, State Bar of Georgia Former Member, Board of Directors, Atlanta Bar Foundation Lawyers Club of Atlanta, Past President Graduate, Leadership Atlanta, Class of 2015 Master, Joseph Henry Lumpkin Inn of Court, 2009 - Present Fellow, The American College of Trust and Estate Counsel, and serves and an appointed member of the ACTEC Fiduciary Litigation Committee","searchable_name":"Letitia A. McDonald (Tish)","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":446028,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1169,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eZach McEntyre is a crisis-tested litigator. For two decades, he has represented clients in the technology,\u0026nbsp;financial services, insurance, food and beverage, energy, and healthcare industries in their most sensitive class actions, consumer protection matters,\u0026nbsp;and business disputes. He is a leading authority on the defense of high-stakes consumer class actions and \"viral\" litigation and government enforcement action.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has led the defense in hundreds of class actions\u0026nbsp;and in consumer protection litigation and investigations launched by government actors.\u0026nbsp;His matters almost always implicate core business practices, critical public relations considerations, and federal or state regulatory scrutiny. Zach\u0026nbsp;has defeated class certification or won on the merits in cases asserting claims under the federal and state RICO statutes, California's Unfair Competition Law, New York's GBL sections 349 and 350, the Consumer Fraud Acts in Illinois and New Jersey, and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, among others. He has beaten back claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (and state analogs), the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (and state analogs), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Information Privacy Act, and every imaginable common-law privacy tort. He has litigated in federal or state courts in nearly every state. Zach's adversaries (and sometimes eventual negotiating partners) have included every leading class action plaintiff's firm, state AGs, activist district attorneys, and federal and state regulators (such as the CFPB and the New York Department of Financial Services).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his class action practice, Zach handles all manner of commercial disputes.\u0026nbsp;In all of his matters, Zach focuses on working with his clients to identify, right away, the client's business objectives--and then to devise and execute strategies to satisfy those objectives. Those objectives sometimes call for early resolution. Zach is the rare courtroom lawyer who can readily recalibrate from a singular eye for victory in court to a cleareyed assessment of risk and an ability to achieve optimal negotiated outcomes. Whether in the courtroom or across the negotiating table, Zach relies on trial-ready litigation strategy and rock-solid credibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach is one of the leaders of the firm's national class action practice and its consumer financial services litigation group. He is a regular author and speaker on cutting-edge litigation issues. He is on the Board of Directors for the Atlanta Volunteers Lawyers Foundation, a former Board member for the Georgia Law Center for the Homeless, and a proud member of the Stonewall Bar\u0026nbsp;Association of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"zachary-mcentyre","email":"zmcentyre@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained voluntary dismissal of lawsuit filed by Alameda County District Attorney against leading automobile insurers and vendors asserting UCL claims relating to claims-adjustment practices (Alameda Cnty. (Calif.) Superior)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending leading global beverage company in putative class action under UCL and FAL regarding allegedly deceptive marketing of milk products (Central District of California)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in three putative class actions challenging specific adjustment applied in total-loss valuations on behalf of leading automobile insurer (Southern District of Iowa, Eastern District of North Carolina, District of Arizona)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a groundbreaking victory on summary judgment for a consumer reporting agency in a putative nationwide class action challenging the accuracy of OFAC indicators in purported consumer reports (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn behalf of insurtech company, defeated class certification in multidefendant putative nationwide class action alleging RICO violations in connection with sales practices (Southern District of California)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in long-running putative class action against natural gas supplier alleging violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (Cook Cty. (Ill.) Chancery Court)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeployed novel Article III standing argument to defeat class certification on behalf of leading global beverage company in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Southern District of Florida)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency challenging reporting of \"authorized user\" accounts, convincing court plaintiff failed to allege a \"willful\" violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act as a matter of law (Northern District of Georgia)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in multidefendant putative nationwide class action challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to bankruptcy (Southern District of Indiana)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon motions to dismiss in two putative class actions challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to COVID-era loan forbearances (Eastern District of New York and District of New Jersey)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification on behalf of a leading automobile insurer in two putative class actions challenging the accuracy of total-loss valuations (Middle District of Florida and Western District of Oklahoma)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment for leading automobile insurer in class action relating to salvage vehicle practices (Southern District of Florida)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency alleging violations of \"permissible purpose\" provisions of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Northern District of Georgia)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment on behalf of consumer reporting agency in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Eastern District of Virginia)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented superregional bank, as replacement counsel, in putative class action asserting breach of contract claims in connection with savings accounts (Eastern District of Tennessee)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading national outdoor retailer in long-running class action challenging assessment of fees in connection with boat sales (Western District of Missouri)\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":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"McEntyre","nick_name":"Zach","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Zachary","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Rising Stars","detail":"Consumer Protection - Law 360"},{"title":"40 Under 40—Legal Rising Stars to Watch","detail":"Daily Report"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eZach McEntyre is a crisis-tested litigator. For two decades, he has represented clients in the technology,\u0026nbsp;financial services, insurance, food and beverage, energy, and healthcare industries in their most sensitive class actions, consumer protection matters,\u0026nbsp;and business disputes. He is a leading authority on the defense of high-stakes consumer class actions and \"viral\" litigation and government enforcement action.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has led the defense in hundreds of class actions\u0026nbsp;and in consumer protection litigation and investigations launched by government actors.\u0026nbsp;His matters almost always implicate core business practices, critical public relations considerations, and federal or state regulatory scrutiny. Zach\u0026nbsp;has defeated class certification or won on the merits in cases asserting claims under the federal and state RICO statutes, California's Unfair Competition Law, New York's GBL sections 349 and 350, the Consumer Fraud Acts in Illinois and New Jersey, and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, among others. He has beaten back claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (and state analogs), the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (and state analogs), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Information Privacy Act, and every imaginable common-law privacy tort. He has litigated in federal or state courts in nearly every state. Zach's adversaries (and sometimes eventual negotiating partners) have included every leading class action plaintiff's firm, state AGs, activist district attorneys, and federal and state regulators (such as the CFPB and the New York Department of Financial Services).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his class action practice, Zach handles all manner of commercial disputes.\u0026nbsp;In all of his matters, Zach focuses on working with his clients to identify, right away, the client's business objectives--and then to devise and execute strategies to satisfy those objectives. Those objectives sometimes call for early resolution. Zach is the rare courtroom lawyer who can readily recalibrate from a singular eye for victory in court to a cleareyed assessment of risk and an ability to achieve optimal negotiated outcomes. Whether in the courtroom or across the negotiating table, Zach relies on trial-ready litigation strategy and rock-solid credibility.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach is one of the leaders of the firm's national class action practice and its consumer financial services litigation group. He is a regular author and speaker on cutting-edge litigation issues. He is on the Board of Directors for the Atlanta Volunteers Lawyers Foundation, a former Board member for the Georgia Law Center for the Homeless, and a proud member of the Stonewall Bar\u0026nbsp;Association of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eObtained voluntary dismissal of lawsuit filed by Alameda County District Attorney against leading automobile insurers and vendors asserting UCL claims relating to claims-adjustment practices (Alameda Cnty. (Calif.) Superior)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending leading global beverage company in putative class action under UCL and FAL regarding allegedly deceptive marketing of milk products (Central District of California)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in three putative class actions challenging specific adjustment applied in total-loss valuations on behalf of leading automobile insurer (Southern District of Iowa, Eastern District of North Carolina, District of Arizona)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a groundbreaking victory on summary judgment for a consumer reporting agency in a putative nationwide class action challenging the accuracy of OFAC indicators in purported consumer reports (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOn behalf of insurtech company, defeated class certification in multidefendant putative nationwide class action alleging RICO violations in connection with sales practices (Southern District of California)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in long-running putative class action against natural gas supplier alleging violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (Cook Cty. (Ill.) Chancery Court)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeployed novel Article III standing argument to defeat class certification on behalf of leading global beverage company in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Southern District of Florida)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency challenging reporting of \"authorized user\" accounts, convincing court plaintiff failed to allege a \"willful\" violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act as a matter of law (Northern District of Georgia)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment in multidefendant putative nationwide class action challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to bankruptcy (Southern District of Indiana)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon motions to dismiss in two putative class actions challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to COVID-era loan forbearances (Eastern District of New York and District of New Jersey)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification on behalf of a leading automobile insurer in two putative class actions challenging the accuracy of total-loss valuations (Middle District of Florida and Western District of Oklahoma)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment for leading automobile insurer in class action relating to salvage vehicle practices (Southern District of Florida)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency alleging violations of \"permissible purpose\" provisions of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Northern District of Georgia)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon summary judgment on behalf of consumer reporting agency in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Eastern District of Virginia)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented superregional bank, as replacement counsel, in putative class action asserting breach of contract claims in connection with savings accounts (Eastern District of Tennessee)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading national outdoor retailer in long-running class action challenging assessment of fees in connection with boat sales (Western District of Missouri)\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Rising Stars","detail":"Consumer Protection - Law 360"},{"title":"40 Under 40—Legal Rising Stars to Watch","detail":"Daily Report"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1051}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-23T17:10:39.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-23T17:10:39.000Z","searchable_text":"McEntyre{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Stars\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Consumer Protection - Law 360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 Under 40—Legal Rising Stars to Watch\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Report\"}{{ FIELD }}Obtained voluntary dismissal of lawsuit filed by Alameda County District Attorney against leading automobile insurers and vendors asserting UCL claims relating to claims-adjustment practices (Alameda Cnty. (Calif.) Superior){{ FIELD }}Defending leading global beverage company in putative class action under UCL and FAL regarding allegedly deceptive marketing of milk products (Central District of California){{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification in three putative class actions challenging specific adjustment applied in total-loss valuations on behalf of leading automobile insurer (Southern District of Iowa, Eastern District of North Carolina, District of Arizona){{ FIELD }}Won a groundbreaking victory on summary judgment for a consumer reporting agency in a putative nationwide class action challenging the accuracy of OFAC indicators in purported consumer reports (Eastern District of Pennsylvania){{ FIELD }}On behalf of insurtech company, defeated class certification in multidefendant putative nationwide class action alleging RICO violations in connection with sales practices (Southern District of California){{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification in long-running putative class action against natural gas supplier alleging violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (Cook Cty. (Ill.) Chancery Court){{ FIELD }}Deployed novel Article III standing argument to defeat class certification on behalf of leading global beverage company in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Southern District of Florida){{ FIELD }}Won pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency challenging reporting of \"authorized user\" accounts, convincing court plaintiff failed to allege a \"willful\" violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act as a matter of law (Northern District of Georgia){{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment in multidefendant putative nationwide class action challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to bankruptcy (Southern District of Indiana){{ FIELD }}Won motions to dismiss in two putative class actions challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to COVID-era loan forbearances (Eastern District of New York and District of New Jersey){{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification on behalf of a leading automobile insurer in two putative class actions challenging the accuracy of total-loss valuations (Middle District of Florida and Western District of Oklahoma){{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment for leading automobile insurer in class action relating to salvage vehicle practices (Southern District of Florida){{ FIELD }}Won pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency alleging violations of \"permissible purpose\" provisions of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Northern District of Georgia){{ FIELD }}Won summary judgment on behalf of consumer reporting agency in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Eastern District of Virginia){{ FIELD }}Represented superregional bank, as replacement counsel, in putative class action asserting breach of contract claims in connection with savings accounts (Eastern District of Tennessee){{ FIELD }}Represented leading national outdoor retailer in long-running class action challenging assessment of fees in connection with boat sales (Western District of Missouri){{ FIELD }}Zach McEntyre is a crisis-tested litigator. For two decades, he has represented clients in the technology, financial services, insurance, food and beverage, energy, and healthcare industries in their most sensitive class actions, consumer protection matters, and business disputes. He is a leading authority on the defense of high-stakes consumer class actions and \"viral\" litigation and government enforcement action.  \nZach has led the defense in hundreds of class actions and in consumer protection litigation and investigations launched by government actors. His matters almost always implicate core business practices, critical public relations considerations, and federal or state regulatory scrutiny. Zach has defeated class certification or won on the merits in cases asserting claims under the federal and state RICO statutes, California's Unfair Competition Law, New York's GBL sections 349 and 350, the Consumer Fraud Acts in Illinois and New Jersey, and Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, among others. He has beaten back claims under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act (and state analogs), the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (and state analogs), the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, the California Information Privacy Act, and every imaginable common-law privacy tort. He has litigated in federal or state courts in nearly every state. Zach's adversaries (and sometimes eventual negotiating partners) have included every leading class action plaintiff's firm, state AGs, activist district attorneys, and federal and state regulators (such as the CFPB and the New York Department of Financial Services). \nIn addition to his class action practice, Zach handles all manner of commercial disputes. In all of his matters, Zach focuses on working with his clients to identify, right away, the client's business objectives--and then to devise and execute strategies to satisfy those objectives. Those objectives sometimes call for early resolution. Zach is the rare courtroom lawyer who can readily recalibrate from a singular eye for victory in court to a cleareyed assessment of risk and an ability to achieve optimal negotiated outcomes. Whether in the courtroom or across the negotiating table, Zach relies on trial-ready litigation strategy and rock-solid credibility.\nZach is one of the leaders of the firm's national class action practice and its consumer financial services litigation group. He is a regular author and speaker on cutting-edge litigation issues. He is on the Board of Directors for the Atlanta Volunteers Lawyers Foundation, a former Board member for the Georgia Law Center for the Homeless, and a proud member of the Stonewall Bar Association of Georgia. Partner Rising Stars Consumer Protection - Law 360 40 Under 40—Legal Rising Stars to Watch Daily Report University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law Mercer University Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Obtained voluntary dismissal of lawsuit filed by Alameda County District Attorney against leading automobile insurers and vendors asserting UCL claims relating to claims-adjustment practices (Alameda Cnty. (Calif.) Superior) Defending leading global beverage company in putative class action under UCL and FAL regarding allegedly deceptive marketing of milk products (Central District of California) Defeated class certification in three putative class actions challenging specific adjustment applied in total-loss valuations on behalf of leading automobile insurer (Southern District of Iowa, Eastern District of North Carolina, District of Arizona) Won a groundbreaking victory on summary judgment for a consumer reporting agency in a putative nationwide class action challenging the accuracy of OFAC indicators in purported consumer reports (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) On behalf of insurtech company, defeated class certification in multidefendant putative nationwide class action alleging RICO violations in connection with sales practices (Southern District of California) Defeated class certification in long-running putative class action against natural gas supplier alleging violations of Illinois Consumer Fraud Act (Cook Cty. (Ill.) Chancery Court) Deployed novel Article III standing argument to defeat class certification on behalf of leading global beverage company in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act (Southern District of Florida) Won pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency challenging reporting of \"authorized user\" accounts, convincing court plaintiff failed to allege a \"willful\" violation of Fair Credit Reporting Act as a matter of law (Northern District of Georgia) Won summary judgment in multidefendant putative nationwide class action challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to bankruptcy (Southern District of Indiana) Won motions to dismiss in two putative class actions challenging accuracy of consumer reporting relating to COVID-era loan forbearances (Eastern District of New York and District of New Jersey) Defeated class certification on behalf of a leading automobile insurer in two putative class actions challenging the accuracy of total-loss valuations (Middle District of Florida and Western District of Oklahoma) Won summary judgment for leading automobile insurer in class action relating to salvage vehicle practices (Southern District of Florida) Won pleading-stage dismissal of putative nationwide class action against consumer reporting agency alleging violations of \"permissible purpose\" provisions of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Northern District of Georgia) Won summary judgment on behalf of consumer reporting agency in putative nationwide class action alleging violations of Fair Credit Reporting Act (Eastern District of Virginia) Represented superregional bank, as replacement counsel, in putative class action asserting breach of contract claims in connection with savings accounts (Eastern District of Tennessee) Represented leading national outdoor retailer in long-running class action challenging assessment of fees in connection with boat sales (Western District of Missouri)","searchable_name":"Zachary A. McEntyre (Zach)","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":426357,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2817,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAs a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul Mezzina focuses on appeals, critical motions and strategic counseling in connection with complex litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul represents clients in a variety of matters, including those involving the False Claims Act, intellectual property, class actions, medical drugs and devices, antitrust, and professional liability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul has authored briefs in numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals and federal trial courts, and has presented oral argument in the Second, Fourth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C. and Federal Circuits, as well as multiple state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is one of few attorneys in the country to have clerked for three U.S. Supreme Court Justices.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"paul-mezzina","email":"pmezzina@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mezzina","nick_name":"Paul","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States","years_held":"2013-2014"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","years_held":"2009-2010"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court of the United States","years_held":"2018 - 2019"}],"first_name":"Paul","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"Alessio","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/paulmezzina/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAs a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul Mezzina focuses on appeals, critical motions and strategic counseling in connection with complex litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul represents clients in a variety of matters, including those involving the False Claims Act, intellectual property, class actions, medical drugs and devices, antitrust, and professional liability.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul has authored briefs in numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals and federal trial courts, and has presented oral argument in the Second, Fourth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C. and Federal Circuits, as well as multiple state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is one of few attorneys in the country to have clerked for three U.S. Supreme Court Justices.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":70}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:51:47.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:51:47.000Z","searchable_text":"Mezzina{{ FIELD }}As a partner in our Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law practice, Paul Mezzina focuses on appeals, critical motions and strategic counseling in connection with complex litigation.\nPaul represents clients in a variety of matters, including those involving the False Claims Act, intellectual property, class actions, medical drugs and devices, antitrust, and professional liability.\nPaul has authored briefs in numerous cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals and federal trial courts, and has presented oral argument in the Second, Fourth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C. and Federal Circuits, as well as multiple state courts.\nPaul is one of few attorneys in the country to have clerked for three U.S. Supreme Court Justices. Partner Harvard University Harvard Law School Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia District of Columbia Law Clerk, Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court of the United States Law Clerk, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Law Clerk, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Supreme Court of the United States","searchable_name":"Paul Alessio Mezzina","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":447576,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1056,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Miles specializes in domestic and international arbitration of investment disputes and commercial matters. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Craig represents clients before arbitral tribunals worldwide.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCraig represents foreign investors in disputes with host governments, primarily before the World Bank\u0026rsquo;s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), and private parties in commercial disputes before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the American Arbitration Association (AAA), and other domestic and international arbitral institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCraig has first- or second-chaired dozens of arbitration hearings involving disputes throughout North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, with particularly strong experience in bilateral investment treaty (BIT) disputes in the oil and gas, mining and infrastructure sectors, as well as in Latin America. He is regularly called upon to handle the quantum aspects of clients\u0026rsquo; most significant disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong Craig's recent cases are some of the largest BIT awards and settlements ever obtained by foreign investors against the governments of Argentina, Algeria, Bolivia, Ecuador, Egypt, Romania, Venezuela and Vietnam, among others. He also acts as lead external counsel to the Arbitration Committee of the USA Rice Millers Association, a trade group that has administered dozens of arbitrations involving the rice industry worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2011, Craig was named to the \u003cem\u003eGlobal Arbitration Review\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;45 Under 45\u0026rdquo; list of the world\u0026rsquo;s leading international arbitration practitioners under the age of 45. Also, he has been frequently recognized in \u003cem\u003eChambers Global, Chambers\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eUSA, Chambers Latin America\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America, The Legal 500,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLatin Lawyer, and Law Dragon.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA native English speaker who is also proficient in Spanish, French and Portuguese, Craig frequently speaks and writes on international arbitration issues.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"craig-miles","email":"cmiles@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean Indonesian pulp company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multi-billion-dollar ICC arbitration in Brazil arising from a share purchase agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major integrated oil \u0026amp; gas producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multi-billion-dollar UNCITRAL arbitration against Ecuador under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT, arising from fraudulent judgments issued against the client in Ecuadorian courts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea global oilfield services company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration relating to compression agreements in a major oilfield in Mexico, leading to a US$ 40 million settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOdyssey Marine Exploration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a NAFTA UNCITRAL arbitration relating to a halted mining project, obtaining a US$ 37 million award for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting The Williams Companies in an ICSID (AF) arbitration against Venezuela arising from the nationalization of multiple state-of-the-art gas compression plants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a global infrastructure developer in an ICSID arbitration against Peru and three related commercial arbitrations arising from canceled concessions to build and operate fiber-optic networks in remote areas of the country. The commercial arbitrations resulted in an award of US$ 177 million in favor of the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003egroup of Kuwaiti investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Egypt in a dispute arising from a revoked concession to develop an agricultural project and potential new city outside of Cairo, obtaining an award of US$ 18.5 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against another international pharmaceutical company in a dispute relating to the sale of certain Mexican subsidiaries.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDutch investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an award (including moral damages) in an UNCITRAL BIT arbitration against a Southeast Asian State, in a dispute alleging unlawful confiscation of real estate and other assets without compensation. See press article \u003ca href=\"https://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam/award-04122019161649.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea global mining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a BIT dispute against a South American State arising from the closure of a producing mine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSalini Impregilo\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(n/k/a WeBuild) in its ICSID claim against Argentina under the Italy-Argentina BIT, arising from the termination of a bridge and tollway concession. In February 2018, the Tribunal upheld its jurisdiction over the claim, see Decision on Jurisdiction \u003ca href=\"https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9546.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e, and later issues a Decision on Liability in favor of the client with a final damages award pending.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major U.S. refining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) arbitration arising from the multi-billion-dollar construction of a refinery expansion project on the U.S. Gulf Coast.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea U.S. integrated energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining a complete declaratory victory in an Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission (IACAC) arbitration against a South American State-owned oil company relating to the royalty-adjustment clauses in a concession agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBear Creek Mining Co.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an ICSID award against Peru in an arbitration under the Canada-Peru FTA arising from Peru\u0026rsquo;s revocation of one of the company\u0026rsquo;s mining concessions. See Award \u003ca href=\"https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9381.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSouth American Silver Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an award in its UNCITRAL arbitration against Bolivia under the UK-Bolivia BIT arising from Bolivia\u0026rsquo;s nationalization of the company\u0026rsquo;s mining concession. See Award \u003ca href=\"https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw10361.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBurlington Resources Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an ICSID arbitration award against Ecuador under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT arising from Ecuador\u0026rsquo;s nationalization of two of the company\u0026rsquo;s producing blocks. See Award\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw8208_0.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of Grupo Marsans\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in their successful ICSID claim against Argentina under the Spain-Argentina BIT, arising from Argentina\u0026rsquo;s nationalization of the clients\u0026rsquo; investments in the Argentine airlines\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAerol\u0026iacute;neas Argentinas\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAustral\u003c/em\u003e. See Decision on Jurisdiction here. See Award \u003ca href=\"https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9235.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. See Decision on Annulment \u003ca href=\"https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw10552.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMurphy Oil\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an UNCITRAL award against Ecuador under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT, arising from Ecuador\u0026rsquo;s unilateral modification of the participation formula in an oil production contract. The Tribunal had previously upheld its jurisdiction over the claim in 2013. See Partial Final Award\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7489_0.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. See Partial Award on Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw8636.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of ExxonMobil\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining a (non-published) award in 2016 against Argentina under the U.S.-Argentina BIT for imposing measures affecting the clients\u0026rsquo; investments in the oil \u0026amp; gas sector. The Tribunal previously issued a (non-published) Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability in 2013.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe principals of European Food and Drinks Group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an ICSID award against Romania under the Sweden-Romania BIT, arising from Romania\u0026rsquo;s revocation of certain customs-tax exemptions that underlay the investment in substantial food and beverage manufacturing facilities in an economically-disadvantaged region of northwestern Romania. See Award\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw3036.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean affiliate of Exterran Holdings\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its ICSID claim against Venezuela under the Spain-Venezuela BIT, arising from Venezuela\u0026rsquo;s nationalization of substantially all of the company\u0026rsquo;s assets, operations and facilities in Venezuela. After the hearing on the merits took place in July 2012, the case settled for a reported US $442 million. See press release\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=113213\u0026amp;p=irol-newsArticle\u0026amp;ID=1723334\u0026amp;highlight=\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEl Paso\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an ICSID award against Argentina under the U.S.-Argentina BIT for imposing measures affecting the regulatory frameworks governing the electricity and oil \u0026amp; gas sectors. See Award\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://italaw.com/documents/El_Paso_v._Argentina_Award_ENG.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. See Decision on Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/elpasoEN.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eImpregilo S.p.A.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an ICSID award against Argentina under the Italy-Argentina BIT, arising from the termination of a water concession in the Province of Buenos Aires. An ICSID annulment committee subsequently upheld the award in full. See Decision on Annulment\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw3044.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. See Award\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0418.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":132,"guid":"132.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Miles","nick_name":"Craig","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Craig","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"500 Leading Global Litigators","detail":"LAW DRAGON, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Named to “45 Under 45” list","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"International Commercial Arbitration","detail":"Who’s Who Legal, 2009–2024"},{"title":"International Arbitration: Latin America-wide","detail":"Chambers Latin America, 2011–2024"},{"title":"International Arbitration: Commercial and Governmental","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2010–2024"},{"title":"Lawyer of the Year-Houston-International Arbiration-Commercial","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2019"},{"title":"International Arbitration: Latin America-wide","detail":"Legal 500 Latin America, 2013–2020, 2024"},{"title":"International Arbitration: Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA, 2010–2020"},{"title":"International Arbitration","detail":"Latin Lawyer 250, 2008–2020"},{"title":"GAR 100","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2009–2020"},{"title":"International Arbitration: Global","detail":"Chambers Global, 2007, 2019-2024"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCraig Miles specializes in domestic and international arbitration of investment disputes and commercial matters. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Craig represents clients before arbitral tribunals worldwide.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCraig represents foreign investors in disputes with host governments, primarily before the World Bank\u0026rsquo;s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), and private parties in commercial disputes before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the American Arbitration Association (AAA), and other domestic and international arbitral institutions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCraig has first- or second-chaired dozens of arbitration hearings involving disputes throughout North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, with particularly strong experience in bilateral investment treaty (BIT) disputes in the oil and gas, mining and infrastructure sectors, as well as in Latin America. He is regularly called upon to handle the quantum aspects of clients\u0026rsquo; most significant disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong Craig's recent cases are some of the largest BIT awards and settlements ever obtained by foreign investors against the governments of Argentina, Algeria, Bolivia, Ecuador, Egypt, Romania, Venezuela and Vietnam, among others. He also acts as lead external counsel to the Arbitration Committee of the USA Rice Millers Association, a trade group that has administered dozens of arbitrations involving the rice industry worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2011, Craig was named to the \u003cem\u003eGlobal Arbitration Review\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;45 Under 45\u0026rdquo; list of the world\u0026rsquo;s leading international arbitration practitioners under the age of 45. Also, he has been frequently recognized in \u003cem\u003eChambers Global, Chambers\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eUSA, Chambers Latin America\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America, The Legal 500,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLatin Lawyer, and Law Dragon.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA native English speaker who is also proficient in Spanish, French and Portuguese, Craig frequently speaks and writes on international arbitration issues.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean Indonesian pulp company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multi-billion-dollar ICC arbitration in Brazil arising from a share purchase agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major integrated oil \u0026amp; gas producer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multi-billion-dollar UNCITRAL arbitration against Ecuador under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT, arising from fraudulent judgments issued against the client in Ecuadorian courts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea global oilfield services company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration relating to compression agreements in a major oilfield in Mexico, leading to a US$ 40 million settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOdyssey Marine Exploration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a NAFTA UNCITRAL arbitration relating to a halted mining project, obtaining a US$ 37 million award for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting The Williams Companies in an ICSID (AF) arbitration against Venezuela arising from the nationalization of multiple state-of-the-art gas compression plants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a global infrastructure developer in an ICSID arbitration against Peru and three related commercial arbitrations arising from canceled concessions to build and operate fiber-optic networks in remote areas of the country. The commercial arbitrations resulted in an award of US$ 177 million in favor of the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003egroup of Kuwaiti investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Egypt in a dispute arising from a revoked concession to develop an agricultural project and potential new city outside of Cairo, obtaining an award of US$ 18.5 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against another international pharmaceutical company in a dispute relating to the sale of certain Mexican subsidiaries.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDutch investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an award (including moral damages) in an UNCITRAL BIT arbitration against a Southeast Asian State, in a dispute alleging unlawful confiscation of real estate and other assets without compensation. See press article \u003ca href=\"https://www.rfa.org/english/news/vietnam/award-04122019161649.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea global mining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a BIT dispute against a South American State arising from the closure of a producing mine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSalini Impregilo\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(n/k/a WeBuild) in its ICSID claim against Argentina under the Italy-Argentina BIT, arising from the termination of a bridge and tollway concession. In February 2018, the Tribunal upheld its jurisdiction over the claim, see Decision on Jurisdiction \u003ca href=\"https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9546.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e, and later issues a Decision on Liability in favor of the client with a final damages award pending.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major U.S. refining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) arbitration arising from the multi-billion-dollar construction of a refinery expansion project on the U.S. Gulf Coast.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea U.S. integrated energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining a complete declaratory victory in an Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission (IACAC) arbitration against a South American State-owned oil company relating to the royalty-adjustment clauses in a concession agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBear Creek Mining Co.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an ICSID award against Peru in an arbitration under the Canada-Peru FTA arising from Peru\u0026rsquo;s revocation of one of the company\u0026rsquo;s mining concessions. See Award \u003ca href=\"https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9381.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSouth American Silver Corp.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an award in its UNCITRAL arbitration against Bolivia under the UK-Bolivia BIT arising from Bolivia\u0026rsquo;s nationalization of the company\u0026rsquo;s mining concession. See Award \u003ca href=\"https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw10361.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBurlington Resources Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an ICSID arbitration award against Ecuador under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT arising from Ecuador\u0026rsquo;s nationalization of two of the company\u0026rsquo;s producing blocks. See Award\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw8208_0.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of Grupo Marsans\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in their successful ICSID claim against Argentina under the Spain-Argentina BIT, arising from Argentina\u0026rsquo;s nationalization of the clients\u0026rsquo; investments in the Argentine airlines\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAerol\u0026iacute;neas Argentinas\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAustral\u003c/em\u003e. See Decision on Jurisdiction here. See Award \u003ca href=\"https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw9235.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. See Decision on Annulment \u003ca href=\"https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw10552.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMurphy Oil\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an UNCITRAL award against Ecuador under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT, arising from Ecuador\u0026rsquo;s unilateral modification of the participation formula in an oil production contract. The Tribunal had previously upheld its jurisdiction over the claim in 2013. See Partial Final Award\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw7489_0.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. See Partial Award on Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw8636.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of ExxonMobil\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining a (non-published) award in 2016 against Argentina under the U.S.-Argentina BIT for imposing measures affecting the clients\u0026rsquo; investments in the oil \u0026amp; gas sector. The Tribunal previously issued a (non-published) Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability in 2013.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe principals of European Food and Drinks Group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an ICSID award against Romania under the Sweden-Romania BIT, arising from Romania\u0026rsquo;s revocation of certain customs-tax exemptions that underlay the investment in substantial food and beverage manufacturing facilities in an economically-disadvantaged region of northwestern Romania. See Award\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw3036.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean affiliate of Exterran Holdings\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its ICSID claim against Venezuela under the Spain-Venezuela BIT, arising from Venezuela\u0026rsquo;s nationalization of substantially all of the company\u0026rsquo;s assets, operations and facilities in Venezuela. After the hearing on the merits took place in July 2012, the case settled for a reported US $442 million. See press release\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=113213\u0026amp;p=irol-newsArticle\u0026amp;ID=1723334\u0026amp;highlight=\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEl Paso\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an ICSID award against Argentina under the U.S.-Argentina BIT for imposing measures affecting the regulatory frameworks governing the electricity and oil \u0026amp; gas sectors. See Award\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://italaw.com/documents/El_Paso_v._Argentina_Award_ENG.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. See Decision on Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://ita.law.uvic.ca/documents/elpasoEN.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eImpregilo S.p.A.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining an ICSID award against Argentina under the Italy-Argentina BIT, arising from the termination of a water concession in the Province of Buenos Aires. An ICSID annulment committee subsequently upheld the award in full. See Decision on Annulment\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw3044.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e. See Award\u0026nbsp;\u003ca href=\"http://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0418.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener noreferrer\"\u003ehere\u003c/a\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"500 Leading Global Litigators","detail":"LAW DRAGON, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Named to “45 Under 45” list","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"International Commercial Arbitration","detail":"Who’s Who Legal, 2009–2024"},{"title":"International Arbitration: Latin America-wide","detail":"Chambers Latin America, 2011–2024"},{"title":"International Arbitration: Commercial and Governmental","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2010–2024"},{"title":"Lawyer of the Year-Houston-International Arbiration-Commercial","detail":"Best Lawyers in America, 2019"},{"title":"International Arbitration: Latin America-wide","detail":"Legal 500 Latin America, 2013–2020, 2024"},{"title":"International Arbitration: Nationwide","detail":"Chambers USA, 2010–2020"},{"title":"International Arbitration","detail":"Latin Lawyer 250, 2008–2020"},{"title":"GAR 100","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2009–2020"},{"title":"International Arbitration: Global","detail":"Chambers Global, 2007, 2019-2024"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6724}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-15T21:14:32.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-15T21:14:32.000Z","searchable_text":"Miles{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"500 Leading Global Litigators\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LAW DRAGON, 2023-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to “45 Under 45” list\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Arbitration Review, 2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Commercial Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who Legal, 2009–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Arbitration: Latin America-wide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Latin America, 2011–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Arbitration: Commercial and Governmental\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America, 2010–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Lawyer of the Year-Houston-International Arbiration-Commercial\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Arbitration: Latin America-wide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Latin America, 2013–2020, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Arbitration: Nationwide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2010–2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Latin Lawyer 250, 2008–2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"GAR 100\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Arbitration Review, 2009–2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Arbitration: Global\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2007, 2019-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing an Indonesian pulp company in a multi-billion-dollar ICC arbitration in Brazil arising from a share purchase agreement.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major integrated oil \u0026amp; gas producer in a multi-billion-dollar UNCITRAL arbitration against Ecuador under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT, arising from fraudulent judgments issued against the client in Ecuadorian courts.{{ FIELD }}Representing a global oilfield services company in an ICC arbitration relating to compression agreements in a major oilfield in Mexico, leading to a US$ 40 million settlement for the client.{{ FIELD }}Representing Odyssey Marine Exploration in a NAFTA UNCITRAL arbitration relating to a halted mining project, obtaining a US$ 37 million award for the client.{{ FIELD }}Representing The Williams Companies in an ICSID (AF) arbitration against Venezuela arising from the nationalization of multiple state-of-the-art gas compression plants.{{ FIELD }}Representing a global infrastructure developer in an ICSID arbitration against Peru and three related commercial arbitrations arising from canceled concessions to build and operate fiber-optic networks in remote areas of the country. The commercial arbitrations resulted in an award of US$ 177 million in favor of the client.{{ FIELD }}Representing a group of Kuwaiti investors in an ICSID arbitration against Egypt in a dispute arising from a revoked concession to develop an agricultural project and potential new city outside of Cairo, obtaining an award of US$ 18.5 million.{{ FIELD }}Representing an international pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration against another international pharmaceutical company in a dispute relating to the sale of certain Mexican subsidiaries.{{ FIELD }}Representing Dutch investors in obtaining an award (including moral damages) in an UNCITRAL BIT arbitration against a Southeast Asian State, in a dispute alleging unlawful confiscation of real estate and other assets without compensation. See press article here.{{ FIELD }}Representing a global mining company in a BIT dispute against a South American State arising from the closure of a producing mine.{{ FIELD }}Representing Salini Impregilo (n/k/a WeBuild) in its ICSID claim against Argentina under the Italy-Argentina BIT, arising from the termination of a bridge and tollway concession. In February 2018, the Tribunal upheld its jurisdiction over the claim, see Decision on Jurisdiction here, and later issues a Decision on Liability in favor of the client with a final damages award pending.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major U.S. refining company in an International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) arbitration arising from the multi-billion-dollar construction of a refinery expansion project on the U.S. Gulf Coast.{{ FIELD }}Representing a U.S. integrated energy company in obtaining a complete declaratory victory in an Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission (IACAC) arbitration against a South American State-owned oil company relating to the royalty-adjustment clauses in a concession agreement.{{ FIELD }}Representing Bear Creek Mining Co. in obtaining an ICSID award against Peru in an arbitration under the Canada-Peru FTA arising from Peru’s revocation of one of the company’s mining concessions. See Award here.{{ FIELD }}Representing South American Silver Corp. in obtaining an award in its UNCITRAL arbitration against Bolivia under the UK-Bolivia BIT arising from Bolivia’s nationalization of the company’s mining concession. See Award here.{{ FIELD }}Representing Burlington Resources Inc. in obtaining an ICSID arbitration award against Ecuador under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT arising from Ecuador’s nationalization of two of the company’s producing blocks. See Award here.{{ FIELD }}Representing affiliates of Grupo Marsans in their successful ICSID claim against Argentina under the Spain-Argentina BIT, arising from Argentina’s nationalization of the clients’ investments in the Argentine airlines Aerolíneas Argentinas and Austral. See Decision on Jurisdiction here. See Award here. See Decision on Annulment here.{{ FIELD }}Representing Murphy Oil in obtaining an UNCITRAL award against Ecuador under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT, arising from Ecuador’s unilateral modification of the participation formula in an oil production contract. The Tribunal had previously upheld its jurisdiction over the claim in 2013. See Partial Final Award here. See Partial Award on Jurisdiction here.{{ FIELD }}Representing affiliates of ExxonMobil in obtaining a (non-published) award in 2016 against Argentina under the U.S.-Argentina BIT for imposing measures affecting the clients’ investments in the oil \u0026amp; gas sector. The Tribunal previously issued a (non-published) Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability in 2013.{{ FIELD }}Representing the principals of European Food and Drinks Group in obtaining an ICSID award against Romania under the Sweden-Romania BIT, arising from Romania’s revocation of certain customs-tax exemptions that underlay the investment in substantial food and beverage manufacturing facilities in an economically-disadvantaged region of northwestern Romania. See Award here.{{ FIELD }}Representing an affiliate of Exterran Holdings in its ICSID claim against Venezuela under the Spain-Venezuela BIT, arising from Venezuela’s nationalization of substantially all of the company’s assets, operations and facilities in Venezuela. After the hearing on the merits took place in July 2012, the case settled for a reported US $442 million. See press release here.{{ FIELD }}Representing El Paso in obtaining an ICSID award against Argentina under the U.S.-Argentina BIT for imposing measures affecting the regulatory frameworks governing the electricity and oil \u0026amp; gas sectors. See Award here. See Decision on Jurisdiction here.{{ FIELD }}Representing Impregilo S.p.A. in obtaining an ICSID award against Argentina under the Italy-Argentina BIT, arising from the termination of a water concession in the Province of Buenos Aires. An ICSID annulment committee subsequently upheld the award in full. See Decision on Annulment here. See Award here.{{ FIELD }}Craig Miles specializes in domestic and international arbitration of investment disputes and commercial matters. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Craig represents clients before arbitral tribunals worldwide.\nCraig represents foreign investors in disputes with host governments, primarily before the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), and private parties in commercial disputes before the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), the American Arbitration Association (AAA), and other domestic and international arbitral institutions.\nCraig has first- or second-chaired dozens of arbitration hearings involving disputes throughout North and South America, Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, with particularly strong experience in bilateral investment treaty (BIT) disputes in the oil and gas, mining and infrastructure sectors, as well as in Latin America. He is regularly called upon to handle the quantum aspects of clients’ most significant disputes.\nAmong Craig's recent cases are some of the largest BIT awards and settlements ever obtained by foreign investors against the governments of Argentina, Algeria, Bolivia, Ecuador, Egypt, Romania, Venezuela and Vietnam, among others. He also acts as lead external counsel to the Arbitration Committee of the USA Rice Millers Association, a trade group that has administered dozens of arbitrations involving the rice industry worldwide.\nIn 2011, Craig was named to the Global Arbitration Review’s “45 Under 45” list of the world’s leading international arbitration practitioners under the age of 45. Also, he has been frequently recognized in Chambers Global, Chambers USA, Chambers Latin America, Who’s Who, The Best Lawyers in America, The Legal 500, Latin Lawyer, and Law Dragon.\nA native English speaker who is also proficient in Spanish, French and Portuguese, Craig frequently speaks and writes on international arbitration issues. Partner 500 Leading Global Litigators LAW DRAGON, 2023-2024 Named to “45 Under 45” list Global Arbitration Review, 2011 International Commercial Arbitration Who’s Who Legal, 2009–2024 International Arbitration: Latin America-wide Chambers Latin America, 2011–2024 International Arbitration: Commercial and Governmental Best Lawyers in America, 2010–2024 Lawyer of the Year-Houston-International Arbiration-Commercial Best Lawyers in America, 2019 International Arbitration: Latin America-wide Legal 500 Latin America, 2013–2020, 2024 International Arbitration: Nationwide Chambers USA, 2010–2020 International Arbitration Latin Lawyer 250, 2008–2020 GAR 100 Global Arbitration Review, 2009–2020 International Arbitration: Global Chambers Global, 2007, 2019-2024 Cornell University Cornell Law School University of Houston University of Houston Law Center U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Florida Texas American Bar Association Houston Bar Association International Bar Association ICCA Foundation Brazil Texas Chamber of Commerce Representing an Indonesian pulp company in a multi-billion-dollar ICC arbitration in Brazil arising from a share purchase agreement. Representing a major integrated oil \u0026amp; gas producer in a multi-billion-dollar UNCITRAL arbitration against Ecuador under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT, arising from fraudulent judgments issued against the client in Ecuadorian courts. Representing a global oilfield services company in an ICC arbitration relating to compression agreements in a major oilfield in Mexico, leading to a US$ 40 million settlement for the client. Representing Odyssey Marine Exploration in a NAFTA UNCITRAL arbitration relating to a halted mining project, obtaining a US$ 37 million award for the client. Representing The Williams Companies in an ICSID (AF) arbitration against Venezuela arising from the nationalization of multiple state-of-the-art gas compression plants. Representing a global infrastructure developer in an ICSID arbitration against Peru and three related commercial arbitrations arising from canceled concessions to build and operate fiber-optic networks in remote areas of the country. The commercial arbitrations resulted in an award of US$ 177 million in favor of the client. Representing a group of Kuwaiti investors in an ICSID arbitration against Egypt in a dispute arising from a revoked concession to develop an agricultural project and potential new city outside of Cairo, obtaining an award of US$ 18.5 million. Representing an international pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration against another international pharmaceutical company in a dispute relating to the sale of certain Mexican subsidiaries. Representing Dutch investors in obtaining an award (including moral damages) in an UNCITRAL BIT arbitration against a Southeast Asian State, in a dispute alleging unlawful confiscation of real estate and other assets without compensation. See press article here. Representing a global mining company in a BIT dispute against a South American State arising from the closure of a producing mine. Representing Salini Impregilo (n/k/a WeBuild) in its ICSID claim against Argentina under the Italy-Argentina BIT, arising from the termination of a bridge and tollway concession. In February 2018, the Tribunal upheld its jurisdiction over the claim, see Decision on Jurisdiction here, and later issues a Decision on Liability in favor of the client with a final damages award pending. Representing a major U.S. refining company in an International Institute for Conflict Prevention and Resolution (CPR) arbitration arising from the multi-billion-dollar construction of a refinery expansion project on the U.S. Gulf Coast. Representing a U.S. integrated energy company in obtaining a complete declaratory victory in an Inter-American Commercial Arbitration Commission (IACAC) arbitration against a South American State-owned oil company relating to the royalty-adjustment clauses in a concession agreement. Representing Bear Creek Mining Co. in obtaining an ICSID award against Peru in an arbitration under the Canada-Peru FTA arising from Peru’s revocation of one of the company’s mining concessions. See Award here. Representing South American Silver Corp. in obtaining an award in its UNCITRAL arbitration against Bolivia under the UK-Bolivia BIT arising from Bolivia’s nationalization of the company’s mining concession. See Award here. Representing Burlington Resources Inc. in obtaining an ICSID arbitration award against Ecuador under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT arising from Ecuador’s nationalization of two of the company’s producing blocks. See Award here. Representing affiliates of Grupo Marsans in their successful ICSID claim against Argentina under the Spain-Argentina BIT, arising from Argentina’s nationalization of the clients’ investments in the Argentine airlines Aerolíneas Argentinas and Austral. See Decision on Jurisdiction here. See Award here. See Decision on Annulment here. Representing Murphy Oil in obtaining an UNCITRAL award against Ecuador under the U.S.-Ecuador BIT, arising from Ecuador’s unilateral modification of the participation formula in an oil production contract. The Tribunal had previously upheld its jurisdiction over the claim in 2013. See Partial Final Award here. See Partial Award on Jurisdiction here. Representing affiliates of ExxonMobil in obtaining a (non-published) award in 2016 against Argentina under the U.S.-Argentina BIT for imposing measures affecting the clients’ investments in the oil \u0026amp; gas sector. The Tribunal previously issued a (non-published) Decision on Jurisdiction and Liability in 2013. Representing the principals of European Food and Drinks Group in obtaining an ICSID award against Romania under the Sweden-Romania BIT, arising from Romania’s revocation of certain customs-tax exemptions that underlay the investment in substantial food and beverage manufacturing facilities in an economically-disadvantaged region of northwestern Romania. See Award here. Representing an affiliate of Exterran Holdings in its ICSID claim against Venezuela under the Spain-Venezuela BIT, arising from Venezuela’s nationalization of substantially all of the company’s assets, operations and facilities in Venezuela. After the hearing on the merits took place in July 2012, the case settled for a reported US $442 million. See press release here. Representing El Paso in obtaining an ICSID award against Argentina under the U.S.-Argentina BIT for imposing measures affecting the regulatory frameworks governing the electricity and oil \u0026amp; gas sectors. See Award here. See Decision on Jurisdiction here. Representing Impregilo S.p.A. in obtaining an ICSID award against Argentina under the Italy-Argentina BIT, arising from the termination of a water concession in the Province of Buenos Aires. An ICSID annulment committee subsequently upheld the award in full. See Decision on Annulment here. See Award here.","searchable_name":"Craig S. Miles","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":445015,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6258,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian Miller focuses his practice on securities class action defense, SEC investigations, internal investigations of whistleblower allegations, accounting fraud, fiduciary duties, private credit disputes, partnership disputes, healthcare disputes, and other commercial disputes. Brian has defended dozens of shareholder class actions alleging securities fraud, accounting fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. Collectively, these matters have sought damages in the billions of dollars.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian represents public companies and their directors and officers, private equity and private credit funds, borrowers from private credit funds, registered investment advisors, and individual and corporate clients facing SEC investigations and bet-the-company litigation, typically involving fraud or breach of fiduciary duty allegations. He also has significant experience litigating commercial disputes throughout Florida, in state and federal courts as well as private arbitration tribunals.\u0026nbsp;Many of his cases involve multiple related lawsuits and pending government or regulatory investigations in different jurisdictions across the United States and internationally.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian draws upon his experience as a former SEC lawyer to represent his clients. Brian began his career at the SEC in Washington, D.C., where, among other things, he served as special counsel to Commissioner Steven M.H. Wallman. He is recognized annually by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America \u003c/em\u003eand is ranked Band 1 by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003ein \u0026ldquo;Litigation: Securities \u0026ndash; Florida\u0026rdquo;\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"brian-miller","email":"bmiller@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRepresentative Trial Experience\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended private equity fund against allegations of breach of fiduciary duty in a nine-week trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended Latin American businessman on $30 million fraud and breach of promissory note claims in federal bankruptcy court trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended SEC claims against alleged unregistered broker dealer in federal court trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProsecuted trial claims on behalf of private country club related to $850,000 annual special assessment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProsecuted claims on behalf of Bahraini pharmaceutical company against US machinery supplier in arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended SEC claims against CEO of public company in federal court trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended breach of fiduciary duty claims against public company in connection with merger transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProsecuted several pro bono trials on behalf of prisoners alleging civil rights violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternal Investigations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented audit committee of construction firm in connection with internal investigation arising from whistleblower allegations of accounting irregularities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInvestigated alleged stock-option backdating on behalf of audit committee of NASDAQ-traded public company in the telecommunications industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInvestigated allegations of dishonest conduct by senior financial personnel of NYSE-traded public company in the telecommunications industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented audit committee of NYSE-traded public company in the real estate industry in two separate internal investigations arising from whistleblower allegations of accounting and other fraud.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInvestigated accounting fraud allegations on behalf of audit committee of NASDAQ-traded company in the pharmaceutical industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInvestigated inventory accounting fraud allegations for Amex-traded public company in the aerospace industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInvestigated allegations of insider trading by officer of Nasdaq-traded bank holding company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSecurities Class Action Defense\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal class action securities claims against medical device manufacturer related to disclosures about the status of new product development. Dismissal affirmed on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended public correctional facilities company in defense of federal securities claims related to COVID-19 and disclosures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal securities class action against VOIP telecommunications company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal class action securities claims against a public company in the education industry alleging accounting and other misstatements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal securities class action against staffing company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented hedge fund and its principal in defense of securities class action and parallel derivative claims regarding stock buyback.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal securities class action against semiconductor company alleging fraud in connection with revision to earnings guidance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal class action securities claims related to earnings miss by NYSE-traded solid waste disposal company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal class action securities claims against pharmaceutical company related to status of new product development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal class action securities claims related to earnings miss and alleged accounting improprieties for a software-development company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented former CEO of bankrupt software company in multidistrict federal securities fraud litigation alleging accounting and related-party-disclosure improprieties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended Big 4 accounting firm in federal securities class action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented aerospace company in defending federal class action securities claims alleging revenue recognition violations after restatement of five years\u0026rsquo; financial statements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented former controller of bankrupt time-share company in federal class action securities claims alleging accounting misstatements related to $130 million impairment charge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented directors and officers of bankrupt telecommunications infrastructure company in federal class action securities claims alleging financial misstatements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitakeover and M\u0026amp;A Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented health insurance company in defense of claims seeking to enjoin $12.8 billion merger.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated preliminary injunction in Maryland litigation seeking to enjoin $84 million merger.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented sports merchandising company in defense of claims seeking to enjoin $185 million merger.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented private equity fund in litigation seeking to enjoin going-private transaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented healthcare company in litigation seeking to enjoin $1.1 billion merger transaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended preliminary injunction proceeding in Florida state court regarding a $500 million merger for a public company in the security industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended preliminary injunction regarding a $50 million public company merger.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented NASDAQ-traded physician services company regarding a $1.1 billion going-private merger.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented waste services company in defense of multistate litigation seeking to enjoin $6 billion merger involving an unsolicited hostile takeover bid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented timeshare company in multi-state litigation seeking to enjoin stock-for-stock merger, involving hostile takeover bid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented retailer in litigation seeking to enjoin $150 million merger transaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented acquiror of publicly traded correctional properties company in Maryland and Florida state-court actions seeking to enjoin $300 million merger.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented acquiror of health products distributor in Florida state-court class action seeking to enjoin acquisition of public company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised management of companies considering hostile takeover of competitors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSEC Enforcement Defense\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended multiple clients at trial against SEC charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented former CEO of software company in an SEC enforcement proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Latin American investment company in defense of SEC enforcement proceeding relating to broker-dealer registration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented private company in the direct marketing industry related to alleged market manipulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented aerospace company, in the face of related criminal proceedings against company\u0026rsquo;s CEO and CFO, related to alleged revenue recognition violations stemming from restatement of multiple years\u0026rsquo; financial statements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented former consultant to telecommunications equipment company in SEC investigation of alleged accounting improprieties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented NYSE-traded company in SEC informal inquiry concerning disposition of European assets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented former officer of nutrition supplement company in SEC investigation related to alleged revenue recognition issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented individuals in SEC investigation related to alleged Finders\u0026rsquo; Fees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented numerous individuals in SEC enforcement action related to alleged insider trading.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented certified public accountant in Rule 102(e) proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented broker-dealer in Florida state investigation regarding auction-rate securities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented numerous public companies in SEC and SRO investigations of pre-announcement trading activity related to announced merger transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther Accounting and Financial Fraud Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented crypto mining support company in novel antitrust claims related to Bitcoin.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented private equity fund in defense of multiple lawsuits in New York federal and state courts alleging fraudulent accounts receivable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended public companies in class actions alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented directors of television broadcasting company in defense of claims brought by bankruptcy trustee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOpposed remand to state court for Internet company in suit seeking rescission by investors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Amex-traded public company in the pharmaceutical industry in federal court and arbitration against German company alleging accounting improprieties in connection with an earnout agreement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Central Bank of Ecuador in banking fraud litigation pending in The Bahamas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented U.S. railroad in accounting arbitration related to shipping rates.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented receiver over $100 million assets in dispute regarding an educational institution in the Caribbean.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther Shareholder Derivative Litigation Defense\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended executive of a private equity fund at trial in defense of derivative claims brought by investor related to M\u0026amp;A transactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented directors of a publicly traded entertainment company related to the acquisition of a business from an affiliate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented public company in the education industry in defending derivative claims arising from parallel criminal and SEC investigations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented directors and officers of private restaurant company in arbitration alleging mismanagement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLodging \u0026amp; Lifestyle\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented private country club at trial against municipality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented public vacation ownership (timeshare) company in defense of multi-jurisdiction state court class actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented hotel company in defense of federal class action and related derivative litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented owners of condo hotel project in federal mass-action litigation against developer.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented online travel booking website in various matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented officer of public vacation ownership (timeshare) company in federal class action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Mexican restaurant chain in Texas state court litigation and arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented hotel company in litigation in Arizona state court.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":699,"guid":"699.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":607,"guid":"607.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1715,"guid":"1715.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Miller","nick_name":"Brian","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Brian","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":345,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"summa cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1993-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked Band 1","detail":"Chambers USA in Litigation: Securities – Florida"},{"title":"Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Securities in Florida","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America 2012-2021"},{"title":"Named a “Litigation Star” for General Commercial and Securities in Florida","detail":"Benchmark Litigation 2014-2021, 2023"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Top Rated Securities Litigation Attorney in Miami, FL","detail":"Super Lawyers Magazine 2009-2022"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/brian-miller-73393627/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian Miller focuses his practice on securities class action defense, SEC investigations, internal investigations of whistleblower allegations, accounting fraud, fiduciary duties, private credit disputes, partnership disputes, healthcare disputes, and other commercial disputes. Brian has defended dozens of shareholder class actions alleging securities fraud, accounting fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. Collectively, these matters have sought damages in the billions of dollars.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian represents public companies and their directors and officers, private equity and private credit funds, borrowers from private credit funds, registered investment advisors, and individual and corporate clients facing SEC investigations and bet-the-company litigation, typically involving fraud or breach of fiduciary duty allegations. He also has significant experience litigating commercial disputes throughout Florida, in state and federal courts as well as private arbitration tribunals.\u0026nbsp;Many of his cases involve multiple related lawsuits and pending government or regulatory investigations in different jurisdictions across the United States and internationally.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian draws upon his experience as a former SEC lawyer to represent his clients. Brian began his career at the SEC in Washington, D.C., where, among other things, he served as special counsel to Commissioner Steven M.H. Wallman. He is recognized annually by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America \u003c/em\u003eand is ranked Band 1 by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA \u003c/em\u003ein \u0026ldquo;Litigation: Securities \u0026ndash; Florida\u0026rdquo;\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRepresentative Trial Experience\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended private equity fund against allegations of breach of fiduciary duty in a nine-week trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended Latin American businessman on $30 million fraud and breach of promissory note claims in federal bankruptcy court trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended SEC claims against alleged unregistered broker dealer in federal court trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProsecuted trial claims on behalf of private country club related to $850,000 annual special assessment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProsecuted claims on behalf of Bahraini pharmaceutical company against US machinery supplier in arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended SEC claims against CEO of public company in federal court trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended breach of fiduciary duty claims against public company in connection with merger transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProsecuted several pro bono trials on behalf of prisoners alleging civil rights violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternal Investigations\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented audit committee of construction firm in connection with internal investigation arising from whistleblower allegations of accounting irregularities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInvestigated alleged stock-option backdating on behalf of audit committee of NASDAQ-traded public company in the telecommunications industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInvestigated allegations of dishonest conduct by senior financial personnel of NYSE-traded public company in the telecommunications industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented audit committee of NYSE-traded public company in the real estate industry in two separate internal investigations arising from whistleblower allegations of accounting and other fraud.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInvestigated accounting fraud allegations on behalf of audit committee of NASDAQ-traded company in the pharmaceutical industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInvestigated inventory accounting fraud allegations for Amex-traded public company in the aerospace industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eInvestigated allegations of insider trading by officer of Nasdaq-traded bank holding company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSecurities Class Action Defense\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal class action securities claims against medical device manufacturer related to disclosures about the status of new product development. Dismissal affirmed on appeal.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended public correctional facilities company in defense of federal securities claims related to COVID-19 and disclosures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal securities class action against VOIP telecommunications company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal class action securities claims against a public company in the education industry alleging accounting and other misstatements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal securities class action against staffing company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented hedge fund and its principal in defense of securities class action and parallel derivative claims regarding stock buyback.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal securities class action against semiconductor company alleging fraud in connection with revision to earnings guidance.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal class action securities claims related to earnings miss by NYSE-traded solid waste disposal company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal class action securities claims against pharmaceutical company related to status of new product development.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended federal class action securities claims related to earnings miss and alleged accounting improprieties for a software-development company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented former CEO of bankrupt software company in multidistrict federal securities fraud litigation alleging accounting and related-party-disclosure improprieties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended Big 4 accounting firm in federal securities class action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented aerospace company in defending federal class action securities claims alleging revenue recognition violations after restatement of five years\u0026rsquo; financial statements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented former controller of bankrupt time-share company in federal class action securities claims alleging accounting misstatements related to $130 million impairment charge.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented directors and officers of bankrupt telecommunications infrastructure company in federal class action securities claims alleging financial misstatements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitakeover and M\u0026amp;A Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented health insurance company in defense of claims seeking to enjoin $12.8 billion merger.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated preliminary injunction in Maryland litigation seeking to enjoin $84 million merger.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented sports merchandising company in defense of claims seeking to enjoin $185 million merger.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented private equity fund in litigation seeking to enjoin going-private transaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented healthcare company in litigation seeking to enjoin $1.1 billion merger transaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended preliminary injunction proceeding in Florida state court regarding a $500 million merger for a public company in the security industry.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended preliminary injunction regarding a $50 million public company merger.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented NASDAQ-traded physician services company regarding a $1.1 billion going-private merger.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented waste services company in defense of multistate litigation seeking to enjoin $6 billion merger involving an unsolicited hostile takeover bid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented timeshare company in multi-state litigation seeking to enjoin stock-for-stock merger, involving hostile takeover bid.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented retailer in litigation seeking to enjoin $150 million merger transaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented acquiror of publicly traded correctional properties company in Maryland and Florida state-court actions seeking to enjoin $300 million merger.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented acquiror of health products distributor in Florida state-court class action seeking to enjoin acquisition of public company.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdvised management of companies considering hostile takeover of competitors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSEC Enforcement Defense\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended multiple clients at trial against SEC charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented former CEO of software company in an SEC enforcement proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Latin American investment company in defense of SEC enforcement proceeding relating to broker-dealer registration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented private company in the direct marketing industry related to alleged market manipulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented aerospace company, in the face of related criminal proceedings against company\u0026rsquo;s CEO and CFO, related to alleged revenue recognition violations stemming from restatement of multiple years\u0026rsquo; financial statements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented former consultant to telecommunications equipment company in SEC investigation of alleged accounting improprieties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented NYSE-traded company in SEC informal inquiry concerning disposition of European assets.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented former officer of nutrition supplement company in SEC investigation related to alleged revenue recognition issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented individuals in SEC investigation related to alleged Finders\u0026rsquo; Fees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented numerous individuals in SEC enforcement action related to alleged insider trading.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented certified public accountant in Rule 102(e) proceeding.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented broker-dealer in Florida state investigation regarding auction-rate securities.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented numerous public companies in SEC and SRO investigations of pre-announcement trading activity related to announced merger transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther Accounting and Financial Fraud Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented crypto mining support company in novel antitrust claims related to Bitcoin.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented private equity fund in defense of multiple lawsuits in New York federal and state courts alleging fraudulent accounts receivable.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended public companies in class actions alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented directors of television broadcasting company in defense of claims brought by bankruptcy trustee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOpposed remand to state court for Internet company in suit seeking rescission by investors.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Amex-traded public company in the pharmaceutical industry in federal court and arbitration against German company alleging accounting improprieties in connection with an earnout agreement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Central Bank of Ecuador in banking fraud litigation pending in The Bahamas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented U.S. railroad in accounting arbitration related to shipping rates.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented receiver over $100 million assets in dispute regarding an educational institution in the Caribbean.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther Shareholder Derivative Litigation Defense\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefended executive of a private equity fund at trial in defense of derivative claims brought by investor related to M\u0026amp;A transactions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented directors of a publicly traded entertainment company related to the acquisition of a business from an affiliate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented public company in the education industry in defending derivative claims arising from parallel criminal and SEC investigations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented directors and officers of private restaurant company in arbitration alleging mismanagement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLodging \u0026amp; Lifestyle\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented private country club at trial against municipality.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented public vacation ownership (timeshare) company in defense of multi-jurisdiction state court class actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented hotel company in defense of federal class action and related derivative litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented owners of condo hotel project in federal mass-action litigation against developer.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented online travel booking website in various matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented officer of public vacation ownership (timeshare) company in federal class action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented Mexican restaurant chain in Texas state court litigation and arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented hotel company in litigation in Arizona state court.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked Band 1","detail":"Chambers USA in Litigation: Securities – Florida"},{"title":"Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Securities in Florida","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America 2012-2021"},{"title":"Named a “Litigation Star” for General Commercial and Securities in Florida","detail":"Benchmark Litigation 2014-2021, 2023"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Top Rated Securities Litigation Attorney in Miami, FL","detail":"Super Lawyers Magazine 2009-2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9669}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-13T21:31:45.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-13T21:31:45.000Z","searchable_text":"Miller{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Band 1\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA in Litigation: Securities – Florida\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Securities in Florida\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America 2012-2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a “Litigation Star” for General Commercial and Securities in Florida\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation 2014-2021, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Top Rated Securities Litigation Attorney in Miami, FL\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers Magazine 2009-2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Representative Trial Experience\nDefended private equity fund against allegations of breach of fiduciary duty in a nine-week trial.{{ FIELD }}Defended Latin American businessman on $30 million fraud and breach of promissory note claims in federal bankruptcy court trial.{{ FIELD }}Defended SEC claims against alleged unregistered broker dealer in federal court trial.{{ FIELD }}Prosecuted trial claims on behalf of private country club related to $850,000 annual special assessment.{{ FIELD }}Prosecuted claims on behalf of Bahraini pharmaceutical company against US machinery supplier in arbitration.{{ FIELD }}Defended SEC claims against CEO of public company in federal court trial.{{ FIELD }}Defended breach of fiduciary duty claims against public company in connection with merger transaction.{{ FIELD }}Prosecuted several pro bono trials on behalf of prisoners alleging civil rights violations.{{ FIELD }}Internal Investigations\nRepresented audit committee of construction firm in connection with internal investigation arising from whistleblower allegations of accounting irregularities.\nInvestigated alleged stock-option backdating on behalf of audit committee of NASDAQ-traded public company in the telecommunications industry.\nInvestigated allegations of dishonest conduct by senior financial personnel of NYSE-traded public company in the telecommunications industry.\nRepresented audit committee of NYSE-traded public company in the real estate industry in two separate internal investigations arising from whistleblower allegations of accounting and other fraud.\nInvestigated accounting fraud allegations on behalf of audit committee of NASDAQ-traded company in the pharmaceutical industry.\nInvestigated inventory accounting fraud allegations for Amex-traded public company in the aerospace industry.\nInvestigated allegations of insider trading by officer of Nasdaq-traded bank holding company.{{ FIELD }}Securities Class Action Defense\nDefended federal class action securities claims against medical device manufacturer related to disclosures about the status of new product development. Dismissal affirmed on appeal.\nDefended public correctional facilities company in defense of federal securities claims related to COVID-19 and disclosures.\nDefended federal securities class action against VOIP telecommunications company.\nDefended federal class action securities claims against a public company in the education industry alleging accounting and other misstatements.\nDefended federal securities class action against staffing company.\nRepresented hedge fund and its principal in defense of securities class action and parallel derivative claims regarding stock buyback.\nDefended federal securities class action against semiconductor company alleging fraud in connection with revision to earnings guidance.\nDefended federal class action securities claims related to earnings miss by NYSE-traded solid waste disposal company.\nDefended federal class action securities claims against pharmaceutical company related to status of new product development.\nDefended federal class action securities claims related to earnings miss and alleged accounting improprieties for a software-development company.\nRepresented former CEO of bankrupt software company in multidistrict federal securities fraud litigation alleging accounting and related-party-disclosure improprieties.\nDefended Big 4 accounting firm in federal securities class action.\nRepresented aerospace company in defending federal class action securities claims alleging revenue recognition violations after restatement of five years’ financial statements.\nRepresented former controller of bankrupt time-share company in federal class action securities claims alleging accounting misstatements related to $130 million impairment charge.\nRepresented directors and officers of bankrupt telecommunications infrastructure company in federal class action securities claims alleging financial misstatements.{{ FIELD }}Antitakeover and M\u0026amp;A Litigation\nRepresented health insurance company in defense of claims seeking to enjoin $12.8 billion merger.\nDefeated preliminary injunction in Maryland litigation seeking to enjoin $84 million merger.\nRepresented sports merchandising company in defense of claims seeking to enjoin $185 million merger.\nRepresented private equity fund in litigation seeking to enjoin going-private transaction.\nRepresented healthcare company in litigation seeking to enjoin $1.1 billion merger transaction.\nDefended preliminary injunction proceeding in Florida state court regarding a $500 million merger for a public company in the security industry.\nDefended preliminary injunction regarding a $50 million public company merger.\nRepresented NASDAQ-traded physician services company regarding a $1.1 billion going-private merger.\nRepresented waste services company in defense of multistate litigation seeking to enjoin $6 billion merger involving an unsolicited hostile takeover bid.\nRepresented timeshare company in multi-state litigation seeking to enjoin stock-for-stock merger, involving hostile takeover bid.\nRepresented retailer in litigation seeking to enjoin $150 million merger transaction.\nRepresented acquiror of publicly traded correctional properties company in Maryland and Florida state-court actions seeking to enjoin $300 million merger.\nRepresented acquiror of health products distributor in Florida state-court class action seeking to enjoin acquisition of public company.\nAdvised management of companies considering hostile takeover of competitors.{{ FIELD }}SEC Enforcement Defense\nDefended multiple clients at trial against SEC charges.\nRepresented former CEO of software company in an SEC enforcement proceeding.\nRepresented Latin American investment company in defense of SEC enforcement proceeding relating to broker-dealer registration.\nRepresented private company in the direct marketing industry related to alleged market manipulation.\nRepresented aerospace company, in the face of related criminal proceedings against company’s CEO and CFO, related to alleged revenue recognition violations stemming from restatement of multiple years’ financial statements.\nRepresented former consultant to telecommunications equipment company in SEC investigation of alleged accounting improprieties.\nRepresented NYSE-traded company in SEC informal inquiry concerning disposition of European assets.\nRepresented former officer of nutrition supplement company in SEC investigation related to alleged revenue recognition issues.\nRepresented individuals in SEC investigation related to alleged Finders’ Fees.\nRepresented numerous individuals in SEC enforcement action related to alleged insider trading.\nRepresented certified public accountant in Rule 102(e) proceeding.\nRepresented broker-dealer in Florida state investigation regarding auction-rate securities.\nRepresented numerous public companies in SEC and SRO investigations of pre-announcement trading activity related to announced merger transactions.{{ FIELD }}Other Accounting and Financial Fraud Litigation\nRepresented crypto mining support company in novel antitrust claims related to Bitcoin.\nRepresented private equity fund in defense of multiple lawsuits in New York federal and state courts alleging fraudulent accounts receivable.\nDefended public companies in class actions alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices.\nRepresented directors of television broadcasting company in defense of claims brought by bankruptcy trustee.\nOpposed remand to state court for Internet company in suit seeking rescission by investors.\nRepresented Amex-traded public company in the pharmaceutical industry in federal court and arbitration against German company alleging accounting improprieties in connection with an earnout agreement.\nRepresented Central Bank of Ecuador in banking fraud litigation pending in The Bahamas.\nRepresented U.S. railroad in accounting arbitration related to shipping rates.\nRepresented receiver over $100 million assets in dispute regarding an educational institution in the Caribbean.{{ FIELD }}Other Shareholder Derivative Litigation Defense\nDefended executive of a private equity fund at trial in defense of derivative claims brought by investor related to M\u0026amp;A transactions.\nRepresented directors of a publicly traded entertainment company related to the acquisition of a business from an affiliate.\nRepresented public company in the education industry in defending derivative claims arising from parallel criminal and SEC investigations.\nRepresented directors and officers of private restaurant company in arbitration alleging mismanagement.{{ FIELD }}Lodging \u0026amp; Lifestyle\nRepresented private country club at trial against municipality.\nRepresented public vacation ownership (timeshare) company in defense of multi-jurisdiction state court class actions.\nRepresented hotel company in defense of federal class action and related derivative litigation.\nRepresented owners of condo hotel project in federal mass-action litigation against developer.\nRepresented online travel booking website in various matters.\nRepresented officer of public vacation ownership (timeshare) company in federal class action.\nRepresented Mexican restaurant chain in Texas state court litigation and arbitration.\nRepresented hotel company in litigation in Arizona state court.{{ FIELD }}Brian Miller focuses his practice on securities class action defense, SEC investigations, internal investigations of whistleblower allegations, accounting fraud, fiduciary duties, private credit disputes, partnership disputes, healthcare disputes, and other commercial disputes. Brian has defended dozens of shareholder class actions alleging securities fraud, accounting fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty. Collectively, these matters have sought damages in the billions of dollars. \nBrian represents public companies and their directors and officers, private equity and private credit funds, borrowers from private credit funds, registered investment advisors, and individual and corporate clients facing SEC investigations and bet-the-company litigation, typically involving fraud or breach of fiduciary duty allegations. He also has significant experience litigating commercial disputes throughout Florida, in state and federal courts as well as private arbitration tribunals. Many of his cases involve multiple related lawsuits and pending government or regulatory investigations in different jurisdictions across the United States and internationally.\nBrian draws upon his experience as a former SEC lawyer to represent his clients. Brian began his career at the SEC in Washington, D.C., where, among other things, he served as special counsel to Commissioner Steven M.H. Wallman. He is recognized annually by Benchmark Litigation and The Best Lawyers in America and is ranked Band 1 by Chambers USA in “Litigation: Securities – Florida”. Partner Ranked Band 1 Chambers USA in Litigation: Securities – Florida Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Securities in Florida The Best Lawyers in America 2012-2021 Named a “Litigation Star” for General Commercial and Securities in Florida Benchmark Litigation 2014-2021, 2023 Recognized as a “Top Rated Securities Litigation Attorney in Miami, FL Super Lawyers Magazine 2009-2022 Walsh University  Case Western Reserve University Case Western Reserve University School of Law 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 Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin 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 District of Columbia District of Columbia Florida U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida Dade County Bar Association, Committee on Securities Litigation, Past Co-Chair Dade County Bar Association, Committee on Banking and Corporate Litigation, Past Co-Chair ACLU of Miami-Dade County, Legal Screening Panel, Member CHARLEE Homes for Children, Past Board Member Morningside Historic Education Society, Past Treasurer United Way of Miami-Dade Economic Mobility Oversight Council Member Federal Bar Association, Audit Committee Member 2025-2026 Legal Services of Greater Miami, Member of Leaders Council Representative Trial Experience\nDefended private equity fund against allegations of breach of fiduciary duty in a nine-week trial. Defended Latin American businessman on $30 million fraud and breach of promissory note claims in federal bankruptcy court trial. Defended SEC claims against alleged unregistered broker dealer in federal court trial. Prosecuted trial claims on behalf of private country club related to $850,000 annual special assessment. Prosecuted claims on behalf of Bahraini pharmaceutical company against US machinery supplier in arbitration. Defended SEC claims against CEO of public company in federal court trial. Defended breach of fiduciary duty claims against public company in connection with merger transaction. Prosecuted several pro bono trials on behalf of prisoners alleging civil rights violations. Internal Investigations\nRepresented audit committee of construction firm in connection with internal investigation arising from whistleblower allegations of accounting irregularities.\nInvestigated alleged stock-option backdating on behalf of audit committee of NASDAQ-traded public company in the telecommunications industry.\nInvestigated allegations of dishonest conduct by senior financial personnel of NYSE-traded public company in the telecommunications industry.\nRepresented audit committee of NYSE-traded public company in the real estate industry in two separate internal investigations arising from whistleblower allegations of accounting and other fraud.\nInvestigated accounting fraud allegations on behalf of audit committee of NASDAQ-traded company in the pharmaceutical industry.\nInvestigated inventory accounting fraud allegations for Amex-traded public company in the aerospace industry.\nInvestigated allegations of insider trading by officer of Nasdaq-traded bank holding company. Securities Class Action Defense\nDefended federal class action securities claims against medical device manufacturer related to disclosures about the status of new product development. Dismissal affirmed on appeal.\nDefended public correctional facilities company in defense of federal securities claims related to COVID-19 and disclosures.\nDefended federal securities class action against VOIP telecommunications company.\nDefended federal class action securities claims against a public company in the education industry alleging accounting and other misstatements.\nDefended federal securities class action against staffing company.\nRepresented hedge fund and its principal in defense of securities class action and parallel derivative claims regarding stock buyback.\nDefended federal securities class action against semiconductor company alleging fraud in connection with revision to earnings guidance.\nDefended federal class action securities claims related to earnings miss by NYSE-traded solid waste disposal company.\nDefended federal class action securities claims against pharmaceutical company related to status of new product development.\nDefended federal class action securities claims related to earnings miss and alleged accounting improprieties for a software-development company.\nRepresented former CEO of bankrupt software company in multidistrict federal securities fraud litigation alleging accounting and related-party-disclosure improprieties.\nDefended Big 4 accounting firm in federal securities class action.\nRepresented aerospace company in defending federal class action securities claims alleging revenue recognition violations after restatement of five years’ financial statements.\nRepresented former controller of bankrupt time-share company in federal class action securities claims alleging accounting misstatements related to $130 million impairment charge.\nRepresented directors and officers of bankrupt telecommunications infrastructure company in federal class action securities claims alleging financial misstatements. Antitakeover and M\u0026amp;A Litigation\nRepresented health insurance company in defense of claims seeking to enjoin $12.8 billion merger.\nDefeated preliminary injunction in Maryland litigation seeking to enjoin $84 million merger.\nRepresented sports merchandising company in defense of claims seeking to enjoin $185 million merger.\nRepresented private equity fund in litigation seeking to enjoin going-private transaction.\nRepresented healthcare company in litigation seeking to enjoin $1.1 billion merger transaction.\nDefended preliminary injunction proceeding in Florida state court regarding a $500 million merger for a public company in the security industry.\nDefended preliminary injunction regarding a $50 million public company merger.\nRepresented NASDAQ-traded physician services company regarding a $1.1 billion going-private merger.\nRepresented waste services company in defense of multistate litigation seeking to enjoin $6 billion merger involving an unsolicited hostile takeover bid.\nRepresented timeshare company in multi-state litigation seeking to enjoin stock-for-stock merger, involving hostile takeover bid.\nRepresented retailer in litigation seeking to enjoin $150 million merger transaction.\nRepresented acquiror of publicly traded correctional properties company in Maryland and Florida state-court actions seeking to enjoin $300 million merger.\nRepresented acquiror of health products distributor in Florida state-court class action seeking to enjoin acquisition of public company.\nAdvised management of companies considering hostile takeover of competitors. SEC Enforcement Defense\nDefended multiple clients at trial against SEC charges.\nRepresented former CEO of software company in an SEC enforcement proceeding.\nRepresented Latin American investment company in defense of SEC enforcement proceeding relating to broker-dealer registration.\nRepresented private company in the direct marketing industry related to alleged market manipulation.\nRepresented aerospace company, in the face of related criminal proceedings against company’s CEO and CFO, related to alleged revenue recognition violations stemming from restatement of multiple years’ financial statements.\nRepresented former consultant to telecommunications equipment company in SEC investigation of alleged accounting improprieties.\nRepresented NYSE-traded company in SEC informal inquiry concerning disposition of European assets.\nRepresented former officer of nutrition supplement company in SEC investigation related to alleged revenue recognition issues.\nRepresented individuals in SEC investigation related to alleged Finders’ Fees.\nRepresented numerous individuals in SEC enforcement action related to alleged insider trading.\nRepresented certified public accountant in Rule 102(e) proceeding.\nRepresented broker-dealer in Florida state investigation regarding auction-rate securities.\nRepresented numerous public companies in SEC and SRO investigations of pre-announcement trading activity related to announced merger transactions. Other Accounting and Financial Fraud Litigation\nRepresented crypto mining support company in novel antitrust claims related to Bitcoin.\nRepresented private equity fund in defense of multiple lawsuits in New York federal and state courts alleging fraudulent accounts receivable.\nDefended public companies in class actions alleging unfair and deceptive trade practices.\nRepresented directors of television broadcasting company in defense of claims brought by bankruptcy trustee.\nOpposed remand to state court for Internet company in suit seeking rescission by investors.\nRepresented Amex-traded public company in the pharmaceutical industry in federal court and arbitration against German company alleging accounting improprieties in connection with an earnout agreement.\nRepresented Central Bank of Ecuador in banking fraud litigation pending in The Bahamas.\nRepresented U.S. railroad in accounting arbitration related to shipping rates.\nRepresented receiver over $100 million assets in dispute regarding an educational institution in the Caribbean. Other Shareholder Derivative Litigation Defense\nDefended executive of a private equity fund at trial in defense of derivative claims brought by investor related to M\u0026amp;A transactions.\nRepresented directors of a publicly traded entertainment company related to the acquisition of a business from an affiliate.\nRepresented public company in the education industry in defending derivative claims arising from parallel criminal and SEC investigations.\nRepresented directors and officers of private restaurant company in arbitration alleging mismanagement. Lodging \u0026amp; Lifestyle\nRepresented private country club at trial against municipality.\nRepresented public vacation ownership (timeshare) company in defense of multi-jurisdiction state court class actions.\nRepresented hotel company in defense of federal class action and related derivative litigation.\nRepresented owners of condo hotel project in federal mass-action litigation against developer.\nRepresented online travel booking website in various matters.\nRepresented officer of public vacation ownership (timeshare) company in federal class action.\nRepresented Mexican restaurant chain in Texas state court litigation and arbitration.\nRepresented hotel company in litigation in Arizona state court.","searchable_name":"Brian P. Miller","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":442399,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1067,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKevin Mohr focuses on commercial and investment disputes, with an emphasis on complex cross-border disputes. As a partner in our Trial and\u0026nbsp;Global Disputes practice, Kevin represents domestic and international clients in a wide range of litigation, arbitration and appellate proceedings.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith more than 20\u0026nbsp;years of experience, Kevin represents clients in an array of business sectors, including renewable energy, oil and gas, and finance, in disputes involving investment treaty protection, concession and joint operating agreements, business tort,\u0026nbsp;corporate governance and many other matters.\u0026nbsp; Over his distinguished career, Kevin has been a lead advocate in more than 25 arbitration matters under ICSID, SCC, ICC, and ad hoc arbitration rules, typically serving as first or second chair.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on that experience, Kevin specializes in cross-border disputes presenting unique legal, logistical and cultural challenges and requiring a broad understanding of national and international legal systems.\u0026nbsp; In addition, he frequently represents clients in court proceedings related to international arbitration, as well as in business disputes that span multiple countries, raising complex questions of jurisdiction and applicable law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2013, Kevin was ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Tier 1 for Litigation\u0026mdash;International Arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kevin-mohr","email":"kmohr@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Mohr","nick_name":"Kevin","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Hayden W. Head Jr., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas","years_held":"1997 - 1999"}],"first_name":"Kevin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":196,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Tier 1: Litigation—International Arbitration","detail":"Legal 500, 2013"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKevin Mohr focuses on commercial and investment disputes, with an emphasis on complex cross-border disputes. As a partner in our Trial and\u0026nbsp;Global Disputes practice, Kevin represents domestic and international clients in a wide range of litigation, arbitration and appellate proceedings.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith more than 20\u0026nbsp;years of experience, Kevin represents clients in an array of business sectors, including renewable energy, oil and gas, and finance, in disputes involving investment treaty protection, concession and joint operating agreements, business tort,\u0026nbsp;corporate governance and many other matters.\u0026nbsp; Over his distinguished career, Kevin has been a lead advocate in more than 25 arbitration matters under ICSID, SCC, ICC, and ad hoc arbitration rules, typically serving as first or second chair.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBuilding on that experience, Kevin specializes in cross-border disputes presenting unique legal, logistical and cultural challenges and requiring a broad understanding of national and international legal systems.\u0026nbsp; In addition, he frequently represents clients in court proceedings related to international arbitration, as well as in business disputes that span multiple countries, raising complex questions of jurisdiction and applicable law.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2013, Kevin was ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Tier 1 for Litigation\u0026mdash;International Arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Tier 1: Litigation—International Arbitration","detail":"Legal 500, 2013"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9500}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:14.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:14.000Z","searchable_text":"Mohr{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Tier 1: Litigation—International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2013\"}{{ FIELD }}Kevin Mohr focuses on commercial and investment disputes, with an emphasis on complex cross-border disputes. As a partner in our Trial and Global Disputes practice, Kevin represents domestic and international clients in a wide range of litigation, arbitration and appellate proceedings.\nWith more than 20 years of experience, Kevin represents clients in an array of business sectors, including renewable energy, oil and gas, and finance, in disputes involving investment treaty protection, concession and joint operating agreements, business tort, corporate governance and many other matters.  Over his distinguished career, Kevin has been a lead advocate in more than 25 arbitration matters under ICSID, SCC, ICC, and ad hoc arbitration rules, typically serving as first or second chair.  \nBuilding on that experience, Kevin specializes in cross-border disputes presenting unique legal, logistical and cultural challenges and requiring a broad understanding of national and international legal systems.  In addition, he frequently represents clients in court proceedings related to international arbitration, as well as in business disputes that span multiple countries, raising complex questions of jurisdiction and applicable law.\nIn 2013, Kevin was ranked by Legal 500 in Tier 1 for Litigation—International Arbitration. Partner Tier 1: Litigation—International Arbitration Legal 500, 2013 Ohio University  Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Texas State Bar of Texas Law Clerk, Hon. Hayden W. Head Jr., U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas","searchable_name":"Kevin D. Mohr","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":445787,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6656,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eVeronica S. Moy\u0026eacute; acts as lead counsel on highly complex matters in a wide variety of disciplines, including antitrust, intellectual property, class actions, and commercial and business disputes. She is nationally recognized for her abilities and accomplishments as a trial lawyer.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2025, Veronica was named to the Forbes \u0026ldquo;America\u0026rsquo;s Top Lawyers\u0026rdquo; list and to the Benchmark Litigation US \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation\u0026rdquo; list. Veronica was named \u0026ldquo;Trial Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; by the Dallas Bar Association and to Benchmark\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 10 Women in Litigation\u0026rdquo; list in 2022. Benchmark Litigation US also named her to its 2022 and 2023 \u0026ldquo;Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America\u0026rdquo; lists. BTI Consulting named Veronica to its 2014 BTI Client Service All-Stars list, and, in 2015, to its list of Client Service All-Star MVPs. She is ranked Chambers USA Band 1 for Antitrust \u0026ndash; Texas (2010-2025) and General Commercial Litigation \u0026ndash; Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds (2021-2025). She was included on \u0026ldquo;The Defenders\u0026rdquo; list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas by the Dallas Business Journal in 2009, following the unanimous defense verdict she obtained for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry in a copyright infringement matter. She has also been named as one of The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation and Litigation \u0026ndash; Antitrust (2013-2025). Texas Lawyer named Veronica one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law in 2015, and Dallas Business Journal named her one of the leading Women in Business in North Texas in 2011. In addition, she has been recognized as one of the \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Lawyers in America\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025), \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Global Litigators\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025) and \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Litigators in America\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025) by Lawdragon.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVeronica previously served as general counsel of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest healthcare Group Purchasing Organization (GPO), and in that role, she had overall responsibility for all legal matters as well as for advising the company\u0026rsquo;s senior management, board of directors, and business units regarding the numerous antitrust, congressional/DOJ/HHS investigation, legislative, procurement, and compliance issues it faced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"veronica-moye","email":"vmoye@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as co-lead trial counsel for a leading technology firm defending unprecedented antitrust claims attacking the firm\u0026rsquo;s core business model. Following a three-week bench trial in May 2021, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was described in the press as \u0026ldquo;the Super Bowl of Antitrust,\u0026rdquo; the Court ruled in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor on all antitrust claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare Group and its subsidiary United Surgical Partners in a Northern District of Illinois action alleging \u0026ldquo;no poach\u0026rdquo; agreements suppressed employee compensation in violation of the antitrust laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for The Charles Schwab Corp. in an action alleging the company\u0026rsquo;s merger with TD Ameritrade violates antitrust laws, pending in the Eastern District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Southern Methodist University in Texas state court action where a division of the United Methodist Church sought to void the University\u0026rsquo;s amended Articles of Incorporation; successfully obtained dismissal of all claims at the trial court level.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for BNSF Railway when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in a United States District Court for the District of Columbia action alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of fuel surcharges in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act had caused $30+ billion in damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in an action alleging a conspiracy to suppress nurse wages in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry at trial of copyright infringement action centered on his \u0026ldquo;Diary of a Mad Black Woman\u0026rdquo; film in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; obtained unanimous defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for BNSF Railway in Northern District of Texas and District of Minnesota proceedings where adversary sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on trademark infringement claims premised on adversary\u0026rsquo;s use of internet domain names; obtained summary judgment in both proceedings; secured Fifth Circuit affirmance of Northern District of Texas ruling and Eighth Circuit affirmance of District of Minnesota ruling; also secured denial of petition for certiorari from the Fifth Circuit ruling in the United States Supreme Court; ultimately obtained an order requiring adversary to transfer its internet domain names to the railroad company. Obtained \u0026ldquo;prior restraint\u0026rdquo; temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing publication of information on the Internet in the District of Minnesota on behalf of BNSF Railway; defeated motions seeking to stay the restraint before the Eighth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, alleging invasion of patient privacy; settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProsecuted Lanham Act and unfair competition claims based on false assertions regarding patent infringement on behalf of a memory chip manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas and based on false assertions regarding comparative analgesic efficacy on behalf of over-the-counter analgesic manufacturer in the District of New Jersey.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended AT\u0026amp;T in nationwide class action alleging false advertising and marketing in New Jersey state court action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended Verizon in contract and fraud dispute with a vendor who claimed to have the contractual right to develop video-on-demand and home automation products; obtained summary judgment on vendor\u0026rsquo;s $525 million damages claim; co-lead counsel in two jury New Jersey state court trials on vendor\u0026rsquo;s claims; obtained remittitur of damages after the first trial; second trial limited to damages only and jury awarded less than the remitted damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Cal-Maine, the country\u0026rsquo;s largest shell egg and egg products producer, in a series of class action and opt-out matters, consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging producers nationwide participated in a supply-restriction scheme designed to fix the prices of eggs and egg products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging certain hospitals agreed to exchange compensation information among themselves in a manner that has reduced competition among Detroit-area hospitals in the wages paid to registered nurses in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Novation, the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest healthcare GPO, in a $600 million Eastern District of Texas antitrust action alleging that certain contracting practices constitute unlawful exclusive dealing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and challenging bundled discount arrangements under section 2 of the Sherman Act; two co-defendants settled for cash payments of $49 million and $9 million, respectively; Novation settled the matter days prior to trial with no cash payment.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Moyé","nick_name":"Veronica","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Veronica","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1986-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for General \u0026 Commercial Litigation","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Band 1 in Antitrust, Texas – described as “a powerhouse lawyer who does great work.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2009-2023"},{"title":"Ranked in Litigation: General Commercial, Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds – described as “a go-to litigator in a range of commercial disputes.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2021-2023"},{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators for Global Litigation including: Anitrust, Class Actions, and IP","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023"},{"title":"Named as “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”","detail":"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America for Litigation","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Named “Trial Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION, 2022"},{"title":"Named to “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”","detail":"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust","detail":"THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®, 2013-2023"},{"title":"Named as one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law","detail":"TEXAS LAWYER, 2015"},{"title":"Named one of the Leading Women in Business in North Texas","detail":"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2015"},{"title":"Named to the 2014 BTI Client Service All-Star and 2015 Client Service All-Star MVP","detail":"BTI CONSULTING, 2014, 2015"},{"title":"Named on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas","detail":"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2009"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/veronica-moy%C3%A9-bb99736/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eVeronica S. Moy\u0026eacute; acts as lead counsel on highly complex matters in a wide variety of disciplines, including antitrust, intellectual property, class actions, and commercial and business disputes. She is nationally recognized for her abilities and accomplishments as a trial lawyer.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2025, Veronica was named to the Forbes \u0026ldquo;America\u0026rsquo;s Top Lawyers\u0026rdquo; list and to the Benchmark Litigation US \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation\u0026rdquo; list. Veronica was named \u0026ldquo;Trial Lawyer of the Year\u0026rdquo; by the Dallas Bar Association and to Benchmark\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 10 Women in Litigation\u0026rdquo; list in 2022. Benchmark Litigation US also named her to its 2022 and 2023 \u0026ldquo;Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America\u0026rdquo; lists. BTI Consulting named Veronica to its 2014 BTI Client Service All-Stars list, and, in 2015, to its list of Client Service All-Star MVPs. She is ranked Chambers USA Band 1 for Antitrust \u0026ndash; Texas (2010-2025) and General Commercial Litigation \u0026ndash; Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds (2021-2025). She was included on \u0026ldquo;The Defenders\u0026rdquo; list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas by the Dallas Business Journal in 2009, following the unanimous defense verdict she obtained for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry in a copyright infringement matter. She has also been named as one of The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation and Litigation \u0026ndash; Antitrust (2013-2025). Texas Lawyer named Veronica one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law in 2015, and Dallas Business Journal named her one of the leading Women in Business in North Texas in 2011. In addition, she has been recognized as one of the \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Lawyers in America\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025), \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Global Litigators\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025) and \u0026ldquo;500 Leading Litigators in America\u0026rdquo; (2023-2025) by Lawdragon.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eVeronica previously served as general counsel of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest healthcare Group Purchasing Organization (GPO), and in that role, she had overall responsibility for all legal matters as well as for advising the company\u0026rsquo;s senior management, board of directors, and business units regarding the numerous antitrust, congressional/DOJ/HHS investigation, legislative, procurement, and compliance issues it faced.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eServed as co-lead trial counsel for a leading technology firm defending unprecedented antitrust claims attacking the firm\u0026rsquo;s core business model. Following a three-week bench trial in May 2021, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was described in the press as \u0026ldquo;the Super Bowl of Antitrust,\u0026rdquo; the Court ruled in our client\u0026rsquo;s favor on all antitrust claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare Group and its subsidiary United Surgical Partners in a Northern District of Illinois action alleging \u0026ldquo;no poach\u0026rdquo; agreements suppressed employee compensation in violation of the antitrust laws.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for The Charles Schwab Corp. in an action alleging the company\u0026rsquo;s merger with TD Ameritrade violates antitrust laws, pending in the Eastern District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Southern Methodist University in Texas state court action where a division of the United Methodist Church sought to void the University\u0026rsquo;s amended Articles of Incorporation; successfully obtained dismissal of all claims at the trial court level.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for BNSF Railway when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in a United States District Court for the District of Columbia action alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of fuel surcharges in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act had caused $30+ billion in damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in an action alleging a conspiracy to suppress nurse wages in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry at trial of copyright infringement action centered on his \u0026ldquo;Diary of a Mad Black Woman\u0026rdquo; film in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; obtained unanimous defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for BNSF Railway in Northern District of Texas and District of Minnesota proceedings where adversary sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on trademark infringement claims premised on adversary\u0026rsquo;s use of internet domain names; obtained summary judgment in both proceedings; secured Fifth Circuit affirmance of Northern District of Texas ruling and Eighth Circuit affirmance of District of Minnesota ruling; also secured denial of petition for certiorari from the Fifth Circuit ruling in the United States Supreme Court; ultimately obtained an order requiring adversary to transfer its internet domain names to the railroad company. Obtained \u0026ldquo;prior restraint\u0026rdquo; temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing publication of information on the Internet in the District of Minnesota on behalf of BNSF Railway; defeated motions seeking to stay the restraint before the Eighth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, alleging invasion of patient privacy; settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eProsecuted Lanham Act and unfair competition claims based on false assertions regarding patent infringement on behalf of a memory chip manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas and based on false assertions regarding comparative analgesic efficacy on behalf of over-the-counter analgesic manufacturer in the District of New Jersey.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended AT\u0026amp;T in nationwide class action alleging false advertising and marketing in New Jersey state court action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended Verizon in contract and fraud dispute with a vendor who claimed to have the contractual right to develop video-on-demand and home automation products; obtained summary judgment on vendor\u0026rsquo;s $525 million damages claim; co-lead counsel in two jury New Jersey state court trials on vendor\u0026rsquo;s claims; obtained remittitur of damages after the first trial; second trial limited to damages only and jury awarded less than the remitted damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Cal-Maine, the country\u0026rsquo;s largest shell egg and egg products producer, in a series of class action and opt-out matters, consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging producers nationwide participated in a supply-restriction scheme designed to fix the prices of eggs and egg products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging certain hospitals agreed to exchange compensation information among themselves in a manner that has reduced competition among Detroit-area hospitals in the wages paid to registered nurses in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel for Novation, the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest healthcare GPO, in a $600 million Eastern District of Texas antitrust action alleging that certain contracting practices constitute unlawful exclusive dealing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and challenging bundled discount arrangements under section 2 of the Sherman Act; two co-defendants settled for cash payments of $49 million and $9 million, respectively; Novation settled the matter days prior to trial with no cash payment.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for General \u0026 Commercial Litigation","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Band 1 in Antitrust, Texas – described as “a powerhouse lawyer who does great work.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2009-2023"},{"title":"Ranked in Litigation: General Commercial, Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds – described as “a go-to litigator in a range of commercial disputes.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA, 2021-2023"},{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators for Global Litigation including: Anitrust, Class Actions, and IP","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023"},{"title":"Named as “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”","detail":"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America for Litigation","detail":"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Named “Trial Lawyer of the Year”","detail":"DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION, 2022"},{"title":"Named to “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”","detail":"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust","detail":"THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®, 2013-2023"},{"title":"Named as one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law","detail":"TEXAS LAWYER, 2015"},{"title":"Named one of the Leading Women in Business in North Texas","detail":"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2015"},{"title":"Named to the 2014 BTI Client Service All-Star and 2015 Client Service All-Star MVP","detail":"BTI CONSULTING, 2014, 2015"},{"title":"Named on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas","detail":"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2009"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11543}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-13T16:02:32.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-13T16:02:32.000Z","searchable_text":"Moyé{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for General \u0026amp; Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1 in Antitrust, Texas – described as “a powerhouse lawyer who does great work.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2009-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in Litigation: General Commercial, Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds – described as “a go-to litigator in a range of commercial disputes.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA, 2021-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators for Global Litigation including: Anitrust, Class Actions, and IP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LAWDRAGON, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America for Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named “Trial Lawyer of the Year”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®, 2013-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"TEXAS LAWYER, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named one of the Leading Women in Business in North Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named to the 2014 BTI Client Service All-Star and 2015 Client Service All-Star MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI CONSULTING, 2014, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2009\"}{{ FIELD }}Served as co-lead trial counsel for a leading technology firm defending unprecedented antitrust claims attacking the firm’s core business model. Following a three-week bench trial in May 2021, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was described in the press as “the Super Bowl of Antitrust,” the Court ruled in our client’s favor on all antitrust claims.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare Group and its subsidiary United Surgical Partners in a Northern District of Illinois action alleging “no poach” agreements suppressed employee compensation in violation of the antitrust laws.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for The Charles Schwab Corp. in an action alleging the company’s merger with TD Ameritrade violates antitrust laws, pending in the Eastern District of Texas.{{ FIELD }}Represented Southern Methodist University in Texas state court action where a division of the United Methodist Church sought to void the University’s amended Articles of Incorporation; successfully obtained dismissal of all claims at the trial court level.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for BNSF Railway when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in a United States District Court for the District of Columbia action alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of fuel surcharges in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act had caused $30+ billion in damages.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in an action alleging a conspiracy to suppress nurse wages in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry at trial of copyright infringement action centered on his “Diary of a Mad Black Woman” film in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; obtained unanimous defense verdict.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for BNSF Railway in Northern District of Texas and District of Minnesota proceedings where adversary sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on trademark infringement claims premised on adversary’s use of internet domain names; obtained summary judgment in both proceedings; secured Fifth Circuit affirmance of Northern District of Texas ruling and Eighth Circuit affirmance of District of Minnesota ruling; also secured denial of petition for certiorari from the Fifth Circuit ruling in the United States Supreme Court; ultimately obtained an order requiring adversary to transfer its internet domain names to the railroad company. Obtained “prior restraint” temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing publication of information on the Internet in the District of Minnesota on behalf of BNSF Railway; defeated motions seeking to stay the restraint before the Eighth Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, alleging invasion of patient privacy; settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Prosecuted Lanham Act and unfair competition claims based on false assertions regarding patent infringement on behalf of a memory chip manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas and based on false assertions regarding comparative analgesic efficacy on behalf of over-the-counter analgesic manufacturer in the District of New Jersey.{{ FIELD }}Defended AT\u0026amp;T in nationwide class action alleging false advertising and marketing in New Jersey state court action.{{ FIELD }}Defended Verizon in contract and fraud dispute with a vendor who claimed to have the contractual right to develop video-on-demand and home automation products; obtained summary judgment on vendor’s $525 million damages claim; co-lead counsel in two jury New Jersey state court trials on vendor’s claims; obtained remittitur of damages after the first trial; second trial limited to damages only and jury awarded less than the remitted damages.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Cal-Maine, the country’s largest shell egg and egg products producer, in a series of class action and opt-out matters, consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging producers nationwide participated in a supply-restriction scheme designed to fix the prices of eggs and egg products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging certain hospitals agreed to exchange compensation information among themselves in a manner that has reduced competition among Detroit-area hospitals in the wages paid to registered nurses in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel for Novation, the nation’s largest healthcare GPO, in a $600 million Eastern District of Texas antitrust action alleging that certain contracting practices constitute unlawful exclusive dealing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and challenging bundled discount arrangements under section 2 of the Sherman Act; two co-defendants settled for cash payments of $49 million and $9 million, respectively; Novation settled the matter days prior to trial with no cash payment.{{ FIELD }}Veronica S. Moyé acts as lead counsel on highly complex matters in a wide variety of disciplines, including antitrust, intellectual property, class actions, and commercial and business disputes. She is nationally recognized for her abilities and accomplishments as a trial lawyer. \nIn 2025, Veronica was named to the Forbes “America’s Top Lawyers” list and to the Benchmark Litigation US “Top 250 Women in Litigation” list. Veronica was named “Trial Lawyer of the Year” by the Dallas Bar Association and to Benchmark’s “Top 10 Women in Litigation” list in 2022. Benchmark Litigation US also named her to its 2022 and 2023 “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” lists. BTI Consulting named Veronica to its 2014 BTI Client Service All-Stars list, and, in 2015, to its list of Client Service All-Star MVPs. She is ranked Chambers USA Band 1 for Antitrust – Texas (2010-2025) and General Commercial Litigation – Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds (2021-2025). She was included on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas by the Dallas Business Journal in 2009, following the unanimous defense verdict she obtained for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry in a copyright infringement matter. She has also been named as one of The Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust (2013-2025). Texas Lawyer named Veronica one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law in 2015, and Dallas Business Journal named her one of the leading Women in Business in North Texas in 2011. In addition, she has been recognized as one of the “500 Leading Lawyers in America” (2023-2025), “500 Leading Global Litigators” (2023-2025) and “500 Leading Litigators in America” (2023-2025) by Lawdragon.\nVeronica previously served as general counsel of the nation’s largest healthcare Group Purchasing Organization (GPO), and in that role, she had overall responsibility for all legal matters as well as for advising the company’s senior management, board of directors, and business units regarding the numerous antitrust, congressional/DOJ/HHS investigation, legislative, procurement, and compliance issues it faced.\n  Partner Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America for General \u0026amp; Commercial Litigation LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024 Band 1 in Antitrust, Texas – described as “a powerhouse lawyer who does great work.” CHAMBERS USA, 2009-2023 Ranked in Litigation: General Commercial, Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds – described as “a go-to litigator in a range of commercial disputes.” CHAMBERS USA, 2021-2023 Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Litigators for Global Litigation including: Anitrust, Class Actions, and IP LAWDRAGON, 2023 Named as “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023 Named to the Lawdragon 500 Leading Lawyers in America for Litigation LAWDRAGON, 2023-2024 Named “Trial Lawyer of the Year” DALLAS BAR ASSOCIATION, 2022 Named to “Top 100 Trial Lawyers in America” BENCHMARK LITIGATION US, 2022-2023 Recognized for Commercial Litigation and Litigation – Antitrust THE BEST LAWYERS IN AMERICA®, 2013-2023 Named as one of the Extraordinary Minorities in Texas Law TEXAS LAWYER, 2015 Named one of the Leading Women in Business in North Texas DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2015 Named to the 2014 BTI Client Service All-Star and 2015 Client Service All-Star MVP BTI CONSULTING, 2014, 2015 Named on “The Defenders” list of the best defense lawyers in North Texas DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, 2009 Massachusetts Institute of Technology  Harvard University Harvard Law School Supreme Court of the United States 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 Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey 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 Eastern District of Michigan New Jersey New York Texas Dallas Bar Association Antitrust Law \u0026amp; Economics Institute, Faculty Served as co-lead trial counsel for a leading technology firm defending unprecedented antitrust claims attacking the firm’s core business model. Following a three-week bench trial in May 2021, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, which was described in the press as “the Super Bowl of Antitrust,” the Court ruled in our client’s favor on all antitrust claims. Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare Group and its subsidiary United Surgical Partners in a Northern District of Illinois action alleging “no poach” agreements suppressed employee compensation in violation of the antitrust laws. Lead counsel for The Charles Schwab Corp. in an action alleging the company’s merger with TD Ameritrade violates antitrust laws, pending in the Eastern District of Texas. Represented Southern Methodist University in Texas state court action where a division of the United Methodist Church sought to void the University’s amended Articles of Incorporation; successfully obtained dismissal of all claims at the trial court level. Lead counsel for BNSF Railway when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in a United States District Court for the District of Columbia action alleging a conspiracy to fix the prices of fuel surcharges in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act had caused $30+ billion in damages. Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare when it was able to successfully defeat class certification in an action alleging a conspiracy to suppress nurse wages in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act pending in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Lead counsel for writer, producer, director, and actor Tyler Perry at trial of copyright infringement action centered on his “Diary of a Mad Black Woman” film in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; obtained unanimous defense verdict. Lead counsel for BNSF Railway in Northern District of Texas and District of Minnesota proceedings where adversary sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages on trademark infringement claims premised on adversary’s use of internet domain names; obtained summary judgment in both proceedings; secured Fifth Circuit affirmance of Northern District of Texas ruling and Eighth Circuit affirmance of District of Minnesota ruling; also secured denial of petition for certiorari from the Fifth Circuit ruling in the United States Supreme Court; ultimately obtained an order requiring adversary to transfer its internet domain names to the railroad company. Obtained “prior restraint” temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction preventing publication of information on the Internet in the District of Minnesota on behalf of BNSF Railway; defeated motions seeking to stay the restraint before the Eighth Circuit. Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans in the State of Louisiana, alleging invasion of patient privacy; settled on very favorable terms. Prosecuted Lanham Act and unfair competition claims based on false assertions regarding patent infringement on behalf of a memory chip manufacturer in the Eastern District of Texas and based on false assertions regarding comparative analgesic efficacy on behalf of over-the-counter analgesic manufacturer in the District of New Jersey. Defended AT\u0026amp;T in nationwide class action alleging false advertising and marketing in New Jersey state court action. Defended Verizon in contract and fraud dispute with a vendor who claimed to have the contractual right to develop video-on-demand and home automation products; obtained summary judgment on vendor’s $525 million damages claim; co-lead counsel in two jury New Jersey state court trials on vendor’s claims; obtained remittitur of damages after the first trial; second trial limited to damages only and jury awarded less than the remitted damages. Lead counsel for Cal-Maine, the country’s largest shell egg and egg products producer, in a series of class action and opt-out matters, consolidated in a multi-district litigation pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging producers nationwide participated in a supply-restriction scheme designed to fix the prices of eggs and egg products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms. Lead counsel for Tenet Healthcare in a class action, pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, alleging certain hospitals agreed to exchange compensation information among themselves in a manner that has reduced competition among Detroit-area hospitals in the wages paid to registered nurses in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act; settled on favorable terms. Lead counsel for Novation, the nation’s largest healthcare GPO, in a $600 million Eastern District of Texas antitrust action alleging that certain contracting practices constitute unlawful exclusive dealing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act and challenging bundled discount arrangements under section 2 of the Sherman Act; two co-defendants settled for cash payments of $49 million and $9 million, respectively; Novation settled the matter days prior to trial with no cash payment.","searchable_name":"Veronica Moyé","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}]}}