{"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":"S","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":426410,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3373,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDan Sale defends clients in high-stakes government and Congressional investigations, enforcement proceedings, and parallel civil litigation.\u0026nbsp; Concentrating in complex criminal and civil litigation, Dan regularly represents life sciences companies, financial institutions, other highly-regulated companies, and their boards and senior executives in high-profile and sensitive investigations and litigation.\u0026nbsp; Dan has special experience in matters involving: life sciences criminal and civil investigations; Congressional investigations;\u0026nbsp;the False Claims Act; financial crimes, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA);\u0026nbsp; antitrust and market manipulation matters; the securities laws; whistleblower cases; and transnational tax investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDan has special experience in cases involving allegations of off-label promotion and kickbacks in the life sciences industry and represented clients in the three largest Anti-Kickback Statute investigations ever resolved with DOJ.\u0026nbsp; Dan also has special experience in state attorney general investigations, and has personally negotiated quiet resolutions with all 50 state AG offices and the District of Columbia.\u0026nbsp; In addition, Dan has considerable experience defending clients in multi-jurisdictional investigations and litigation conducted cooperatively by United States, European, Middle Eastern, Asian and African authorities\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations group has been twice recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw 360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as the \u0026ldquo;White-Collar Group of the Year\u0026rdquo; and described as \u0026ldquo;the premier firm in this practice area\u0026rdquo; by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eU.S. News \u0026amp; World Report/Best Lawyers\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;Best Law Firms\u0026rdquo; survey.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDan began his legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. \u0026nbsp;He received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center, where he was an Editorial Board Member of the Tax Lawyer law journal, and his B.A. in economics from Yale University, where he was a Division I All New England Scholar Athlete lacrosse player.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDan holds Top Secret/SCI security clearances until their expiration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDan is a regular contributor to the American Bar Association's Criminal Litigation Section's Practice Points publication\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe US v. Vascular Solutions Acquittal: Three Lessons for Targets of Off-Label Promotion Enforcement\u003c/em\u003e, Washington Legal Foundation Legal Backgrounder (2016)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eRecent Trends in Health Care Enforcement and Compliance\u003c/em\u003e, Inside the Minds: Health Care Law Enforcement and Compliance (Apastore 2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Future of Off-Label Promotion Enforcement in the Wake of Caronia \u0026mdash; Toward a First Amendment Safe Harbor\u003c/em\u003e, The Sedona Conference Journal, Volume 14 (2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eOff-Label Promotion: The Criminalization of Scientific Exchange\u003c/em\u003e, Pharma Magazine (UK) (2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eFDA as Arbiter of Truth? The First Amendment, Caronia, and the Future of Off-Label Promotion Enforcement\u003c/em\u003e, ABA White Collar Crime (2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eTenure Trap: Third Circuit Joins Sixth in Holding Tenure Buy-out Payments Subject to FICA Taxation in University of Pittsburgh v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, The Tax Lawyer, Volume 63 (2010)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","slug":"daniel-sale","email":"dsale@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;a former Army Ranger convicted by court martial of murder in Iraq, resulting in a full Presidential pardon.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an individual in connection with the Special Counsel investigation conducted by Robert Mueller.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a global pharmaceutical company in an industry-wide investigation regarding donations to charitable patient assistance foundations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured a declination of all criminal and civil liability for a global medical device manufacturer in an investigation involving off-label promotion and fraud issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Vascular Solutions, Inc., a publicly traded medical device manufacturer that was indicted on federal criminal charges relating to off-label promotion and acquitted by a jury of all charges after a four week trial in February 2016.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting several individual witnesses and targets in connection with domestic and international investigations of foreign exchange (FX) trading, resulting in no charges.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading pharmaceutical manufacturers into off-label promotion issues by the Department of Justice and multiple U.S. Attorneys\u0026rsquo; Offices, the FDA, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and various state Attorneys General, as well as parallel federal False Claims Act\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented current and former CEOs, high-level executives, and other individuals in FCPA investigations related to events throughout Latin America, the Middle East, China, Mexico, and Eastern Europe.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":687,"guid":"687.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":14,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Sale","nick_name":"Daniel","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Richard D. Bennett, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland","years_held":"2010-2012"}],"first_name":"Daniel","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":755,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"C.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/daniel-sale-27063baa/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDan Sale defends clients in high-stakes government and Congressional investigations, enforcement proceedings, and parallel civil litigation.\u0026nbsp; Concentrating in complex criminal and civil litigation, Dan regularly represents life sciences companies, financial institutions, other highly-regulated companies, and their boards and senior executives in high-profile and sensitive investigations and litigation.\u0026nbsp; Dan has special experience in matters involving: life sciences criminal and civil investigations; Congressional investigations;\u0026nbsp;the False Claims Act; financial crimes, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA);\u0026nbsp; antitrust and market manipulation matters; the securities laws; whistleblower cases; and transnational tax investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDan has special experience in cases involving allegations of off-label promotion and kickbacks in the life sciences industry and represented clients in the three largest Anti-Kickback Statute investigations ever resolved with DOJ.\u0026nbsp; Dan also has special experience in state attorney general investigations, and has personally negotiated quiet resolutions with all 50 state AG offices and the District of Columbia.\u0026nbsp; In addition, Dan has considerable experience defending clients in multi-jurisdictional investigations and litigation conducted cooperatively by United States, European, Middle Eastern, Asian and African authorities\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations group has been twice recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw 360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as the \u0026ldquo;White-Collar Group of the Year\u0026rdquo; and described as \u0026ldquo;the premier firm in this practice area\u0026rdquo; by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eU.S. News \u0026amp; World Report/Best Lawyers\u0026rsquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;Best Law Firms\u0026rdquo; survey.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDan began his legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. \u0026nbsp;He received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center, where he was an Editorial Board Member of the Tax Lawyer law journal, and his B.A. in economics from Yale University, where he was a Division I All New England Scholar Athlete lacrosse player.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDan holds Top Secret/SCI security clearances until their expiration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDan is a regular contributor to the American Bar Association's Criminal Litigation Section's Practice Points publication\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe US v. Vascular Solutions Acquittal: Three Lessons for Targets of Off-Label Promotion Enforcement\u003c/em\u003e, Washington Legal Foundation Legal Backgrounder (2016)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eRecent Trends in Health Care Enforcement and Compliance\u003c/em\u003e, Inside the Minds: Health Care Law Enforcement and Compliance (Apastore 2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eThe Future of Off-Label Promotion Enforcement in the Wake of Caronia \u0026mdash; Toward a First Amendment Safe Harbor\u003c/em\u003e, The Sedona Conference Journal, Volume 14 (2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eOff-Label Promotion: The Criminalization of Scientific Exchange\u003c/em\u003e, Pharma Magazine (UK) (2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eFDA as Arbiter of Truth? The First Amendment, Caronia, and the Future of Off-Label Promotion Enforcement\u003c/em\u003e, ABA White Collar Crime (2013)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u003cem\u003eTenure Trap: Third Circuit Joins Sixth in Holding Tenure Buy-out Payments Subject to FICA Taxation in University of Pittsburgh v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, The Tax Lawyer, Volume 63 (2010)\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;a former Army Ranger convicted by court martial of murder in Iraq, resulting in a full Presidential pardon.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an individual in connection with the Special Counsel investigation conducted by Robert Mueller.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a global pharmaceutical company in an industry-wide investigation regarding donations to charitable patient assistance foundations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured a declination of all criminal and civil liability for a global medical device manufacturer in an investigation involving off-label promotion and fraud issues\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Vascular Solutions, Inc., a publicly traded medical device manufacturer that was indicted on federal criminal charges relating to off-label promotion and acquitted by a jury of all charges after a four week trial in February 2016.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting several individual witnesses and targets in connection with domestic and international investigations of foreign exchange (FX) trading, resulting in no charges.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading pharmaceutical manufacturers into off-label promotion issues by the Department of Justice and multiple U.S. Attorneys\u0026rsquo; Offices, the FDA, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and various state Attorneys General, as well as parallel federal False Claims Act\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented current and former CEOs, high-level executives, and other individuals in FCPA investigations related to events throughout Latin America, the Middle East, China, Mexico, and Eastern Europe.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12360}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:52:35.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:52:35.000Z","searchable_text":"Sale{{ FIELD }}Representing pro bono a former Army Ranger convicted by court martial of murder in Iraq, resulting in a full Presidential pardon.{{ FIELD }}Representing an individual in connection with the Special Counsel investigation conducted by Robert Mueller.{{ FIELD }}Representing a global pharmaceutical company in an industry-wide investigation regarding donations to charitable patient assistance foundations.{{ FIELD }}Secured a declination of all criminal and civil liability for a global medical device manufacturer in an investigation involving off-label promotion and fraud issues{{ FIELD }}Represented Vascular Solutions, Inc., a publicly traded medical device manufacturer that was indicted on federal criminal charges relating to off-label promotion and acquitted by a jury of all charges after a four week trial in February 2016.{{ FIELD }}Representing several individual witnesses and targets in connection with domestic and international investigations of foreign exchange (FX) trading, resulting in no charges.{{ FIELD }}Represented leading pharmaceutical manufacturers into off-label promotion issues by the Department of Justice and multiple U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the FDA, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and various state Attorneys General, as well as parallel federal False Claims Act qui tam litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented current and former CEOs, high-level executives, and other individuals in FCPA investigations related to events throughout Latin America, the Middle East, China, Mexico, and Eastern Europe.{{ FIELD }}Dan Sale defends clients in high-stakes government and Congressional investigations, enforcement proceedings, and parallel civil litigation.  Concentrating in complex criminal and civil litigation, Dan regularly represents life sciences companies, financial institutions, other highly-regulated companies, and their boards and senior executives in high-profile and sensitive investigations and litigation.  Dan has special experience in matters involving: life sciences criminal and civil investigations; Congressional investigations; the False Claims Act; financial crimes, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA);  antitrust and market manipulation matters; the securities laws; whistleblower cases; and transnational tax investigations. \nDan has special experience in cases involving allegations of off-label promotion and kickbacks in the life sciences industry and represented clients in the three largest Anti-Kickback Statute investigations ever resolved with DOJ.  Dan also has special experience in state attorney general investigations, and has personally negotiated quiet resolutions with all 50 state AG offices and the District of Columbia.  In addition, Dan has considerable experience defending clients in multi-jurisdictional investigations and litigation conducted cooperatively by United States, European, Middle Eastern, Asian and African authorities\nThe Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations group has been twice recognized by Law 360 as the “White-Collar Group of the Year” and described as “the premier firm in this practice area” by the U.S. News \u0026amp; World Report/Best Lawyers’ “Best Law Firms” survey.\nDan began his legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Richard D. Bennett of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.  He received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center, where he was an Editorial Board Member of the Tax Lawyer law journal, and his B.A. in economics from Yale University, where he was a Division I All New England Scholar Athlete lacrosse player. \nDan holds Top Secret/SCI security clearances until their expiration.\nPublications\n\nDan is a regular contributor to the American Bar Association's Criminal Litigation Section's Practice Points publication\nThe US v. Vascular Solutions Acquittal: Three Lessons for Targets of Off-Label Promotion Enforcement, Washington Legal Foundation Legal Backgrounder (2016)\nRecent Trends in Health Care Enforcement and Compliance, Inside the Minds: Health Care Law Enforcement and Compliance (Apastore 2013)\nThe Future of Off-Label Promotion Enforcement in the Wake of Caronia — Toward a First Amendment Safe Harbor, The Sedona Conference Journal, Volume 14 (2013)\nOff-Label Promotion: The Criminalization of Scientific Exchange, Pharma Magazine (UK) (2013)\nFDA as Arbiter of Truth? The First Amendment, Caronia, and the Future of Off-Label Promotion Enforcement, ABA White Collar Crime (2013)\nTenure Trap: Third Circuit Joins Sixth in Holding Tenure Buy-out Payments Subject to FICA Taxation in University of Pittsburgh v. United States, The Tax Lawyer, Volume 63 (2010)\n Partner Yale University Yale Law School Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland District of Columbia Maryland Law Clerk, Richard D. Bennett, U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland Representing pro bono a former Army Ranger convicted by court martial of murder in Iraq, resulting in a full Presidential pardon. Representing an individual in connection with the Special Counsel investigation conducted by Robert Mueller. Representing a global pharmaceutical company in an industry-wide investigation regarding donations to charitable patient assistance foundations. Secured a declination of all criminal and civil liability for a global medical device manufacturer in an investigation involving off-label promotion and fraud issues Represented Vascular Solutions, Inc., a publicly traded medical device manufacturer that was indicted on federal criminal charges relating to off-label promotion and acquitted by a jury of all charges after a four week trial in February 2016. Representing several individual witnesses and targets in connection with domestic and international investigations of foreign exchange (FX) trading, resulting in no charges. Represented leading pharmaceutical manufacturers into off-label promotion issues by the Department of Justice and multiple U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, the FDA, the Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, and various state Attorneys General, as well as parallel federal False Claims Act qui tam litigation. Represented current and former CEOs, high-level executives, and other individuals in FCPA investigations related to events throughout Latin America, the Middle East, China, Mexico, and Eastern Europe.","searchable_name":"Daniel C. Sale","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":441657,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3111,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp style=\"background: white;\"\u003eJan K. Schaefer heads King \u0026amp; Spalding's dispute resolution practice in Germany. He represents foreign and German clients in domestic and international arbitration matters, both commercial and investor-state. He appears before German courts in first- and second-instance matters, including for the taking of evidence for foreign proceedings, interim relief and enforcement applications, and is in high demand as international arbitrator.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith substantial trial and arbitration experience, Jan represents clients in post\u0026ndash;merger and acquisition, joint venture, distribution, sales and license matters, as well as in foreign investment, construction and energy-related disputes, both within Germany and across international borders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan represents clients as counsel and advocate in complex and high-value domestic and international arbitration proceedings conducted under various arbitration rules, including those of the ICC, DIS (German Institute of Arbitration), SCC (Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce), and ICSID in multiple venues. He also has experience in ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan regularly advises clients on compliance and corruption issues. In several post-M\u0026amp;A matters, he has closely cooperated with criminal defense counsel to align strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan has served as chairman, party-appointed, sole or emergency arbitrator in some 70 arbitrations under a variety of rules, including ad hoc proceedings. He also advises clients on effective, efficient resolution of disputes at early stages, including the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan has been recognized as leader in his field by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Europe\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand other leading legal guides. He was named\u0026nbsp;Lawyer of the Year\u0026nbsp;for Arbitration\u0026nbsp;by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHandelsblatt\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u0026nbsp;2021/22\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;have been naming\u0026nbsp;Jan a \"Leading Name\" for Arbitration for many years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan is a board member of the DIS, the SCC and the Dutch Arbitration Association and a member of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. He is a member of the Litigation Committee\u0026nbsp;of the German Federal Bar Association (BRAK). He speaks English, German, Dutch and some French.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jan-schaefer","email":"jschaefer@kslaw.com","phone":"+49 171 3041424","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejet broker\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with a major European charter airline.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Korean industrial company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against Egyptian and Kuwaiti respondents, Paris seat, Egyptian law, English language, multimillion contract termination claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Eastern European renewable energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, delivery claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. renewable energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, multimillion price-review dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ad hoc arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, German language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute re call-option.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, D\u0026uuml;sseldorf seat, German law, English language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about a net-equity warranty and tort claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German automotive company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings, Paris seat, Egyptian law, multimillion distributorship dispute re commission payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Swiss Rules arbitration proceedings, Zurich seat, Swiss law, patent-related dispute re ownership dispute workaround technology under consultancy agreement, co-counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Middle Eastern gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multimillion price re-opener dispute, preparation of request for arbitration in ICC arbitration proceedings, Geneva seat, New York law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S agricultural company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings, Frankfurt-seated, Swiss law, dispute re violation of manufacturing agreement for noncompliance with FDA requirements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003evarious German investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICSID cases against Spain (\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eMathias Kruck and others v. Kingdom of Spain,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23 and KS Invest GmbH and TLS Invest GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/25).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and other investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID case against Italy (\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eESPF Beteiligungs GmbH et al. v. The Italian Republic\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German utility company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in investment disputes with several Eastern European states about ownership unbundling, case assessment, representing in amicable settlement discussions under the Energy Charter Treaty and the pertinent German bilateral investment treaties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Eastern European company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in malpractice proceedings against a law firm relating to an arbitration before the district court of Munich.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a German real estate fund in a dispute with a German bank regarding the liquidation of an open-ended fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Hague Convention proceedings before German courts for the taking of witness evidence for U.S. court proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on enforcement in Germany against assets of a Latin American state arising under a commercial arbitration award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation proceedings before the district court in D\u0026uuml;sseldorf, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea managing director\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation proceedings before the district court in Cologne, third-party notice in post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about director\u0026rsquo;s liability.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in recognition and enforcement proceedings of a Luxembourg judgment in Germany under the Brussels Regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e, Stockholm seat, Swedish law, dispute relating to the telecommunications industry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emulti-party ICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e, Vienna seat, Polish law, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Leipzig seat, dispute relating to shareholder information request under corporate law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Dortmund seat, dispute relating to wind energy project and insurance claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePolish and German parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParty-appointed arbitrator in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, D\u0026uuml;sseldorf seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParty-appointed arbitrator in a multi-party NAI arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDutch parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dutch law, English language, Amsterdam seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in an ad hoc arbitration under the arbitration rules of the European Development Funds, Dutch and Dutch Antilles parties, Dutch Antilles law, English language, Curacao seat, dispute about sewage plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in an ICC arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRussian and German parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Swedish law, English language, Stockholm seat, dispute about machine sale.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and Luxembourg parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Frankfurt seat, gas price dispute under take-or-pay contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSole Arbitrator in an ICC arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and Australian parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, industrial plant dispute in food industry.\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":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Schaefer","nick_name":"Jan","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jan","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"K.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Thought Leader for Arbitration and Commercial Litigation ","detail":"Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025"},{"title":"Recognized as \"Leading Individual\" for Dispute Resolution","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025"},{"title":"Arbitration: Leading Names in the Market","detail":"JUVE Handbook/German Commercial Law Firms, 2007-2024/25"},{"title":"Recognized as \"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\" and \"Arbitration Counsel\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017-2025"},{"title":"Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2021,2024"},{"title":"Lawyer of the Year for International Arbitration","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2020/21"},{"title":"Recognized one of Germany's Best International Arbitration Lawyers","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2017-2025"},{"title":"Foreign Expert for Netherlands ","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"\"He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"International experienced arbitrator, very good proceedings management\"","detail":"JUVE, 2022/23, Quoting"},{"title":"\"He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Fun to work with, very solutions-oriented, keeps his focus and does not get distracted.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Jan Schäfer is a top arbitrator.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Very experienced, especially in investment disputes and energy disputes.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Personally very pleasant to deal with. Excellent, empathetic arbitrator.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Dr. Jan Schäfer is an excellent chairman in arbitration hearings.\" ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Competent interlocutor\"","detail":"JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting client"},{"title":"\"He takes a sharp yet balanced approach in dealing with parties in arbitrations.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2020"},{"title":"\"Great Arbitrator\"","detail":"JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Highly Recommended” in Leaders League’s Best Arbitrators in 2019-2020 Germany List","detail":"Leaders League"},{"title":"\"Top-notch counsel\" and a \"go-to arbitrator.\"","detail":"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020, Quoting peers"},{"title":"\"Approachable and very prompt\" ","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2019, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Highly structured referee with a wealth of experience\"","detail":"JUVE, 2024/2025, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Persuasive logical argumentation\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"One of the leading arbitrators\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Fast, precise, professional“ ","detail":"JUVE, 2018/2019, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"[He] is commercial but also has an in-depth knowledge of the law.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017"},{"title":"\"One of the strongest practitioners in Germany.\"","detail":"International Who's Who of Commercial Arbitration, 2015"},{"title":"\"Expansive advocacy skills\" and \"good commercial understanding.”","detail":"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2014, Quoting peers"},{"title":"\"He does not look to escalate situations, but to help us save on legal fees.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2014"},{"title":"\"Clients appreciate [him] for his efficiency and pragmatic approach.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2014"},{"title":"\"[He] is calm, convincing and firm.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2013"},{"title":"\"A great orator who can convince other people.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2012"},{"title":"45 Under 45","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"Gillis Wetter Prize - London Court of International Arbitration, 2001","detail":"London Court of International Arbitration, 2001"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"de":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer ist Partner im Frankfurter B\u0026uuml;ro von King \u0026amp; Spalding und leitet die deutsche Konfliktl\u0026ouml;sungspraxis der Kanzlei. Er vertritt ausl\u0026auml;ndische und deutsche Mandanten in deutschen und grenz\u0026uuml;berschreitenden Post-M\u0026amp;A-, Joint-Venture-, Vertriebs-, Verkaufs- und Lizenzangelegenheiten sowie in Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit Auslandsinvestitionen, mit Anlagenbau und im Energiebereich. Er tritt vor deutschen Gerichten in erster und zweiter Instanz auf, u.a. bei der Beweisaufnahme f\u0026uuml;r ausl\u0026auml;ndische Verfahren, im einstweiligen Rechtsschutz und bei Vollstreckungsantr\u0026auml;gen und ist ein gefragter internationaler Schiedsrichter.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer vertritt Mandanten als Berater und Anwalt in komplexen und anspruchsvollen Schiedsverfahren, die nach verschiedenen Schiedsgerichtsordnungen durchgef\u0026uuml;hrt werden, darunter die der ICC, der DIS (Deutsche Institution f\u0026uuml;r Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit), der SCC (Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) und der ICSID an verschiedenen Gerichtsstandorten. Er hat auch Erfahrung in Ad-hoc-Verfahren nach der UNCITRAL-Schiedsgerichtsordnung.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEr ber\u0026auml;t seine Mandanten regelm\u0026auml;\u0026szlig;ig in Fragen der Compliance und Korruptionspr\u0026auml;vention. In mehreren Post-M\u0026amp;A F\u0026auml;llen hat er zur Strategieabstimmung eng mit Strafverteidigern zusammengearbeitet.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer war als Vorsitzender, parteibenannter Schiedsrichter, Einzelschiedsrichter oder Eilschiedsrichter in mehr als 70 Schiedsverfahren unter diversen Schiedsordnungen, einschlie\u0026szlig;lich Ad-hoc-Verfahren, t\u0026auml;tig. Er ber\u0026auml;t seine Mandanten auch bei der effektiven und effizienten Beilegung von Streitigkeiten in fr\u0026uuml;hen Verhandlungsphasen, einschlie\u0026szlig;lich des Einsatzes alternativer Streitbeilegungsverfahren.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer wurde von \u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers Europe\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e und anderen f\u0026uuml;hrenden Publikationen als f\u0026uuml;hrender Anwalt im Bereich Konfliktl\u0026ouml;sung und Arbitration anerkannt. Er wurde von \u003cem\u003eHandelsblatt \u003c/em\u003eund \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e 2021/22 zum Anwalt des Jahres f\u0026uuml;r Schiedsverfahren augezeichnet. \u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e und \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e f\u0026uuml;hren Jan K Sch\u0026auml;fer seit vielen Jahren als \"F\u0026uuml;hrenden Namen\" f\u0026uuml;r Schiedsgerichtbarkeit. \u003cem\u003eWirtschaftsWoche\u003c/em\u003e hat Jan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer zum Top Anwalt f\u0026uuml;r Arbitration 2023 ausgezeichnet.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEr ist Vorstandsmitglied der DIS, der SCC und der Dutch Arbitration Association und Mitglied der ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. Er spricht Englisch, Deutsch, Niederl\u0026auml;ndisch und etwas Franz\u0026ouml;sisch.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Top Anwalt für Arbitration 2023","detail":"WirtschaftsWoche"},{"title":"\"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\" und \"Arbitration Counsel\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017-2025"},{"title":"\"Führender Name\" im Bereich Streitbeilegung: Arbitration (einschließlich internationaler Arbitration)","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025"},{"title":"\"Führender Name\": Konfliktlösung: Parteivertreter in Schiedsverfahren und Schiedsrichter","detail":"JUVE Handuch Wirtschaftskanzleien, 2007-2024/25"},{"title":"Anwalt des Jahres für Schiedsverfahren","detail":"Handelsblatt und Best Lawyers, 2021/24"},{"title":"Anwalt des Jahres für Internationale Schiedsverfahren","detail":"Handelsblatt und Best Lawyers, 2020/21"},{"title":"Geführt unter Deutschland's Besten Anwälten für Schiedsverfahren und Konfliktlösung","detail":"Handelsblatt und Best Lawyers, 2017-2025"},{"title":"„Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Mandanten"},{"title":"„He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Mandanten"},{"title":"„He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Mandanten"},{"title":"„He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Mandanten"},{"title":"Foreign Expert for Netherlands","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"„internat. erfahrener Schiedsrichter, sehr gute Verhandlungsführung“","detail":"JUVE 2022/23, Mandant"},{"title":"„Jan Schäfer: Sehr erfahren, vor allem im Bereich Investitionsstreitigkeiten und energierechtlichen Streitigkeiten.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Mandant"},{"title":"„Jan Schäfer ist ein herausragender, sehr erfahrener Anwalt in internationalen Schiedsverfahren. Persönlich sehr angenehm im Umgang. Exzellenter, einfühlsamer Schiedsrichter.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Mandant"},{"title":"45 Under 45","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"Gillis Wetter Prize","detail":"London Court of International Arbitration, 2001"},{"title":"Thought Leader bei Arbitration und Commercial Litigation","detail":"Lexology Index (ehem. Who's Who Legal) 2025"}]},"en":{"bio":"\u003cp style=\"background: white;\"\u003eJan K. Schaefer heads King \u0026amp; Spalding's dispute resolution practice in Germany. He represents foreign and German clients in domestic and international arbitration matters, both commercial and investor-state. He appears before German courts in first- and second-instance matters, including for the taking of evidence for foreign proceedings, interim relief and enforcement applications, and is in high demand as international arbitrator.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith substantial trial and arbitration experience, Jan represents clients in post\u0026ndash;merger and acquisition, joint venture, distribution, sales and license matters, as well as in foreign investment, construction and energy-related disputes, both within Germany and across international borders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan represents clients as counsel and advocate in complex and high-value domestic and international arbitration proceedings conducted under various arbitration rules, including those of the ICC, DIS (German Institute of Arbitration), SCC (Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce), and ICSID in multiple venues. He also has experience in ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan regularly advises clients on compliance and corruption issues. In several post-M\u0026amp;A matters, he has closely cooperated with criminal defense counsel to align strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan has served as chairman, party-appointed, sole or emergency arbitrator in some 70 arbitrations under a variety of rules, including ad hoc proceedings. He also advises clients on effective, efficient resolution of disputes at early stages, including the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan has been recognized as leader in his field by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Europe\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand other leading legal guides. He was named\u0026nbsp;Lawyer of the Year\u0026nbsp;for Arbitration\u0026nbsp;by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHandelsblatt\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u0026nbsp;2021/22\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;have been naming\u0026nbsp;Jan a \"Leading Name\" for Arbitration for many years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan is a board member of the DIS, the SCC and the Dutch Arbitration Association and a member of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. He is a member of the Litigation Committee\u0026nbsp;of the German Federal Bar Association (BRAK). He speaks English, German, Dutch and some French.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejet broker\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with a major European charter airline.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Korean industrial company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against Egyptian and Kuwaiti respondents, Paris seat, Egyptian law, English language, multimillion contract termination claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Eastern European renewable energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, delivery claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. renewable energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, multimillion price-review dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ad hoc arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, German language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute re call-option.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, D\u0026uuml;sseldorf seat, German law, English language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about a net-equity warranty and tort claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German automotive company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings, Paris seat, Egyptian law, multimillion distributorship dispute re commission payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Swiss Rules arbitration proceedings, Zurich seat, Swiss law, patent-related dispute re ownership dispute workaround technology under consultancy agreement, co-counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Middle Eastern gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multimillion price re-opener dispute, preparation of request for arbitration in ICC arbitration proceedings, Geneva seat, New York law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S agricultural company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings, Frankfurt-seated, Swiss law, dispute re violation of manufacturing agreement for noncompliance with FDA requirements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003evarious German investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICSID cases against Spain (\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eMathias Kruck and others v. Kingdom of Spain,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23 and KS Invest GmbH and TLS Invest GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/25).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and other investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID case against Italy (\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eESPF Beteiligungs GmbH et al. v. The Italian Republic\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German utility company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in investment disputes with several Eastern European states about ownership unbundling, case assessment, representing in amicable settlement discussions under the Energy Charter Treaty and the pertinent German bilateral investment treaties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Eastern European company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in malpractice proceedings against a law firm relating to an arbitration before the district court of Munich.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a German real estate fund in a dispute with a German bank regarding the liquidation of an open-ended fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Hague Convention proceedings before German courts for the taking of witness evidence for U.S. court proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on enforcement in Germany against assets of a Latin American state arising under a commercial arbitration award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation proceedings before the district court in D\u0026uuml;sseldorf, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea managing director\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation proceedings before the district court in Cologne, third-party notice in post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about director\u0026rsquo;s liability.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in recognition and enforcement proceedings of a Luxembourg judgment in Germany under the Brussels Regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e, Stockholm seat, Swedish law, dispute relating to the telecommunications industry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emulti-party ICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e, Vienna seat, Polish law, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Leipzig seat, dispute relating to shareholder information request under corporate law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Dortmund seat, dispute relating to wind energy project and insurance claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePolish and German parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParty-appointed arbitrator in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, D\u0026uuml;sseldorf seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParty-appointed arbitrator in a multi-party NAI arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDutch parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dutch law, English language, Amsterdam seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in an ad hoc arbitration under the arbitration rules of the European Development Funds, Dutch and Dutch Antilles parties, Dutch Antilles law, English language, Curacao seat, dispute about sewage plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in an ICC arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRussian and German parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Swedish law, English language, Stockholm seat, dispute about machine sale.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and Luxembourg parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Frankfurt seat, gas price dispute under take-or-pay contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSole Arbitrator in an ICC arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and Australian parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, industrial plant dispute in food industry.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Thought Leader for Arbitration and Commercial Litigation ","detail":"Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025"},{"title":"Recognized as \"Leading Individual\" for Dispute Resolution","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025"},{"title":"Arbitration: Leading Names in the Market","detail":"JUVE Handbook/German Commercial Law Firms, 2007-2024/25"},{"title":"Recognized as \"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\" and \"Arbitration Counsel\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017-2025"},{"title":"Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2021,2024"},{"title":"Lawyer of the Year for International Arbitration","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2020/21"},{"title":"Recognized one of Germany's Best International Arbitration Lawyers","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2017-2025"},{"title":"Foreign Expert for Netherlands ","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"\"He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"International experienced arbitrator, very good proceedings management\"","detail":"JUVE, 2022/23, Quoting"},{"title":"\"He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Fun to work with, very solutions-oriented, keeps his focus and does not get distracted.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Jan Schäfer is a top arbitrator.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Very experienced, especially in investment disputes and energy disputes.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Personally very pleasant to deal with. Excellent, empathetic arbitrator.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Dr. Jan Schäfer is an excellent chairman in arbitration hearings.\" ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Competent interlocutor\"","detail":"JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting client"},{"title":"\"He takes a sharp yet balanced approach in dealing with parties in arbitrations.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2020"},{"title":"\"Great Arbitrator\"","detail":"JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Highly Recommended” in Leaders League’s Best Arbitrators in 2019-2020 Germany List","detail":"Leaders League"},{"title":"\"Top-notch counsel\" and a \"go-to arbitrator.\"","detail":"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020, Quoting peers"},{"title":"\"Approachable and very prompt\" ","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2019, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Highly structured referee with a wealth of experience\"","detail":"JUVE, 2024/2025, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Persuasive logical argumentation\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"One of the leading arbitrators\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Fast, precise, professional“ ","detail":"JUVE, 2018/2019, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"[He] is commercial but also has an in-depth knowledge of the law.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017"},{"title":"\"One of the strongest practitioners in Germany.\"","detail":"International Who's Who of Commercial Arbitration, 2015"},{"title":"\"Expansive advocacy skills\" and \"good commercial understanding.”","detail":"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2014, Quoting peers"},{"title":"\"He does not look to escalate situations, but to help us save on legal fees.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2014"},{"title":"\"Clients appreciate [him] for his efficiency and pragmatic approach.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2014"},{"title":"\"[He] is calm, convincing and firm.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2013"},{"title":"\"A great orator who can convince other people.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2012"},{"title":"45 Under 45","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"Gillis Wetter Prize - London Court of International Arbitration, 2001","detail":"London Court of International Arbitration, 2001"}]},"locales":["en","de"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1167}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-10-23T20:34:44.000Z","updated_at":"2025-10-23T20:34:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Schaefer{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Thought Leader for Arbitration and Commercial Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as \\\"Leading Individual\\\" for Dispute Resolution\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Arbitration: Leading Names in the Market\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE Handbook/German Commercial Law Firms, 2007-2024/25\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as \\\"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\\\" and \\\"Arbitration Counsel\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2017-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2021,2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Lawyer of the Year for International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2020/21\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized one of Germany's Best International Arbitration Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2017-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Foreign Expert for Netherlands \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"International experienced arbitrator, very good proceedings management\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2022/23, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Fun to work with, very solutions-oriented, keeps his focus and does not get distracted.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2022, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Jan Schäfer is a top arbitrator.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Very experienced, especially in investment disputes and energy disputes.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Personally very pleasant to deal with. Excellent, empathetic arbitrator.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Dr. Jan Schäfer is an excellent chairman in arbitration hearings.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Competent interlocutor\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting client\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He takes a sharp yet balanced approach in dealing with parties in arbitrations.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Great Arbitrator\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting competitors\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Highly Recommended” in Leaders League’s Best Arbitrators in 2019-2020 Germany List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leaders League\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Top-notch counsel\\\" and a \\\"go-to arbitrator.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020, Quoting peers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Approachable and very prompt\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2019, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Highly structured referee with a wealth of experience\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2024/2025, Quoting competitors\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Persuasive logical argumentation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"One of the leading arbitrators\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting competitors\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Fast, precise, professional“ \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2018/2019, Quoting competitors\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"[He] is commercial but also has an in-depth knowledge of the law.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"One of the strongest practitioners in Germany.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"International Who's Who of Commercial Arbitration, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Expansive advocacy skills\\\" and \\\"good commercial understanding.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2014, Quoting peers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He does not look to escalate situations, but to help us save on legal fees.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Clients appreciate [him] for his efficiency and pragmatic approach.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"[He] is calm, convincing and firm.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2013\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"A great orator who can convince other people.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"45 Under 45\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Arbitration Review, 2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Gillis Wetter Prize - London Court of International Arbitration, 2001\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"London Court of International Arbitration, 2001\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing a jet broker in a dispute with a major European charter airline.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Korean industrial company in an ICC arbitration against Egyptian and Kuwaiti respondents, Paris seat, Egyptian law, English language, multimillion contract termination claim.{{ FIELD }}Representing an Eastern European renewable energy company in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, delivery claims.{{ FIELD }}Representing a U.S. renewable energy company in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, multimillion price-review dispute.{{ FIELD }}Representing a German insurance company in ad hoc arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, German language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute re call-option.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Dutch construction company in DIS arbitration proceedings, Düsseldorf seat, German law, English language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about a net-equity warranty and tort claims.{{ FIELD }}Representing a German automotive company in ICC arbitration proceedings, Paris seat, Egyptian law, multimillion distributorship dispute re commission payment.{{ FIELD }}Representing a German technology company in Swiss Rules arbitration proceedings, Zurich seat, Swiss law, patent-related dispute re ownership dispute workaround technology under consultancy agreement, co-counsel.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Middle Eastern gas company in a multimillion price re-opener dispute, preparation of request for arbitration in ICC arbitration proceedings, Geneva seat, New York law.{{ FIELD }}Representing a U.S agricultural company in ICC arbitration proceedings, Frankfurt-seated, Swiss law, dispute re violation of manufacturing agreement for noncompliance with FDA requirements.{{ FIELD }}Representing various German investors in ICSID cases against Spain (Mathias Kruck and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23 and KS Invest GmbH and TLS Invest GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/25).{{ FIELD }}Representing German and other investors in an ICSID case against Italy (ESPF Beteiligungs GmbH et al. v. The Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5).{{ FIELD }}Advising a German utility company in investment disputes with several Eastern European states about ownership unbundling, case assessment, representing in amicable settlement discussions under the Energy Charter Treaty and the pertinent German bilateral investment treaties.{{ FIELD }}Representing an Eastern European company in malpractice proceedings against a law firm relating to an arbitration before the district court of Munich.{{ FIELD }}Representing a German real estate fund in a dispute with a German bank regarding the liquidation of an open-ended fund.{{ FIELD }}Representing a U.S. technology company in Hague Convention proceedings before German courts for the taking of witness evidence for U.S. court proceedings.{{ FIELD }}Advising a U.S. energy company on enforcement in Germany against assets of a Latin American state arising under a commercial arbitration award.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Dutch construction company in litigation proceedings before the district court in Düsseldorf, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Representing a managing director in litigation proceedings before the district court in Cologne, third-party notice in post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about director’s liability.{{ FIELD }}Representing an international bank in recognition and enforcement proceedings of a Luxembourg judgment in Germany under the Brussels Regulation.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a SCC arbitration, Stockholm seat, Swedish law, dispute relating to the telecommunications industry.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a multi-party ICC arbitration, Vienna seat, Polish law, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Leipzig seat, dispute relating to shareholder information request under corporate law.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Dortmund seat, dispute relating to wind energy project and insurance claims.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration, Polish and German parties, German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Party-appointed arbitrator in a multiparty DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Düsseldorf seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Party-appointed arbitrator in a multi-party NAI arbitration, Dutch parties, Dutch law, English language, Amsterdam seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in an ad hoc arbitration under the arbitration rules of the European Development Funds, Dutch and Dutch Antilles parties, Dutch Antilles law, English language, Curacao seat, dispute about sewage plant.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in an ICC arbitration, Russian and German parties, Swedish law, English language, Stockholm seat, dispute about machine sale.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a DIS arbitration, German and Luxembourg parties, German law, German language, Frankfurt seat, gas price dispute under take-or-pay contract.{{ FIELD }}Sole Arbitrator in an ICC arbitration, German and Australian parties, German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, industrial plant dispute in food industry.{{ FIELD }}Jan K. Schaefer heads King \u0026amp; Spalding's dispute resolution practice in Germany. He represents foreign and German clients in domestic and international arbitration matters, both commercial and investor-state. He appears before German courts in first- and second-instance matters, including for the taking of evidence for foreign proceedings, interim relief and enforcement applications, and is in high demand as international arbitrator. \nWith substantial trial and arbitration experience, Jan represents clients in post–merger and acquisition, joint venture, distribution, sales and license matters, as well as in foreign investment, construction and energy-related disputes, both within Germany and across international borders.\nJan represents clients as counsel and advocate in complex and high-value domestic and international arbitration proceedings conducted under various arbitration rules, including those of the ICC, DIS (German Institute of Arbitration), SCC (Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce), and ICSID in multiple venues. He also has experience in ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules.\nJan regularly advises clients on compliance and corruption issues. In several post-M\u0026amp;A matters, he has closely cooperated with criminal defense counsel to align strategies.\nJan has served as chairman, party-appointed, sole or emergency arbitrator in some 70 arbitrations under a variety of rules, including ad hoc proceedings. He also advises clients on effective, efficient resolution of disputes at early stages, including the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.\nJan has been recognized as leader in his field by Chambers Global, Chambers Europe, Legal 500, JUVE and other leading legal guides. He was named Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration by Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers 2021/22. JUVE and Legal 500 have been naming Jan a \"Leading Name\" for Arbitration for many years.\nJan is a board member of the DIS, the SCC and the Dutch Arbitration Association and a member of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. He is a member of the Litigation Committee of the German Federal Bar Association (BRAK). He speaks English, German, Dutch and some French.\n  Partner Thought Leader for Arbitration and Commercial Litigation  Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025 Recognized as \"Leading Individual\" for Dispute Resolution Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025 Arbitration: Leading Names in the Market JUVE Handbook/German Commercial Law Firms, 2007-2024/25 Recognized as \"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\" and \"Arbitration Counsel\" Chambers Global, 2017-2025 Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2021,2024 Lawyer of the Year for International Arbitration Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2020/21 Recognized one of Germany's Best International Arbitration Lawyers Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2017-2025 Foreign Expert for Netherlands  Chambers Global, 2018-2025 \"He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\" Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients \"He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\" Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients \"Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\" Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients \"International experienced arbitrator, very good proceedings management\" JUVE, 2022/23, Quoting \"He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\" Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients \"Fun to work with, very solutions-oriented, keeps his focus and does not get distracted.\" Chambers Europe, 2022, Quoting \"Jan Schäfer is a top arbitrator.\" Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting \"Very experienced, especially in investment disputes and energy disputes.\" Legal 500 Deutschland, Quoting \"Personally very pleasant to deal with. Excellent, empathetic arbitrator.\" Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting \"Dr. Jan Schäfer is an excellent chairman in arbitration hearings.\"  Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting \"Competent interlocutor\" JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting client \"He takes a sharp yet balanced approach in dealing with parties in arbitrations.\" Chambers Europe, 2020 \"Great Arbitrator\" JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting competitors \"Highly Recommended” in Leaders League’s Best Arbitrators in 2019-2020 Germany List Leaders League \"Top-notch counsel\" and a \"go-to arbitrator.\" Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020, Quoting peers \"Approachable and very prompt\"  Chambers Europe, 2019, Quoting clients \"Highly structured referee with a wealth of experience\" JUVE, 2024/2025, Quoting competitors \"Persuasive logical argumentation\" Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting clients \"One of the leading arbitrators\" Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting competitors \"Fast, precise, professional“  JUVE, 2018/2019, Quoting competitors \"[He] is commercial but also has an in-depth knowledge of the law.\" Chambers Global, 2017 \"One of the strongest practitioners in Germany.\" International Who's Who of Commercial Arbitration, 2015 \"Expansive advocacy skills\" and \"good commercial understanding.” Who's Who Legal Germany, 2014, Quoting peers \"He does not look to escalate situations, but to help us save on legal fees.\" Chambers Global, 2014 \"Clients appreciate [him] for his efficiency and pragmatic approach.\" Chambers Europe, 2014 \"[He] is calm, convincing and firm.\" Chambers Europe, 2013 \"A great orator who can convince other people.\" Chambers Europe, 2012 45 Under 45 Global Arbitration Review, 2011 Gillis Wetter Prize - London Court of International Arbitration, 2001 London Court of International Arbitration, 2001 Frankfurt Frankfurt Court of Appeals Frankfurt, Germany (#135101) Representing a jet broker in a dispute with a major European charter airline. Representing a Korean industrial company in an ICC arbitration against Egyptian and Kuwaiti respondents, Paris seat, Egyptian law, English language, multimillion contract termination claim. Representing an Eastern European renewable energy company in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, delivery claims. Representing a U.S. renewable energy company in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, multimillion price-review dispute. Representing a German insurance company in ad hoc arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, German language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute re call-option. Representing a Dutch construction company in DIS arbitration proceedings, Düsseldorf seat, German law, English language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about a net-equity warranty and tort claims. Representing a German automotive company in ICC arbitration proceedings, Paris seat, Egyptian law, multimillion distributorship dispute re commission payment. Representing a German technology company in Swiss Rules arbitration proceedings, Zurich seat, Swiss law, patent-related dispute re ownership dispute workaround technology under consultancy agreement, co-counsel. Representing a Middle Eastern gas company in a multimillion price re-opener dispute, preparation of request for arbitration in ICC arbitration proceedings, Geneva seat, New York law. Representing a U.S agricultural company in ICC arbitration proceedings, Frankfurt-seated, Swiss law, dispute re violation of manufacturing agreement for noncompliance with FDA requirements. Representing various German investors in ICSID cases against Spain (Mathias Kruck and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23 and KS Invest GmbH and TLS Invest GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/25). Representing German and other investors in an ICSID case against Italy (ESPF Beteiligungs GmbH et al. v. The Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5). Advising a German utility company in investment disputes with several Eastern European states about ownership unbundling, case assessment, representing in amicable settlement discussions under the Energy Charter Treaty and the pertinent German bilateral investment treaties. Representing an Eastern European company in malpractice proceedings against a law firm relating to an arbitration before the district court of Munich. Representing a German real estate fund in a dispute with a German bank regarding the liquidation of an open-ended fund. Representing a U.S. technology company in Hague Convention proceedings before German courts for the taking of witness evidence for U.S. court proceedings. Advising a U.S. energy company on enforcement in Germany against assets of a Latin American state arising under a commercial arbitration award. Representing a Dutch construction company in litigation proceedings before the district court in Düsseldorf, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Representing a managing director in litigation proceedings before the district court in Cologne, third-party notice in post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about director’s liability. Representing an international bank in recognition and enforcement proceedings of a Luxembourg judgment in Germany under the Brussels Regulation. Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine. Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine. Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine. Chairman in a SCC arbitration, Stockholm seat, Swedish law, dispute relating to the telecommunications industry. Chairman in a multi-party ICC arbitration, Vienna seat, Polish law, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Chairman in a DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Leipzig seat, dispute relating to shareholder information request under corporate law. Chairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Dortmund seat, dispute relating to wind energy project and insurance claims. Chairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration, Polish and German parties, German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Party-appointed arbitrator in a multiparty DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Düsseldorf seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Party-appointed arbitrator in a multi-party NAI arbitration, Dutch parties, Dutch law, English language, Amsterdam seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Chairman in an ad hoc arbitration under the arbitration rules of the European Development Funds, Dutch and Dutch Antilles parties, Dutch Antilles law, English language, Curacao seat, dispute about sewage plant. Chairman in an ICC arbitration, Russian and German parties, Swedish law, English language, Stockholm seat, dispute about machine sale. Chairman in a DIS arbitration, German and Luxembourg parties, German law, German language, Frankfurt seat, gas price dispute under take-or-pay contract. Sole Arbitrator in an ICC arbitration, German and Australian parties, German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, industrial plant dispute in food industry.","searchable_name":"Jan K. Schaefer","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":426596,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5009,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJacqueline Seidel is a New York-based partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Seidel defends multi-national companies in complex class and mass action litigation pending in both state and federal court. She frequently\u0026nbsp;partners with clients at the outset of a matter to develop\u0026nbsp;and implement all-inclusive\u0026nbsp;exit strategies for large-scale bet-the-company litigation. Often, such strategies include liaising with clients and virtual law firms to plan a long term, systematic exit strategy and/or global resolution, structuring and implementing court-approved comprehensive settlement programs and successfully resolving large groups of cases.\u0026nbsp;She has also successfully managed - as either national coordinating counsel or as strategic counsel - putative class, mass and individual actions alleging false advertising, unfair business practices, unfair and deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, consumer protection, and a wide range of common law personal injury and property damage claims.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn recognition of her work representing Fortune 500 automotive and pharmaceutical and medical device companies in bet-the-company litigation, she has been named a New York \"Rising Star\" in class action and product liability defense by Super Lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile Ms. Seidel has represented clients in a wide range of industries, including the automobile, safety equipment, pharmaceutical, medical device, consumer goods, insurance, reinsurance and media industries, recently her practice has centered on negotiating and executing resolutions of some of the largest and most complex litigations in the automotive industry.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Seidel represented client, Toyota, in its settlements of the \u0026ldquo;unintended acceleration\u0026rdquo; economic loss class actions that involved the consolidation of nearly 200 class actions and required close coordination of efforts with the client\u0026rsquo;s virtual law firm partners handling various aspects of the litigation and governmental/regulatory investigations.\u0026nbsp; At the time this class action litigation was settled, it represented the largest automotive settlement in US history.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Seidel was also involved in the establishment of a court-ordered \u0026ldquo;intensive settlement process\u0026rdquo; for the related personal injury and wrongful death product liability cases.\u0026nbsp; This settlement process effectively resolved the majority of individual product liability cases in the litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Seidel also assisted in the negotiations and drafted relevant documents for resolving another billion-dollar class action settlement on behalf of Toyota resulting from the Takata airbag recall that implicated multiple automobile manufacturers and she continues to manage and coordinate roll-out of the multi-year settlement relief.\u0026nbsp; This settlement was finally approved\u0026nbsp;in 2017 and set the tone for subsequent similar settlements by several other auto manufacturers.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Seidel has also successfully resolved other class actions including the Sienna sliding door and Prius IPM class action settlements (the latter\u0026nbsp;is awaiting final approval).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Ms. Seidel was part of the team that successfully resolved hundreds of matters on behalf of an integrated energy company involving product liability allegations related to a certain herbicide.\u0026nbsp; The cases were brought \u0026nbsp;by the litigation\u0026rsquo;s highest-threat plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; counsel and many were pending in one of the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country (St Clair County, IL) including a four-case consolidated trial setting that was resolved at the eve of trial.\u0026nbsp; Since the resolution of those cases, thousands of lawsuits have been filed by individuals who were exposed to the product at issue and Ms. Seidel continues\u0026nbsp;to serve as co-strategic counsel in these cases.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jacqueline-seidel","email":"jseidel@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eImplemented a strategy to resolve, on behalf of one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest pharmaceutical companies, a prescription drug litigation involving medication to treat Parkinson's Disease.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a medical device manufacturer in one of the largest nationwide product liability litigations. Assisted in the development of a comprehensive resolution strategy that effectively decreased the number of active filed cases from thousands to just over one hundred cases. Negotiated and drafted relevant documents for various firm-specific global settlement agreements and negotiated and mediated individual cases to successful resolution in federal and state court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOversees and executes on innovative strategy to resolve individual automobile product liability cases in federal multi district litigation, state consolidated litigation and other state court cases through court-ordered intensive settlement programs.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Seidel","nick_name":"Jacquie","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jacqueline","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2619,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2003-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as an \"automotive industry expert.\"","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2023"},{"title":"Named a \"Top Attorney Under 40\" - Product Liability","detail":"Law360, 2018"},{"title":"Named a “Rising Star” - Class Action \u0026 Mass Torts","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015 - 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJacqueline Seidel is a New York-based partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Seidel defends multi-national companies in complex class and mass action litigation pending in both state and federal court. She frequently\u0026nbsp;partners with clients at the outset of a matter to develop\u0026nbsp;and implement all-inclusive\u0026nbsp;exit strategies for large-scale bet-the-company litigation. Often, such strategies include liaising with clients and virtual law firms to plan a long term, systematic exit strategy and/or global resolution, structuring and implementing court-approved comprehensive settlement programs and successfully resolving large groups of cases.\u0026nbsp;She has also successfully managed - as either national coordinating counsel or as strategic counsel - putative class, mass and individual actions alleging false advertising, unfair business practices, unfair and deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, consumer protection, and a wide range of common law personal injury and property damage claims.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn recognition of her work representing Fortune 500 automotive and pharmaceutical and medical device companies in bet-the-company litigation, she has been named a New York \"Rising Star\" in class action and product liability defense by Super Lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile Ms. Seidel has represented clients in a wide range of industries, including the automobile, safety equipment, pharmaceutical, medical device, consumer goods, insurance, reinsurance and media industries, recently her practice has centered on negotiating and executing resolutions of some of the largest and most complex litigations in the automotive industry.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Seidel represented client, Toyota, in its settlements of the \u0026ldquo;unintended acceleration\u0026rdquo; economic loss class actions that involved the consolidation of nearly 200 class actions and required close coordination of efforts with the client\u0026rsquo;s virtual law firm partners handling various aspects of the litigation and governmental/regulatory investigations.\u0026nbsp; At the time this class action litigation was settled, it represented the largest automotive settlement in US history.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Seidel was also involved in the establishment of a court-ordered \u0026ldquo;intensive settlement process\u0026rdquo; for the related personal injury and wrongful death product liability cases.\u0026nbsp; This settlement process effectively resolved the majority of individual product liability cases in the litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Seidel also assisted in the negotiations and drafted relevant documents for resolving another billion-dollar class action settlement on behalf of Toyota resulting from the Takata airbag recall that implicated multiple automobile manufacturers and she continues to manage and coordinate roll-out of the multi-year settlement relief.\u0026nbsp; This settlement was finally approved\u0026nbsp;in 2017 and set the tone for subsequent similar settlements by several other auto manufacturers.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Seidel has also successfully resolved other class actions including the Sienna sliding door and Prius IPM class action settlements (the latter\u0026nbsp;is awaiting final approval).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Ms. Seidel was part of the team that successfully resolved hundreds of matters on behalf of an integrated energy company involving product liability allegations related to a certain herbicide.\u0026nbsp; The cases were brought \u0026nbsp;by the litigation\u0026rsquo;s highest-threat plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; counsel and many were pending in one of the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country (St Clair County, IL) including a four-case consolidated trial setting that was resolved at the eve of trial.\u0026nbsp; Since the resolution of those cases, thousands of lawsuits have been filed by individuals who were exposed to the product at issue and Ms. Seidel continues\u0026nbsp;to serve as co-strategic counsel in these cases.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eImplemented a strategy to resolve, on behalf of one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest pharmaceutical companies, a prescription drug litigation involving medication to treat Parkinson's Disease.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a medical device manufacturer in one of the largest nationwide product liability litigations. Assisted in the development of a comprehensive resolution strategy that effectively decreased the number of active filed cases from thousands to just over one hundred cases. Negotiated and drafted relevant documents for various firm-specific global settlement agreements and negotiated and mediated individual cases to successful resolution in federal and state court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOversees and executes on innovative strategy to resolve individual automobile product liability cases in federal multi district litigation, state consolidated litigation and other state court cases through court-ordered intensive settlement programs.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as an \"automotive industry expert.\"","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2023"},{"title":"Named a \"Top Attorney Under 40\" - Product Liability","detail":"Law360, 2018"},{"title":"Named a “Rising Star” - Class Action \u0026 Mass Torts","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015 - 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5142}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:55:06.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:55:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Seidel{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as an \\\"automotive industry expert.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a \\\"Top Attorney Under 40\\\" - Product Liability\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a “Rising Star” - Class Action \u0026amp; Mass Torts\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2015 - 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Implemented a strategy to resolve, on behalf of one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, a prescription drug litigation involving medication to treat Parkinson's Disease.{{ FIELD }}Represented a medical device manufacturer in one of the largest nationwide product liability litigations. Assisted in the development of a comprehensive resolution strategy that effectively decreased the number of active filed cases from thousands to just over one hundred cases. Negotiated and drafted relevant documents for various firm-specific global settlement agreements and negotiated and mediated individual cases to successful resolution in federal and state court.{{ FIELD }}Oversees and executes on innovative strategy to resolve individual automobile product liability cases in federal multi district litigation, state consolidated litigation and other state court cases through court-ordered intensive settlement programs.{{ FIELD }}Jacqueline Seidel is a New York-based partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice.  Ms. Seidel defends multi-national companies in complex class and mass action litigation pending in both state and federal court. She frequently partners with clients at the outset of a matter to develop and implement all-inclusive exit strategies for large-scale bet-the-company litigation. Often, such strategies include liaising with clients and virtual law firms to plan a long term, systematic exit strategy and/or global resolution, structuring and implementing court-approved comprehensive settlement programs and successfully resolving large groups of cases. She has also successfully managed - as either national coordinating counsel or as strategic counsel - putative class, mass and individual actions alleging false advertising, unfair business practices, unfair and deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, consumer protection, and a wide range of common law personal injury and property damage claims.\nIn recognition of her work representing Fortune 500 automotive and pharmaceutical and medical device companies in bet-the-company litigation, she has been named a New York \"Rising Star\" in class action and product liability defense by Super Lawyers.\nWhile Ms. Seidel has represented clients in a wide range of industries, including the automobile, safety equipment, pharmaceutical, medical device, consumer goods, insurance, reinsurance and media industries, recently her practice has centered on negotiating and executing resolutions of some of the largest and most complex litigations in the automotive industry. \nMs. Seidel represented client, Toyota, in its settlements of the “unintended acceleration” economic loss class actions that involved the consolidation of nearly 200 class actions and required close coordination of efforts with the client’s virtual law firm partners handling various aspects of the litigation and governmental/regulatory investigations.  At the time this class action litigation was settled, it represented the largest automotive settlement in US history.  Ms. Seidel was also involved in the establishment of a court-ordered “intensive settlement process” for the related personal injury and wrongful death product liability cases.  This settlement process effectively resolved the majority of individual product liability cases in the litigation. \nMs. Seidel also assisted in the negotiations and drafted relevant documents for resolving another billion-dollar class action settlement on behalf of Toyota resulting from the Takata airbag recall that implicated multiple automobile manufacturers and she continues to manage and coordinate roll-out of the multi-year settlement relief.  This settlement was finally approved in 2017 and set the tone for subsequent similar settlements by several other auto manufacturers.  Ms. Seidel has also successfully resolved other class actions including the Sienna sliding door and Prius IPM class action settlements (the latter is awaiting final approval).\nRecently, Ms. Seidel was part of the team that successfully resolved hundreds of matters on behalf of an integrated energy company involving product liability allegations related to a certain herbicide.  The cases were brought  by the litigation’s highest-threat plaintiffs’ counsel and many were pending in one of the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country (St Clair County, IL) including a four-case consolidated trial setting that was resolved at the eve of trial.  Since the resolution of those cases, thousands of lawsuits have been filed by individuals who were exposed to the product at issue and Ms. Seidel continues to serve as co-strategic counsel in these cases. Partner Recognized as an \"automotive industry expert.\" Legal 500 US, 2023 Named a \"Top Attorney Under 40\" - Product Liability Law360, 2018 Named a “Rising Star” - Class Action \u0026amp; Mass Torts Super Lawyers, 2015 - 2018 Columbia University Columbia University School of Law Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Implemented a strategy to resolve, on behalf of one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, a prescription drug litigation involving medication to treat Parkinson's Disease. Represented a medical device manufacturer in one of the largest nationwide product liability litigations. Assisted in the development of a comprehensive resolution strategy that effectively decreased the number of active filed cases from thousands to just over one hundred cases. Negotiated and drafted relevant documents for various firm-specific global settlement agreements and negotiated and mediated individual cases to successful resolution in federal and state court. Oversees and executes on innovative strategy to resolve individual automobile product liability cases in federal multi district litigation, state consolidated litigation and other state court cases through court-ordered intensive settlement programs.","searchable_name":"Jacqueline Seidel (Jacquie)","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":442418,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1470,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDarren focuses his practice on the defense of\u0026nbsp;high-stakes\u0026nbsp;ERISA litigation matters.\u0026nbsp; He defends leading companies\u0026nbsp;in a variety of ERISA class actions involving retirement\u0026nbsp;plan investments, breach of fiduciary duty claims, and other complex employee benefits disputes.\u0026nbsp;Darren also counsels clients in connection with governmental investigations involving employee benefit plans and assists clients with disputes and investigations involving executive compensation arrangements.\u0026nbsp; Darren has been recognized\u0026nbsp;as a Next Generation Lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for ERISA Litigation in each of the last five years.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDarren's representative clients include The Coca-Cola Company, The Home Depot, Bank of America, SunTrust Banks, Waste Management, and Aon Corporation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe graduated, \u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e, from The University of Tennessee College of Law, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"darren-shuler","email":"dshuler@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":502,"guid":"502.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Shuler","nick_name":"Darren","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Darren","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a Next Generation Lawyer for ERISA Litigation","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDarren focuses his practice on the defense of\u0026nbsp;high-stakes\u0026nbsp;ERISA litigation matters.\u0026nbsp; He defends leading companies\u0026nbsp;in a variety of ERISA class actions involving retirement\u0026nbsp;plan investments, breach of fiduciary duty claims, and other complex employee benefits disputes.\u0026nbsp;Darren also counsels clients in connection with governmental investigations involving employee benefit plans and assists clients with disputes and investigations involving executive compensation arrangements.\u0026nbsp; Darren has been recognized\u0026nbsp;as a Next Generation Lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for ERISA Litigation in each of the last five years.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDarren's representative clients include The Coca-Cola Company, The Home Depot, Bank of America, SunTrust Banks, Waste Management, and Aon Corporation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe graduated, \u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e, from The University of Tennessee College of Law, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a Next Generation Lawyer for ERISA Litigation","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11829}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:54.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:54.000Z","searchable_text":"Shuler{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Next Generation Lawyer for ERISA Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Darren focuses his practice on the defense of high-stakes ERISA litigation matters.  He defends leading companies in a variety of ERISA class actions involving retirement plan investments, breach of fiduciary duty claims, and other complex employee benefits disputes. Darren also counsels clients in connection with governmental investigations involving employee benefit plans and assists clients with disputes and investigations involving executive compensation arrangements.  Darren has been recognized as a Next Generation Lawyer by The Legal 500 for ERISA Litigation in each of the last five years. \nDarren's representative clients include The Coca-Cola Company, The Home Depot, Bank of America, SunTrust Banks, Waste Management, and Aon Corporation. \nHe graduated, magna cum laude, from The University of Tennessee College of Law, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif.  Partner Named a Next Generation Lawyer for ERISA Litigation Legal 500 US, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 Maryville College  The University of Tennessee University of Tennessee College of Law University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law Florida Georgia State Bar of Georgia State Bar of Florida","searchable_name":"Darren A. Shuler","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446393,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7345,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLeElle Slifer is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience in a wide range of disputes, including breach of contract, oil and gas, breach of fiduciary duty, patent and copyright infringement, non-competes, theft of trade secrets, class actions, antitrust, securities, RICO, and even the seizure of cargo barges and private jets, to name just a few. LeElle\u0026rsquo;s clients describe her as their \u0026ldquo;go-to\u0026rdquo; lawyer who can handle any problem, \u0026ldquo;providing time-critical business and strategic counsel that can make all the difference in high stakes litigation.\u0026rdquo; She understands that getting the best result means more than just the legal outcome, it means focusing on the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals at every juncture.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle has litigated in federal and state courts nationwide, trying matters before both judges and juries. She has participated in numerous domestic and foreign arbitrations, including before the International Chamber of Commerce in London. One of her trials\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings v. Hotels.com\u003c/em\u003e, in which her team won a jury verdict of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas\u0026mdash;was the first case to survive a Section 101 challenge at the Federal Circuit after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e and was the only case to do so for almost two years. She has also briefed and argued many federal and state appeals throughout the country, including to the Supreme Court in \u003cem\u003eComcast Corp. v. Behrend\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle knows that litigation forms just one aspect of her clients\u0026rsquo; businesses. She thinks tactically, keeping her clients\u0026rsquo; objectives and concerns top-of-mind as she counsels them through litigation. And her clients can attest to the success of LeElle\u0026rsquo;s results-oriented approach:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;ve had the privilege of working with many of the country\u0026rsquo;s top lawyers, and LeElle stands at the very top of that tier. A brilliant strategist and master negotiator, LeElle assesses the moment instantly, calibrates her approach, and then effectively executes with surgical precision and absolute integrity. She moves effortlessly between Wall Street boardrooms and small-town courtrooms\u0026mdash;, bringing the same commanding presence and relatable authenticity to both. Put simply, if you\u0026rsquo;re looking for strong, smart, efficient, business-first advocacy\u0026mdash;whether for a bet-the-company case or a simple dispute\u0026mdash;I couldn\u0026rsquo;t recommend her more highly.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ndash; Jason Schwartz, General Counsel for Stonebriar Commercial Finance.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"leelle-slifer","email":"lslifer@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKosmos\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSao\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTome\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrincipe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eERHC\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e(BVI)\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLimited\u003c/em\u003e (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003eKosmos\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of S\u0026atilde;o Tom\u0026eacute; and Pr\u0026iacute;ncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTorreya Partners LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. [Confidential] \u003c/em\u003e(American Arbitration Association) \u0026ndash; Represented a \u003cstrong\u003epharmaceutical marketing firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client\u0026rsquo;s desired result.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePizza Hut Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. v. Accenture LLP \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePizza Hut\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMegan Thee Stallion v.\u003cstrong\u003e 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Harris County District Court, Texas) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003erecord label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford\u003c/strong\u003e and his \u003cstrong\u003erecord label\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. \u003c/em\u003e(E.D.T.X.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003einventors and patent holders\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a \u0026sect; 101 challenge\u0026mdash;the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommercial\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eZetta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eJet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar Commercial Finance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Griffin Barges \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) \u0026ndash; Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack Stone Minerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. \u003c/em\u003e(DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMinerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eChesapeake,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTotal\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eE\u0026amp;P,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDilworth\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake \u003c/em\u003e(McMullen County District Court, Texas 343\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTextron\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eInc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eScott\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDrennan\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHyundai\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMotor\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerica\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of \u003cstrong\u003eDrennan, Hyundai\u003c/strong\u003e, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGriffith\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Waters \u003c/em\u003e(Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Slifer","nick_name":"LeElle","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","years_held":"2010 - 2011"}],"first_name":"LeElle","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"B.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023"},{"title":"Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise” ","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2024"},{"title":"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023–2025"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Under 40”","detail":"D Magazine, 2020"},{"title":"“Rising Star” ","detail":"Texas Super Lawyers, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/leelleslifer/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLeElle Slifer is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience in a wide range of disputes, including breach of contract, oil and gas, breach of fiduciary duty, patent and copyright infringement, non-competes, theft of trade secrets, class actions, antitrust, securities, RICO, and even the seizure of cargo barges and private jets, to name just a few. LeElle\u0026rsquo;s clients describe her as their \u0026ldquo;go-to\u0026rdquo; lawyer who can handle any problem, \u0026ldquo;providing time-critical business and strategic counsel that can make all the difference in high stakes litigation.\u0026rdquo; She understands that getting the best result means more than just the legal outcome, it means focusing on the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals at every juncture.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle has litigated in federal and state courts nationwide, trying matters before both judges and juries. She has participated in numerous domestic and foreign arbitrations, including before the International Chamber of Commerce in London. One of her trials\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings v. Hotels.com\u003c/em\u003e, in which her team won a jury verdict of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas\u0026mdash;was the first case to survive a Section 101 challenge at the Federal Circuit after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e and was the only case to do so for almost two years. She has also briefed and argued many federal and state appeals throughout the country, including to the Supreme Court in \u003cem\u003eComcast Corp. v. Behrend\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle knows that litigation forms just one aspect of her clients\u0026rsquo; businesses. She thinks tactically, keeping her clients\u0026rsquo; objectives and concerns top-of-mind as she counsels them through litigation. And her clients can attest to the success of LeElle\u0026rsquo;s results-oriented approach:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;ve had the privilege of working with many of the country\u0026rsquo;s top lawyers, and LeElle stands at the very top of that tier. A brilliant strategist and master negotiator, LeElle assesses the moment instantly, calibrates her approach, and then effectively executes with surgical precision and absolute integrity. She moves effortlessly between Wall Street boardrooms and small-town courtrooms\u0026mdash;, bringing the same commanding presence and relatable authenticity to both. Put simply, if you\u0026rsquo;re looking for strong, smart, efficient, business-first advocacy\u0026mdash;whether for a bet-the-company case or a simple dispute\u0026mdash;I couldn\u0026rsquo;t recommend her more highly.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ndash; Jason Schwartz, General Counsel for Stonebriar Commercial Finance.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKosmos\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSao\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTome\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrincipe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eERHC\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e(BVI)\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLimited\u003c/em\u003e (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003eKosmos\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of S\u0026atilde;o Tom\u0026eacute; and Pr\u0026iacute;ncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTorreya Partners LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. [Confidential] \u003c/em\u003e(American Arbitration Association) \u0026ndash; Represented a \u003cstrong\u003epharmaceutical marketing firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client\u0026rsquo;s desired result.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePizza Hut Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. v. Accenture LLP \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePizza Hut\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMegan Thee Stallion v.\u003cstrong\u003e 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Harris County District Court, Texas) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003erecord label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford\u003c/strong\u003e and his \u003cstrong\u003erecord label\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. \u003c/em\u003e(E.D.T.X.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003einventors and patent holders\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a \u0026sect; 101 challenge\u0026mdash;the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommercial\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eZetta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eJet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar Commercial Finance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Griffin Barges \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) \u0026ndash; Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack Stone Minerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. \u003c/em\u003e(DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMinerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eChesapeake,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTotal\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eE\u0026amp;P,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDilworth\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake \u003c/em\u003e(McMullen County District Court, Texas 343\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTextron\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eInc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eScott\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDrennan\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHyundai\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMotor\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerica\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of \u003cstrong\u003eDrennan, Hyundai\u003c/strong\u003e, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGriffith\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Waters \u003c/em\u003e(Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023"},{"title":"Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise” ","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2024"},{"title":"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023–2025"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Under 40”","detail":"D Magazine, 2020"},{"title":"“Rising Star” ","detail":"Texas Super Lawyers, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13385}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T18:39:07.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T18:39:07.000Z","searchable_text":"Slifer{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2023–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Best Lawyers Under 40”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D Magazine, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Rising Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Super Lawyers, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Kosmos Energy Sao Tome and Principe v. ERHC Energy (BVI) Limited (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) – Represented Kosmos in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of São Tomé and Príncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Torreya Partners LLC v. [Confidential] (American Arbitration Association) – Represented a pharmaceutical marketing firm in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client’s desired result.{{ FIELD }}Pizza Hut Inc. v. Accenture LLP (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented Pizza Hut in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint.{{ FIELD }}Megan Thee Stallion v. 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford (Harris County District Court, Texas) – Represented record label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford and his record label in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation.{{ FIELD }}DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (E.D.T.X.) – Represented inventors and patent holders in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a § 101 challenge—the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l.{{ FIELD }}Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Zetta Jet et al. (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th Judicial District) – Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys’ fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement.{{ FIELD }}Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Griffin Barges (S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) – Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. (DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial.{{ FIELD }}Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, Total E\u0026amp;P, et al. (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants.{{ FIELD }}Dilworth v. Chesapeake (McMullen County District Court, Texas 343rd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family.{{ FIELD }}Bell Textron Inc. v. Scott Drennan and Hyundai Motor America (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th Judicial District) – Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of Drennan, Hyundai, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement.{{ FIELD }}Griffith v. Waters (Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) – After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.{{ FIELD }}LeElle Slifer is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience in a wide range of disputes, including breach of contract, oil and gas, breach of fiduciary duty, patent and copyright infringement, non-competes, theft of trade secrets, class actions, antitrust, securities, RICO, and even the seizure of cargo barges and private jets, to name just a few. LeElle’s clients describe her as their “go-to” lawyer who can handle any problem, “providing time-critical business and strategic counsel that can make all the difference in high stakes litigation.” She understands that getting the best result means more than just the legal outcome, it means focusing on the client’s business goals at every juncture.\nLeElle has litigated in federal and state courts nationwide, trying matters before both judges and juries. She has participated in numerous domestic and foreign arbitrations, including before the International Chamber of Commerce in London. One of her trials—DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, in which her team won a jury verdict of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas—was the first case to survive a Section 101 challenge at the Federal Circuit after the Supreme Court issued Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l and was the only case to do so for almost two years. She has also briefed and argued many federal and state appeals throughout the country, including to the Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.\nLeElle knows that litigation forms just one aspect of her clients’ businesses. She thinks tactically, keeping her clients’ objectives and concerns top-of-mind as she counsels them through litigation. And her clients can attest to the success of LeElle’s results-oriented approach:\n“I’ve had the privilege of working with many of the country’s top lawyers, and LeElle stands at the very top of that tier. A brilliant strategist and master negotiator, LeElle assesses the moment instantly, calibrates her approach, and then effectively executes with surgical precision and absolute integrity. She moves effortlessly between Wall Street boardrooms and small-town courtrooms—, bringing the same commanding presence and relatable authenticity to both. Put simply, if you’re looking for strong, smart, efficient, business-first advocacy—whether for a bet-the-company case or a simple dispute—I couldn’t recommend her more highly.” – Jason Schwartz, General Counsel for Stonebriar Commercial Finance. Partner Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026 Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023 Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise”  Texas Lawyer, 2024 “500 Leading Energy Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2023–2025 “Best Lawyers Under 40” D Magazine, 2020 “Rising Star”  Texas Super Lawyers, 2020 Duke University Duke University School of Law Harvard University Harvard Law School Texas Board, Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School Board, Teneo Network Law Clerk, Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Kosmos Energy Sao Tome and Principe v. ERHC Energy (BVI) Limited (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) – Represented Kosmos in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of São Tomé and Príncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys’ fees. Torreya Partners LLC v. [Confidential] (American Arbitration Association) – Represented a pharmaceutical marketing firm in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client’s desired result. Pizza Hut Inc. v. Accenture LLP (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented Pizza Hut in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint. Megan Thee Stallion v. 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford (Harris County District Court, Texas) – Represented record label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford and his record label in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (E.D.T.X.) – Represented inventors and patent holders in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a § 101 challenge—the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l. Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Zetta Jet et al. (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th Judicial District) – Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys’ fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement. Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Griffin Barges (S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) – Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys’ fees. Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. (DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial. Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, Total E\u0026amp;P, et al. (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants. Dilworth v. Chesapeake (McMullen County District Court, Texas 343rd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family. Bell Textron Inc. v. Scott Drennan and Hyundai Motor America (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th Judicial District) – Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of Drennan, Hyundai, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement. Griffith v. Waters (Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) – After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.","searchable_name":"LeElle B. Slifer","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427550,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":633,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLarry Slovensky represents companies and individuals in complex business tort and breach of contract litigation, corporate governance disputes, and legal malpractice/law firm defense matters in Georgia and across the country. He has substantial experience in trying cases before judges and\u0026nbsp;juries, and he has represented clients in business litigation matters for more than 30 years.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry's clients range\u0026nbsp;in size from\u0026nbsp;large publicly traded corporations, to smaller privately-held funds and portfolio companies, to individuals.\u0026nbsp; He has represented clients\u0026nbsp;in a variety of industries, including banking and financial services, construction,\u0026nbsp;consumer retail sales, healthcare, real estate, technology, and telecommunications. Larry has successfully handled corporate governance disputes between\u0026nbsp;LLC members,\u0026nbsp;post-acquisition purchase price adjustment proceedings, and independent board investigations.\u0026nbsp; In addition, he handles a wide range of other business tort, breach of contract, class action and legal malpractice lawsuits in state and federal court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry spent five years earlier in his career as in-house counsel with a national Internet service provider, where he managed all of the company\u0026rsquo;s litigation, including consumer class actions, patent infringement litigation, intellectual property disputes, anti-spam litigation, consumer disputes and general commercial litigation. He also served as ethics and loss prevention counsel for his prior law firm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry is the author of a chapter on Business Torts in the annually updated\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Business Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;treatise.\u0026nbsp; He represents veterans on a pro bono basis through the Emory Law Volunteer Clinic for Veterans and the National Veterans Legal Services Program, and he oversees the firm's veterans pro bono efforts.\u0026nbsp; Larry also actively supports civic and charitable organizations in Atlanta.\u0026nbsp; He is Vice Chair of the board of directors of the Georgia Justice Project and manages our firm's participation in the Cristo Rey High School internship program.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lawrence-slovensky","email":"lslovensky@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBusiness Litigation and Corporate Governance Disputes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a portfolio company of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOaktree Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with federal litigation filed against the City of Austin, Texas in W.D. Tex. relating to municipal efforts to use condemnation powers to terminate the company\u0026rsquo;s long-term contract for operation of the South Terminal at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and related state proceedings ultimately resulting in a $88 million settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented multi-family real estate company\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eResia\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein asserting multi-million dollar tortious interference and breach of contract claims in the Superior of Fulton County, Georgia\u0026rsquo;s Business Court arising from a failed commercial real estate purchase transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented an affiliate of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTruist Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in asserting multi-million dollar tort and contract-based claims in M.D. Fla. arising out of an equipment sale and lease-back transaction involving mobile solar generators.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a successful appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals overturning a $135 million jury verdict rendered in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon declaratory judgment and an attorney's fee award for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecommercial real estate private equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Delaware Chancery Court expedited proceeding in an intra-LLC dispute over management of a major hotel and convention center renovation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon final summary judgment for private equity infrastructure fund\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Highstar Capital IV, LP\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand its officers in a long-running lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County\u0026rsquo;s Business Court in which the plaintiff sought a multi-million dollar punitive damages award arising from the fund's $470 million acquisition of a portfolio company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a jury trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of a portfolio company of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;sued by a developer over a property line dispute in connection with the acquisition of a multimillion-dollar student housing development; affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a bench trial in a case filed by\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia municipality\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation relating to a long-term $40 million water supply agreement; obtained an order affirming the validity of the underlying agreement, affirmance by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and denial of petition for\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the Georgia Supreme Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a purchase price escrow dispute with former shareholders of an acquired telecommunications company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSunTrust Bank\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand an individual broker in defense of a $100 million claim before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel arising from sale of preferred securities to state chartered banks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrepared an independent counsel report for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003especial litigation committee\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of a corporate board\u0026nbsp;on responding to shareholder demands for institution of breach of fiduciary duty litigation against directors relating to prior corporate acquisitions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an independent investigation for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eboard of a publicly traded pharmaceutical corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in response to demands from two board members for review of prior corporate transactions; issued a substantial report to the board, which was unanimously accepted by the board, including by the dissenting board members.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esoftware purchaser\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation against a software development company in the Superior Court of DeKalb County and obtained a jury verdict awarding all damages sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLegal Malpractice and Professional Liability Defense\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon final summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM Law 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a N.D. Ga. lawsuit brought by a receiver alleging malpractice arising from a Georgia regional bank failure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM Law 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and an individually-named lawyer\u0026nbsp;in defense of RICO and business tort claims in E.D. Pa. asserted against the law firm by a third party relating to a client's activities and obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice litigation in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia arising from the firm\u0026rsquo;s prior representation of a closely-held corporation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational law firm and individually named lawyers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of legal malpractice claims asserted by receiver on behalf of creditors of former regional bank client.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eregional law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with favorable resolution of legal malpractice claims asserted by a bankruptcy trustee on behalf of the estate of the firm\u0026rsquo;s former real estate developer client.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;an\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Atlanta-based law firm\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein connection with favorable resolution of contribution and malpractice claims arising from damages awarded against a former client for fraud in a prior lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eindividual Georgia lawyers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in fee arbitration matters and responses to bar grievances before the State Bar of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eClass Action Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational court reporting company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of multiple statewide consumer class actions relating to billing practices, resulting in two orders denying class certification under California and Florida consumer protection statutes and voluntary dismissals of all related cases. See\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re: Motions to Certify Classes Against Court Reporting Firms\u003c/em\u003e, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (aff\u0026rsquo;d by 11th Cir.);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eColapinto v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 2011 WL 913251 (C.D. Cal. 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etelecommunications company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of a class action lawsuit under California\u0026rsquo;s call-recording statue and obtained less-than-cost-of-defense settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational Internet service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of consumer class action relating to billing practices and related false advertising claims; obtained order compelling arbitration and subsequent favorable settlement and dismissal of claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational Internet service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of nationwide class action relating to early termination fees; obtained order dismissing damages claims based on voluntary payment doctrine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of multiple consumer and public interest class actions challenging company\u0026rsquo;s conversion from nonprofit to for-profit status.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":178}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1231,"guid":"1231.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Slovensky","nick_name":"Larry","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Lawrence","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Author of “Georgia Business Torts” chapter in Georgia Business Litigation 2024 treatise","detail":"ALM/Law.com"},{"title":"2023 Georgia Best Lawyer’s list for Legal Malpractice Law","detail":"Georgia's Best Lawyers"},{"title":"Peer Rated AV® Preeminent™","detail":"Martindale-Hubbell"},{"title":"2015 Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing","detail":"\"Interlocutory Appeal of Class Certification Decisions Under Rule 23(f)”"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/larryslovensky/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLarry Slovensky represents companies and individuals in complex business tort and breach of contract litigation, corporate governance disputes, and legal malpractice/law firm defense matters in Georgia and across the country. He has substantial experience in trying cases before judges and\u0026nbsp;juries, and he has represented clients in business litigation matters for more than 30 years.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry's clients range\u0026nbsp;in size from\u0026nbsp;large publicly traded corporations, to smaller privately-held funds and portfolio companies, to individuals.\u0026nbsp; He has represented clients\u0026nbsp;in a variety of industries, including banking and financial services, construction,\u0026nbsp;consumer retail sales, healthcare, real estate, technology, and telecommunications. Larry has successfully handled corporate governance disputes between\u0026nbsp;LLC members,\u0026nbsp;post-acquisition purchase price adjustment proceedings, and independent board investigations.\u0026nbsp; In addition, he handles a wide range of other business tort, breach of contract, class action and legal malpractice lawsuits in state and federal court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry spent five years earlier in his career as in-house counsel with a national Internet service provider, where he managed all of the company\u0026rsquo;s litigation, including consumer class actions, patent infringement litigation, intellectual property disputes, anti-spam litigation, consumer disputes and general commercial litigation. He also served as ethics and loss prevention counsel for his prior law firm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry is the author of a chapter on Business Torts in the annually updated\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Business Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;treatise.\u0026nbsp; He represents veterans on a pro bono basis through the Emory Law Volunteer Clinic for Veterans and the National Veterans Legal Services Program, and he oversees the firm's veterans pro bono efforts.\u0026nbsp; Larry also actively supports civic and charitable organizations in Atlanta.\u0026nbsp; He is Vice Chair of the board of directors of the Georgia Justice Project and manages our firm's participation in the Cristo Rey High School internship program.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBusiness Litigation and Corporate Governance Disputes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a portfolio company of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOaktree Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with federal litigation filed against the City of Austin, Texas in W.D. Tex. relating to municipal efforts to use condemnation powers to terminate the company\u0026rsquo;s long-term contract for operation of the South Terminal at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and related state proceedings ultimately resulting in a $88 million settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented multi-family real estate company\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eResia\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein asserting multi-million dollar tortious interference and breach of contract claims in the Superior of Fulton County, Georgia\u0026rsquo;s Business Court arising from a failed commercial real estate purchase transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented an affiliate of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTruist Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in asserting multi-million dollar tort and contract-based claims in M.D. Fla. arising out of an equipment sale and lease-back transaction involving mobile solar generators.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a successful appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals overturning a $135 million jury verdict rendered in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon declaratory judgment and an attorney's fee award for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecommercial real estate private equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Delaware Chancery Court expedited proceeding in an intra-LLC dispute over management of a major hotel and convention center renovation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon final summary judgment for private equity infrastructure fund\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Highstar Capital IV, LP\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand its officers in a long-running lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County\u0026rsquo;s Business Court in which the plaintiff sought a multi-million dollar punitive damages award arising from the fund's $470 million acquisition of a portfolio company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a jury trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of a portfolio company of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;sued by a developer over a property line dispute in connection with the acquisition of a multimillion-dollar student housing development; affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a bench trial in a case filed by\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia municipality\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation relating to a long-term $40 million water supply agreement; obtained an order affirming the validity of the underlying agreement, affirmance by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and denial of petition for\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the Georgia Supreme Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a purchase price escrow dispute with former shareholders of an acquired telecommunications company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSunTrust Bank\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand an individual broker in defense of a $100 million claim before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel arising from sale of preferred securities to state chartered banks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrepared an independent counsel report for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003especial litigation committee\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of a corporate board\u0026nbsp;on responding to shareholder demands for institution of breach of fiduciary duty litigation against directors relating to prior corporate acquisitions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an independent investigation for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eboard of a publicly traded pharmaceutical corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in response to demands from two board members for review of prior corporate transactions; issued a substantial report to the board, which was unanimously accepted by the board, including by the dissenting board members.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esoftware purchaser\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation against a software development company in the Superior Court of DeKalb County and obtained a jury verdict awarding all damages sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLegal Malpractice and Professional Liability Defense\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon final summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM Law 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a N.D. Ga. lawsuit brought by a receiver alleging malpractice arising from a Georgia regional bank failure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM Law 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and an individually-named lawyer\u0026nbsp;in defense of RICO and business tort claims in E.D. Pa. asserted against the law firm by a third party relating to a client's activities and obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice litigation in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia arising from the firm\u0026rsquo;s prior representation of a closely-held corporation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational law firm and individually named lawyers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of legal malpractice claims asserted by receiver on behalf of creditors of former regional bank client.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eregional law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with favorable resolution of legal malpractice claims asserted by a bankruptcy trustee on behalf of the estate of the firm\u0026rsquo;s former real estate developer client.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;an\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Atlanta-based law firm\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein connection with favorable resolution of contribution and malpractice claims arising from damages awarded against a former client for fraud in a prior lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eindividual Georgia lawyers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in fee arbitration matters and responses to bar grievances before the State Bar of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eClass Action Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational court reporting company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of multiple statewide consumer class actions relating to billing practices, resulting in two orders denying class certification under California and Florida consumer protection statutes and voluntary dismissals of all related cases. See\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re: Motions to Certify Classes Against Court Reporting Firms\u003c/em\u003e, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (aff\u0026rsquo;d by 11th Cir.);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eColapinto v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 2011 WL 913251 (C.D. Cal. 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etelecommunications company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of a class action lawsuit under California\u0026rsquo;s call-recording statue and obtained less-than-cost-of-defense settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational Internet service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of consumer class action relating to billing practices and related false advertising claims; obtained order compelling arbitration and subsequent favorable settlement and dismissal of claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational Internet service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of nationwide class action relating to early termination fees; obtained order dismissing damages claims based on voluntary payment doctrine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of multiple consumer and public interest class actions challenging company\u0026rsquo;s conversion from nonprofit to for-profit status.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Author of “Georgia Business Torts” chapter in Georgia Business Litigation 2024 treatise","detail":"ALM/Law.com"},{"title":"2023 Georgia Best Lawyer’s list for Legal Malpractice Law","detail":"Georgia's Best Lawyers"},{"title":"Peer Rated AV® Preeminent™","detail":"Martindale-Hubbell"},{"title":"2015 Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing","detail":"\"Interlocutory Appeal of Class Certification Decisions Under Rule 23(f)”"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10517}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Slovensky{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Author of “Georgia Business Torts” chapter in Georgia Business Litigation 2024 treatise\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"ALM/Law.com\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2023 Georgia Best Lawyer’s list for Legal Malpractice Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgia's Best Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Peer Rated AV® Preeminent™\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Martindale-Hubbell\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2015 Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Interlocutory Appeal of Class Certification Decisions Under Rule 23(f)”\"}{{ FIELD }}Business Litigation and Corporate Governance Disputes\nRepresented a portfolio company of Oaktree Capital in connection with federal litigation filed against the City of Austin, Texas in W.D. Tex. relating to municipal efforts to use condemnation powers to terminate the company’s long-term contract for operation of the South Terminal at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and related state proceedings ultimately resulting in a $88 million settlement.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented multi-family real estate company Resia in asserting multi-million dollar tortious interference and breach of contract claims in the Superior of Fulton County, Georgia’s Business Court arising from a failed commercial real estate purchase transaction.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented an affiliate of Truist Bank in asserting multi-million dollar tort and contract-based claims in M.D. Fla. arising out of an equipment sale and lease-back transaction involving mobile solar generators.{{ FIELD }}Represented Global Payments Direct, Inc. in a successful appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals overturning a $135 million jury verdict rendered in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.{{ FIELD }}Won declaratory judgment and an attorney's fee award for a commercial real estate private equity fund in a Delaware Chancery Court expedited proceeding in an intra-LLC dispute over management of a major hotel and convention center renovation.{{ FIELD }}Won final summary judgment for private equity infrastructure fund Highstar Capital IV, LP and its officers in a long-running lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County’s Business Court in which the plaintiff sought a multi-million dollar punitive damages award arising from the fund's $470 million acquisition of a portfolio company.{{ FIELD }}Won a jury trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of a portfolio company of a private equity fund sued by a developer over a property line dispute in connection with the acquisition of a multimillion-dollar student housing development; affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals.{{ FIELD }}Won a bench trial in a case filed by a Georgia municipality in litigation relating to a long-term $40 million water supply agreement; obtained an order affirming the validity of the underlying agreement, affirmance by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and denial of petition for certiorari by the Georgia Supreme Court.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a multimillion-dollar award for a publicly traded corporation in a purchase price escrow dispute with former shareholders of an acquired telecommunications company.{{ FIELD }}Represented SunTrust Bank and an individual broker in defense of a $100 million claim before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel arising from sale of preferred securities to state chartered banks.{{ FIELD }}Prepared an independent counsel report for a special litigation committee of a corporate board on responding to shareholder demands for institution of breach of fiduciary duty litigation against directors relating to prior corporate acquisitions.{{ FIELD }}Conducted an independent investigation for the board of a publicly traded pharmaceutical corporation in response to demands from two board members for review of prior corporate transactions; issued a substantial report to the board, which was unanimously accepted by the board, including by the dissenting board members.{{ FIELD }}Represented a software purchaser in litigation against a software development company in the Superior Court of DeKalb County and obtained a jury verdict awarding all damages sought.{{ FIELD }}Legal Malpractice and Professional Liability Defense\nWon final summary judgment for an AM Law 100 law firm in a N.D. Ga. lawsuit brought by a receiver alleging malpractice arising from a Georgia regional bank failure.\nRepresented an AM Law 100 law firm and an individually-named lawyer in defense of RICO and business tort claims in E.D. Pa. asserted against the law firm by a third party relating to a client's activities and obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims.\nRepresented an AM 100 law firm in breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice litigation in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia arising from the firm’s prior representation of a closely-held corporation.\nRepresented a national law firm and individually named lawyers in defense of legal malpractice claims asserted by receiver on behalf of creditors of former regional bank client.\nRepresented a regional law firm in connection with favorable resolution of legal malpractice claims asserted by a bankruptcy trustee on behalf of the estate of the firm’s former real estate developer client.\nRepresented an Atlanta-based law firm in connection with favorable resolution of contribution and malpractice claims arising from damages awarded against a former client for fraud in a prior lawsuit.\nRepresented individual Georgia lawyers in fee arbitration matters and responses to bar grievances before the State Bar of Georgia.{{ FIELD }}Class Action Litigation\nRepresented a national court reporting company in defense of multiple statewide consumer class actions relating to billing practices, resulting in two orders denying class certification under California and Florida consumer protection statutes and voluntary dismissals of all related cases. See In Re: Motions to Certify Classes Against Court Reporting Firms, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (aff’d by 11th Cir.); Colapinto v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC, 2011 WL 913251 (C.D. Cal. 2011).\nRepresented a telecommunications company in defense of a class action lawsuit under California’s call-recording statue and obtained less-than-cost-of-defense settlement.\nRepresented a national Internet service provider in defense of consumer class action relating to billing practices and related false advertising claims; obtained order compelling arbitration and subsequent favorable settlement and dismissal of claims.\nRepresented a national Internet service provider in defense of nationwide class action relating to early termination fees; obtained order dismissing damages claims based on voluntary payment doctrine.\nRepresented a healthcare insurance company in defense of multiple consumer and public interest class actions challenging company’s conversion from nonprofit to for-profit status.{{ FIELD }}Larry Slovensky represents companies and individuals in complex business tort and breach of contract litigation, corporate governance disputes, and legal malpractice/law firm defense matters in Georgia and across the country. He has substantial experience in trying cases before judges and juries, and he has represented clients in business litigation matters for more than 30 years.\nLarry's clients range in size from large publicly traded corporations, to smaller privately-held funds and portfolio companies, to individuals.  He has represented clients in a variety of industries, including banking and financial services, construction, consumer retail sales, healthcare, real estate, technology, and telecommunications. Larry has successfully handled corporate governance disputes between LLC members, post-acquisition purchase price adjustment proceedings, and independent board investigations.  In addition, he handles a wide range of other business tort, breach of contract, class action and legal malpractice lawsuits in state and federal court.\nLarry spent five years earlier in his career as in-house counsel with a national Internet service provider, where he managed all of the company’s litigation, including consumer class actions, patent infringement litigation, intellectual property disputes, anti-spam litigation, consumer disputes and general commercial litigation. He also served as ethics and loss prevention counsel for his prior law firm.\nLarry is the author of a chapter on Business Torts in the annually updated Georgia Business Litigation treatise.  He represents veterans on a pro bono basis through the Emory Law Volunteer Clinic for Veterans and the National Veterans Legal Services Program, and he oversees the firm's veterans pro bono efforts.  Larry also actively supports civic and charitable organizations in Atlanta.  He is Vice Chair of the board of directors of the Georgia Justice Project and manages our firm's participation in the Cristo Rey High School internship program. Lawrence A. Slovensky Partner Author of “Georgia Business Torts” chapter in Georgia Business Litigation 2024 treatise ALM/Law.com 2023 Georgia Best Lawyer’s list for Legal Malpractice Law Georgia's Best Lawyers Peer Rated AV® Preeminent™ Martindale-Hubbell 2015 Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing \"Interlocutory Appeal of Class Certification Decisions Under Rule 23(f)” University of South Carolina  University of Chicago University of Chicago Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia Business Litigation and Corporate Governance Disputes\nRepresented a portfolio company of Oaktree Capital in connection with federal litigation filed against the City of Austin, Texas in W.D. Tex. relating to municipal efforts to use condemnation powers to terminate the company’s long-term contract for operation of the South Terminal at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and related state proceedings ultimately resulting in a $88 million settlement. Successfully represented multi-family real estate company Resia in asserting multi-million dollar tortious interference and breach of contract claims in the Superior of Fulton County, Georgia’s Business Court arising from a failed commercial real estate purchase transaction. Successfully represented an affiliate of Truist Bank in asserting multi-million dollar tort and contract-based claims in M.D. Fla. arising out of an equipment sale and lease-back transaction involving mobile solar generators. Represented Global Payments Direct, Inc. in a successful appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals overturning a $135 million jury verdict rendered in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia. Won declaratory judgment and an attorney's fee award for a commercial real estate private equity fund in a Delaware Chancery Court expedited proceeding in an intra-LLC dispute over management of a major hotel and convention center renovation. Won final summary judgment for private equity infrastructure fund Highstar Capital IV, LP and its officers in a long-running lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County’s Business Court in which the plaintiff sought a multi-million dollar punitive damages award arising from the fund's $470 million acquisition of a portfolio company. Won a jury trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of a portfolio company of a private equity fund sued by a developer over a property line dispute in connection with the acquisition of a multimillion-dollar student housing development; affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals. Won a bench trial in a case filed by a Georgia municipality in litigation relating to a long-term $40 million water supply agreement; obtained an order affirming the validity of the underlying agreement, affirmance by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and denial of petition for certiorari by the Georgia Supreme Court. Obtained a multimillion-dollar award for a publicly traded corporation in a purchase price escrow dispute with former shareholders of an acquired telecommunications company. Represented SunTrust Bank and an individual broker in defense of a $100 million claim before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel arising from sale of preferred securities to state chartered banks. Prepared an independent counsel report for a special litigation committee of a corporate board on responding to shareholder demands for institution of breach of fiduciary duty litigation against directors relating to prior corporate acquisitions. Conducted an independent investigation for the board of a publicly traded pharmaceutical corporation in response to demands from two board members for review of prior corporate transactions; issued a substantial report to the board, which was unanimously accepted by the board, including by the dissenting board members. Represented a software purchaser in litigation against a software development company in the Superior Court of DeKalb County and obtained a jury verdict awarding all damages sought. Legal Malpractice and Professional Liability Defense\nWon final summary judgment for an AM Law 100 law firm in a N.D. Ga. lawsuit brought by a receiver alleging malpractice arising from a Georgia regional bank failure.\nRepresented an AM Law 100 law firm and an individually-named lawyer in defense of RICO and business tort claims in E.D. Pa. asserted against the law firm by a third party relating to a client's activities and obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims.\nRepresented an AM 100 law firm in breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice litigation in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia arising from the firm’s prior representation of a closely-held corporation.\nRepresented a national law firm and individually named lawyers in defense of legal malpractice claims asserted by receiver on behalf of creditors of former regional bank client.\nRepresented a regional law firm in connection with favorable resolution of legal malpractice claims asserted by a bankruptcy trustee on behalf of the estate of the firm’s former real estate developer client.\nRepresented an Atlanta-based law firm in connection with favorable resolution of contribution and malpractice claims arising from damages awarded against a former client for fraud in a prior lawsuit.\nRepresented individual Georgia lawyers in fee arbitration matters and responses to bar grievances before the State Bar of Georgia. Class Action Litigation\nRepresented a national court reporting company in defense of multiple statewide consumer class actions relating to billing practices, resulting in two orders denying class certification under California and Florida consumer protection statutes and voluntary dismissals of all related cases. See In Re: Motions to Certify Classes Against Court Reporting Firms, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (aff’d by 11th Cir.); Colapinto v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC, 2011 WL 913251 (C.D. Cal. 2011).\nRepresented a telecommunications company in defense of a class action lawsuit under California’s call-recording statue and obtained less-than-cost-of-defense settlement.\nRepresented a national Internet service provider in defense of consumer class action relating to billing practices and related false advertising claims; obtained order compelling arbitration and subsequent favorable settlement and dismissal of claims.\nRepresented a national Internet service provider in defense of nationwide class action relating to early termination fees; obtained order dismissing damages claims based on voluntary payment doctrine.\nRepresented a healthcare insurance company in defense of multiple consumer and public interest class actions challenging company’s conversion from nonprofit to for-profit status.","searchable_name":"Lawrence A. Slovensky (Larry)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442426,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":171,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eReggie Smith's practice focus is international arbitration and cross-border litigation, with a particular specialty in handling commercial disputes in the energy sector as well as representing investors in disputes with sovereigns that have taken actions to either destroy or impair investments through conduct ranging from outright expropriations to the revocation or modification of investment incentive programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRelying on years of experience in representing companies and individuals in significant business litigation disputes in U.S. courts, Reggie brings advocacy skills to his international arbitration and cross-border litigation practice that have yielded some of the largest investment arbitration awards and court judgments on record. For example, Reggie served as co-lead counsel in a suit against Argentina in federal court in New York that resulted in the largest judgment ever rendered against a sovereign by a U.S. court. As lead counsel in an arbitration for a European oil and gas company against the Government of Kazakhstan, Reggie secured the largest award on record at the time under the Energy Charter Treaty. Reggie similarly took the lead in representing an investor against the Government of Egypt relating to the expropriation of a real estate project that resulted in the largest award on record for an individual claimant. Reggie also served as lead counsel in obtaining the largest moral damages award on record for an investor in an investment dispute against Vietnam. Reggie has prosecuted over 40 cases for investors against sovereigns under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing experience developed as a seasoned oil and gas litigator in the U.S. courts, Reggie also has deep expertise in representing energy companies in international and domestic commercial arbitration disputes. Whether the disputes involve the oil and gas sector or renewable energy projects, Reggie has taken the lead in representing some of the world's largest energy companies in high-stakes arbitrations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile clients routinely entrust Reggie to serve as their advocate in high stakes arbitrations and litigations, they also look to him as a trusted strategic advisor in helping them manage their disputes to reach a commercial solution that serves their long-term best interests. Reggie well understands that clients are not in the business of litigating their disputes, and litigation is simply a tool to be used in reaching a commercial resolution that furthers the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"reginald-smith","email":"rsmith@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Commercial Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etwo steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDubai-based iron ore mining companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Investment Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor\u0026rsquo;s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a number of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean renewable energy company investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Kuwaiti investor group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish and Irish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government\u0026rsquo;s role in facilitating an illegal \u0026ldquo;tunneling\u0026rdquo; of the investors\u0026rsquo; investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eItalian\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003einvestors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea group of\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government\u0026rsquo;s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors\u0026rsquo; commercial real estate holdings in Baku.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Swedish investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Italian investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor\u0026rsquo;s resort development property.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation Relating to International Arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Canadian mining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European resort developer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean infrastructure construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethree of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest manufacturing companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSpanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ein litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest retailers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":229}]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Smith","nick_name":"Reggie","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Reginald","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"AmLaw"},{"title":"Energy MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation ","detail":"Legal 500, repeated listings"},{"title":"Litigation Star ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eReggie Smith's practice focus is international arbitration and cross-border litigation, with a particular specialty in handling commercial disputes in the energy sector as well as representing investors in disputes with sovereigns that have taken actions to either destroy or impair investments through conduct ranging from outright expropriations to the revocation or modification of investment incentive programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRelying on years of experience in representing companies and individuals in significant business litigation disputes in U.S. courts, Reggie brings advocacy skills to his international arbitration and cross-border litigation practice that have yielded some of the largest investment arbitration awards and court judgments on record. For example, Reggie served as co-lead counsel in a suit against Argentina in federal court in New York that resulted in the largest judgment ever rendered against a sovereign by a U.S. court. As lead counsel in an arbitration for a European oil and gas company against the Government of Kazakhstan, Reggie secured the largest award on record at the time under the Energy Charter Treaty. Reggie similarly took the lead in representing an investor against the Government of Egypt relating to the expropriation of a real estate project that resulted in the largest award on record for an individual claimant. Reggie also served as lead counsel in obtaining the largest moral damages award on record for an investor in an investment dispute against Vietnam. Reggie has prosecuted over 40 cases for investors against sovereigns under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing experience developed as a seasoned oil and gas litigator in the U.S. courts, Reggie also has deep expertise in representing energy companies in international and domestic commercial arbitration disputes. Whether the disputes involve the oil and gas sector or renewable energy projects, Reggie has taken the lead in representing some of the world's largest energy companies in high-stakes arbitrations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile clients routinely entrust Reggie to serve as their advocate in high stakes arbitrations and litigations, they also look to him as a trusted strategic advisor in helping them manage their disputes to reach a commercial solution that serves their long-term best interests. Reggie well understands that clients are not in the business of litigating their disputes, and litigation is simply a tool to be used in reaching a commercial resolution that furthers the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Commercial Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etwo steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDubai-based iron ore mining companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Investment Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor\u0026rsquo;s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a number of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean renewable energy company investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Kuwaiti investor group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish and Irish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government\u0026rsquo;s role in facilitating an illegal \u0026ldquo;tunneling\u0026rdquo; of the investors\u0026rsquo; investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eItalian\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003einvestors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea group of\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government\u0026rsquo;s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors\u0026rsquo; commercial real estate holdings in Baku.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Swedish investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Italian investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor\u0026rsquo;s resort development property.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation Relating to International Arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Canadian mining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European resort developer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean infrastructure construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethree of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest manufacturing companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSpanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ein litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest retailers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"AmLaw"},{"title":"Energy MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation ","detail":"Legal 500, repeated listings"},{"title":"Litigation Star ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1188}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:05:18.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:05:18.000Z","searchable_text":"Smith{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"AmLaw\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Energy MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, repeated listings\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}International Commercial Arbitration DisputesRepresenting an oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources.{{ FIELD }}Representing two steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies in a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine.{{ FIELD }}Representing Dubai-based iron ore mining companies in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company.{{ FIELD }}Representing an independent oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract.{{ FIELD }}Representing an independent oil and gas company in a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European oil and gas company in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm.{{ FIELD }}Representing an international petrochemical company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.{{ FIELD }}International Investment Arbitration DisputesRepresenting a European oil and gas company in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor’s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets.{{ FIELD }}Representing a number of European renewable energy company investors in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Kuwaiti investor group in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project.{{ FIELD }}Representing English and Irish investors in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government’s role in facilitating an illegal “tunneling” of the investors’ investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters.{{ FIELD }}Representing Italian investors in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession.{{ FIELD }}Representing a group of English investors in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government’s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors’ commercial real estate holdings in Baku.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Dutch investor in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Swedish investor in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union.{{ FIELD }}Representing an Italian investor in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor’s resort development property.{{ FIELD }}U.S. Litigation Relating to International ArbitrationRepresenting a Canadian mining company in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European resort developer in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement.{{ FIELD }}Representing an infrastructure construction company in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European energy company in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European energy company in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major energy company in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European energy company in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration.{{ FIELD }}U.S. LitigationRepresenting three of the world’s largest manufacturing companies in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market.{{ FIELD }}Representing Spanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund in litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing.{{ FIELD }}Representing one of the world’s largest retailers in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.{{ FIELD }}Reggie Smith's practice focus is international arbitration and cross-border litigation, with a particular specialty in handling commercial disputes in the energy sector as well as representing investors in disputes with sovereigns that have taken actions to either destroy or impair investments through conduct ranging from outright expropriations to the revocation or modification of investment incentive programs.\nRelying on years of experience in representing companies and individuals in significant business litigation disputes in U.S. courts, Reggie brings advocacy skills to his international arbitration and cross-border litigation practice that have yielded some of the largest investment arbitration awards and court judgments on record. For example, Reggie served as co-lead counsel in a suit against Argentina in federal court in New York that resulted in the largest judgment ever rendered against a sovereign by a U.S. court. As lead counsel in an arbitration for a European oil and gas company against the Government of Kazakhstan, Reggie secured the largest award on record at the time under the Energy Charter Treaty. Reggie similarly took the lead in representing an investor against the Government of Egypt relating to the expropriation of a real estate project that resulted in the largest award on record for an individual claimant. Reggie also served as lead counsel in obtaining the largest moral damages award on record for an investor in an investment dispute against Vietnam. Reggie has prosecuted over 40 cases for investors against sovereigns under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties.\nUsing experience developed as a seasoned oil and gas litigator in the U.S. courts, Reggie also has deep expertise in representing energy companies in international and domestic commercial arbitration disputes. Whether the disputes involve the oil and gas sector or renewable energy projects, Reggie has taken the lead in representing some of the world's largest energy companies in high-stakes arbitrations.\nWhile clients routinely entrust Reggie to serve as their advocate in high stakes arbitrations and litigations, they also look to him as a trusted strategic advisor in helping them manage their disputes to reach a commercial solution that serves their long-term best interests. Reggie well understands that clients are not in the business of litigating their disputes, and litigation is simply a tool to be used in reaching a commercial resolution that furthers the client’s business goals. Reginald R Smith Partner Litigator of the Week AmLaw Energy MVP Law360 Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation  Legal 500, repeated listings Litigation Star  Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016 Emory University Emory University School of Law University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia Texas American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia State Bar of Texas Houston County Bar Association International Commercial Arbitration DisputesRepresenting an oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources. Representing two steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies in a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine. Representing Dubai-based iron ore mining companies in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company. Representing an independent oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract. Representing an independent oil and gas company in a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale. Representing a European oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract. Representing a European oil and gas company in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm. Representing an international petrochemical company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility. International Investment Arbitration DisputesRepresenting a European oil and gas company in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor’s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets. Representing a number of European renewable energy company investors in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs. Representing a Kuwaiti investor group in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project. Representing English and Irish investors in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government’s role in facilitating an illegal “tunneling” of the investors’ investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters. Representing Italian investors in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession. Representing a group of English investors in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government’s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors’ commercial real estate holdings in Baku. Representing a Dutch investor in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises. Representing a Swedish investor in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union. Representing an Italian investor in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor’s resort development property. U.S. Litigation Relating to International ArbitrationRepresenting a Canadian mining company in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela. Representing a European resort developer in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement. Representing an infrastructure construction company in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S. Representing a European energy company in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK. Representing a European energy company in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Representing a major energy company in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Representing a European energy company in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration. U.S. LitigationRepresenting three of the world’s largest manufacturing companies in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market. Representing Spanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund in litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012. Representing a major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing. Representing one of the world’s largest retailers in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.","searchable_name":"Reginald R. Smith (Reggie)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":443994,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6954,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBen is a versatile litigator and former Silicon Valley in-house counsel focused on complex litigation, appellate and critical-issue advocacy, and regulatory investigations. Ben joins King \u0026amp; Spalding from Google, where he helped design and execute the company\u0026rsquo;s AI regulatory strategy. He has extensive experience helping clients inside and outside the technology sector navigate issues of administrative law, antitrust, consumer protection, privacy, and securities. Ben draws on his in-house experience to drive comprehensive client solutions that address legal, business, and reputational risk.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen was one of Google\u0026rsquo;s first AI regulatory lawyers. There, he led cross-functional teams responding to AI inquiries from regulators around the world, and, working closely with senior executives and business leaders, he helped develop and manage the company\u0026rsquo;s overarching AI regulatory strategy. Beyond AI, Ben directed defense strategy on litigation and regulatory matters arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act 5, state unfair and deceptive acts statutes, the federal securities laws, and global privacy laws. He also managed strategic regulatory compliance enhancements, working closely with business units like marketing, human resources, and finance to deliver compliance readiness on-time and on-budget.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore Google, Ben was a partner at a litigation boutique in Washington, D.C. There, in addition to trial court work, Ben argued numerous times in the federal courts of appeals, and was regularly tapped to draft appellate briefs, case-dispositive motions, and federal agency comments. He authored or co-authored winning briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States and in trial and appellate courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen served as a law clerk for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has been named \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e and \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003efor his work.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"benjamin-softness","email":"bsoftness@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended AT\u0026amp;T\u0026rsquo;s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, \u003cem\u003eUnited States v. AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), \u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;g \u003c/em\u003e310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFounding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants\u0026rsquo; failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in \u003cem\u003ePetersen Energ\u0026iacute;a Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored respondent\u0026rsquo;s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, \u003cem\u003eApple v. Pepper\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for the win.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored winning brief in \u003cem\u003eStuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; for victory).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored petitioners\u0026rsquo; winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in \u003cem\u003eGlobal Tel*Link v. FCC,\u003c/em\u003e 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBriefed and argued \u003cem\u003eSanders v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing \u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady\u0026rsquo;s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Softness","nick_name":"Benjamin","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. A Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit","years_held":"2013 - 2014"},{"name":"Intern, Hon. Richard J. Leon, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia","years_held":"2011 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Benjamin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2282,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"summa cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2013-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"Global Competition Review, 2019"},{"title":"Legal Lion","detail":"Law360, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/benjamin-softness-7b16322/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBen is a versatile litigator and former Silicon Valley in-house counsel focused on complex litigation, appellate and critical-issue advocacy, and regulatory investigations. Ben joins King \u0026amp; Spalding from Google, where he helped design and execute the company\u0026rsquo;s AI regulatory strategy. He has extensive experience helping clients inside and outside the technology sector navigate issues of administrative law, antitrust, consumer protection, privacy, and securities. Ben draws on his in-house experience to drive comprehensive client solutions that address legal, business, and reputational risk.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen was one of Google\u0026rsquo;s first AI regulatory lawyers. There, he led cross-functional teams responding to AI inquiries from regulators around the world, and, working closely with senior executives and business leaders, he helped develop and manage the company\u0026rsquo;s overarching AI regulatory strategy. Beyond AI, Ben directed defense strategy on litigation and regulatory matters arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act 5, state unfair and deceptive acts statutes, the federal securities laws, and global privacy laws. He also managed strategic regulatory compliance enhancements, working closely with business units like marketing, human resources, and finance to deliver compliance readiness on-time and on-budget.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore Google, Ben was a partner at a litigation boutique in Washington, D.C. There, in addition to trial court work, Ben argued numerous times in the federal courts of appeals, and was regularly tapped to draft appellate briefs, case-dispositive motions, and federal agency comments. He authored or co-authored winning briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States and in trial and appellate courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBen served as a law clerk for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has been named \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e and \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; by \u003cem\u003eLaw360 \u003c/em\u003efor his work.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended AT\u0026amp;T\u0026rsquo;s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, \u003cem\u003eUnited States v. AT\u0026amp;T\u003c/em\u003e, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), \u003cem\u003eaff\u0026rsquo;g \u003c/em\u003e310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFounding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants\u0026rsquo; failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in \u003cem\u003ePetersen Energ\u0026iacute;a Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored respondent\u0026rsquo;s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, \u003cem\u003eApple v. Pepper\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Litigator of the Week\u0026rdquo; for the win.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored winning brief in \u003cem\u003eStuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp\u003c/em\u003e., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e \u0026ldquo;Legal Lion\u0026rdquo; for victory).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-authored petitioners\u0026rsquo; winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in \u003cem\u003eGlobal Tel*Link v. FCC,\u003c/em\u003e 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBriefed and argued \u003cem\u003eSanders v. United States\u003c/em\u003e, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing \u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady\u0026rsquo;s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"Global Competition Review, 2019"},{"title":"Legal Lion","detail":"Law360, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12616}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:27.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:27.000Z","searchable_text":"Softness{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Competition Review, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal Lion\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws{{ FIELD }}Represented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws{{ FIELD }}Represented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals{{ FIELD }}Defended AT\u0026amp;T’s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, United States v. AT\u0026amp;T, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), aff’g 310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018).{{ FIELD }}Assisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case{{ FIELD }}Founding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants’ failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in Petersen Energía Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic.{{ FIELD }}Co-authored respondent’s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, Apple v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a Global Competition Review “Litigator of the Week” for the win.{{ FIELD }}Co-authored winning brief in Stuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named Law360 “Legal Lion” for victory).{{ FIELD }}Co-authored petitioners’ winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in Global Tel*Link v. FCC, 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017).{{ FIELD }}Briefed and argued Sanders v. United States, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing pro bono client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as amicus curiae. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady’s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.{{ FIELD }}Ben is a versatile litigator and former Silicon Valley in-house counsel focused on complex litigation, appellate and critical-issue advocacy, and regulatory investigations. Ben joins King \u0026amp; Spalding from Google, where he helped design and execute the company’s AI regulatory strategy. He has extensive experience helping clients inside and outside the technology sector navigate issues of administrative law, antitrust, consumer protection, privacy, and securities. Ben draws on his in-house experience to drive comprehensive client solutions that address legal, business, and reputational risk.\nBen was one of Google’s first AI regulatory lawyers. There, he led cross-functional teams responding to AI inquiries from regulators around the world, and, working closely with senior executives and business leaders, he helped develop and manage the company’s overarching AI regulatory strategy. Beyond AI, Ben directed defense strategy on litigation and regulatory matters arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act 5, state unfair and deceptive acts statutes, the federal securities laws, and global privacy laws. He also managed strategic regulatory compliance enhancements, working closely with business units like marketing, human resources, and finance to deliver compliance readiness on-time and on-budget.\nBefore Google, Ben was a partner at a litigation boutique in Washington, D.C. There, in addition to trial court work, Ben argued numerous times in the federal courts of appeals, and was regularly tapped to draft appellate briefs, case-dispositive motions, and federal agency comments. He authored or co-authored winning briefs in the Supreme Court of the United States and in trial and appellate courts across the country.\nBen served as a law clerk for the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. He has been named “Litigator of the Week” by Global Competition Review and “Legal Lion” by Law360 for his work. Partner Litigator of the Week Global Competition Review, 2019 Legal Lion Law360, 2020 Amherst College  University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia California District of Columbia New York Bar Association of San Francisco Law Clerk, Hon. A Raymond Randolph, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Intern, Hon. Richard J. Leon, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia Represented a large technology client in federal and state consumer products investigations arising under Section 5 of the FTC Act and state consumer protection laws Represented a large technology client in shareholder class action under federal securities laws Represented AT\u0026amp;T in a Section 5 consumer-protection case through district court litigation and appeals Defended AT\u0026amp;T’s merger with Time Warner against DOJ antitrust challenge pre-trial, at trial, and on appeal, United States v. AT\u0026amp;T, 916 F.3d 1029 (D.C. Cir. 2019), aff’g 310 F. Supp. 3d 161 (D.D.C. 2018). Assisted Fortune 50 client with third-party subpoena defense and anticipated appellate work in a copyright case Founding member of the litigation team representing Petersen Energia Inversora, S.A.U., Petersen Energia, S.A.U., and Eton Park Capital Management in litigation in the Southern District of New York against the Argentine Republic and YPF, S.A., alleging claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel arising from defendants’ failure to comply with their tender offer requirements in connection with Argentina's expropriation of YPF plaintiffs against Republic of Argentina in Petersen Energía Inversora S.A.U. v. Argentine Republic. Co-authored respondent’s winning merits brief in a major antitrust case, Apple v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019), and was named a Global Competition Review “Litigator of the Week” for the win. Co-authored winning brief in Stuart v. Global Tel*Link Corp., 956 F.3d 555 (8th Cir. 2020), affirming summary judgment on consumer protection issues and class decertification (named Law360 “Legal Lion” for victory). Co-authored petitioners’ winning briefs challenging agency rulemaking in Global Tel*Link v. FCC, 866 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Briefed and argued Sanders v. United States, 937 F.3d 316 (4th Cir. 2019), representing pro bono client the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence as amicus curiae. The Fourth Circuit, citing Brady’s brief, reinstated dismissed claims brought by victims of the 2015 shooting at Mother Emanuel Church in Charleston, S.C.","searchable_name":"Benjamin Softness","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442769,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5404,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cdiv id=\"pnlProfileSummaryShort\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlenn Solomon specializes in commercial and government managed care, complex business litigation, arbitration, mediation, class action, investigations, and other dispute resolution matters. As a partner in our Healthcare practice, his diverse clientele includes prominent hospitals and health systems, medical groups, independent physician associations, management services organizations, and other health care providers and entities. On behalf of providers, he has both resolved significant disputes with health plans and negotiated high-profile contracts with them, as well as solved disagreements with other providers.\u0026nbsp; He has helped providers obtain several hundred million\u0026nbsp;dollars through underpayments recoveries, contract improvements, and negotiations.\u0026nbsp; He also has successfully defended against similarly large amounts of alleged overpayments.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlenn\u0026rsquo;s expertise allows him to break down complex disputes to identify and achieve the best options for his clients, whether that be through litigation, arbitration, mediation, or resolved through contractual negotiation. His clients have recovered combined awards and settlements totaling over several hundred million dollars on the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; side; and have successfully avoided alleged financial exposures of similar figures on the defendants\u0026rsquo; side.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOver the course of his career, Glenn has litigated, arbitrated, mediated and resolved disputes involving managed care, contracting, management services, class actions, internal and external investigations, fraud and abuse, business relations, reimbursement, trade secrets, misappropriation, real estate, employment, and discrimination. His broad health industry experience involves dealings with health plans, insurance companies, ERISA plans, self-funded plans, qui tam relators, employees, other providers and the government. Glenn\u0026rsquo;s versatile background has allowed him to be a court-designated expert witness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlenn also has experience representing clients in other industries such as telecommunications, accounting, retail, and banking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlenn is also recognized by Legal 500 (2024) as a Key Lawyer in HealthCare: Service Providers, which group has been ranked Tier 1 for this industry.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlenn continues to be recognized by Legal 500 (2025) as a Key Lawyer in HealthCare: Service Providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlenn also has been recognized by Chambers USA, LA Attorney Individual Ranking for Healthcare.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlenn has been selected for the Los Angeles Business Journal's 2025 Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e","slug":"glenn-solomon","email":"gsolomon@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCalifornia Hospital Association\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCalifornia Medical Association\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRegional Medical Center of San Jose, and Good Samaritan Hospital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as amici in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCounty of Santa Clara v. Sup. Ct.\u003c/em\u003e, 14 Cal.5th 1034 (2023), in which the California Supreme Court, reversing a lower court decision, held that government owned health plans are subject to the Knox-Keene Act and lawsuits for reimbursement by out-of-network providers; potential impact exceeds hundreds of millions of dollars for California out-of-network providers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCEP America California dba Vituity\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against Heritage Provider Network regarding underpayments for out-of-network emergency physician services at many hospitals, resulting in jury award in April 2023, against the health plan on claims exceeding $10 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCalifornia Hospital Association\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCalifornia Medical Association\u003c/strong\u003e, and a plaintiff class of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCalifornia hospitals\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against Blue Cross regarding post-claims underwriting; court-approved settlement pool of $11.8 million for the benefit of all California hospitals that were affected by Blue Cross\u0026rsquo;s rescissions of patient policies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented plaintiff's class of California \u003cstrong\u003eAmbulatory Surgery Centers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eagainst United Healthcare, Ingenix (now Optum) and dozens of self-funded plans regarding out-of-network payments; class settlement reached for $9.5 million for the benefit of California ASCs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChildren's Hospital Central California\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against Blue Cross of California in which appeals court held that the parties can present to the jury ona variety of evidence, includingthe hospital's charges, contracted rates and government rates, but not the costs to render the services at issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJury verdict for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChildren's Hospital Central California\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003edetermining plan was liable at 100% of charges for post-stabilization services rendered by hospital when plan failed to transfer Medi-Cal managed care beneficiaries to alternative providers; jury rejected plan's argument that hospital had not received authorization or been deemed authored.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCalifornia Hospital Association\u003c/strong\u003e, plus a national dialysis provider and a putative class of ambulatory surgery centers nationwide, in obtaining court order that national class action settlement agreement regarding United\u0026rsquo;s reimbursement practices to non-contracted physicians doesn\u0026rsquo;t bar facilities from pursuing underpayment claims for facility services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eC/HCA, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in federal court to obtain preliminary injunction against Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utah from marketing the hospitals as being in-network providers for new tiered network product that was not contemplated by the parties\u0026rsquo; contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCoast Plaza Doctors Hosp.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against an Anthem Blue plan in appeals court decision that providers aren\u0026rsquo;t preempted from pursuing direct state law claims against non-self-funded ERISA health plans and can sue such plans, rather than as assignees of the patient\u0026rsquo;s ERISA benefits.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMount Diablo Medical Center\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successful defeat of Health Net of California's motion to compel arbitration where dispute also involved the health plan's entity who was not subject to arbitration in multiparty capitation network dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented prominent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epsychiatric hospitals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein complex negotiations with the city of Los Angeles for a pre-filing settlement and stipulated judgment to resolve allegations of improper psychiatric patient discharges and then develop patient safety standards with the city for wider use as part of a year-long collaborative task force.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a number of prominent non-profit hospitals in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclass action defense\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eagainst uninsured patients challenging various charges and billing practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn addition to these and other public court matters, Mr. Solomon often resolves matters outside the court system, through settlement negotiations, mediations and arbitrations for providers throughout the country. Over the course of his career he has worked on matters collectively generating\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eseveral hundred million dollars\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003efor his provider clients in additional revenue from underpayments and avoided recoupment of similar amounts in alleged overpayments.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":12,"guid":"12.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":740,"guid":"740.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1185,"guid":"1185.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1187,"guid":"1187.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Solomon","nick_name":"Glenn","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Glenn","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1991-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Key Lawyer in HealthCare: Service Providers","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"},{"title":"Martindale-Hubbell","detail":"AV Rated"},{"title":"Southern California Super Lawyers","detail":"2013-2020"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2013-2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/glenn-solomon-1188b52/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cdiv id=\"pnlProfileSummaryShort\"\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlenn Solomon specializes in commercial and government managed care, complex business litigation, arbitration, mediation, class action, investigations, and other dispute resolution matters. As a partner in our Healthcare practice, his diverse clientele includes prominent hospitals and health systems, medical groups, independent physician associations, management services organizations, and other health care providers and entities. On behalf of providers, he has both resolved significant disputes with health plans and negotiated high-profile contracts with them, as well as solved disagreements with other providers.\u0026nbsp; He has helped providers obtain several hundred million\u0026nbsp;dollars through underpayments recoveries, contract improvements, and negotiations.\u0026nbsp; He also has successfully defended against similarly large amounts of alleged overpayments.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlenn\u0026rsquo;s expertise allows him to break down complex disputes to identify and achieve the best options for his clients, whether that be through litigation, arbitration, mediation, or resolved through contractual negotiation. His clients have recovered combined awards and settlements totaling over several hundred million dollars on the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; side; and have successfully avoided alleged financial exposures of similar figures on the defendants\u0026rsquo; side.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOver the course of his career, Glenn has litigated, arbitrated, mediated and resolved disputes involving managed care, contracting, management services, class actions, internal and external investigations, fraud and abuse, business relations, reimbursement, trade secrets, misappropriation, real estate, employment, and discrimination. His broad health industry experience involves dealings with health plans, insurance companies, ERISA plans, self-funded plans, qui tam relators, employees, other providers and the government. Glenn\u0026rsquo;s versatile background has allowed him to be a court-designated expert witness.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlenn also has experience representing clients in other industries such as telecommunications, accounting, retail, and banking.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlenn is also recognized by Legal 500 (2024) as a Key Lawyer in HealthCare: Service Providers, which group has been ranked Tier 1 for this industry.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlenn continues to be recognized by Legal 500 (2025) as a Key Lawyer in HealthCare: Service Providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlenn also has been recognized by Chambers USA, LA Attorney Individual Ranking for Healthcare.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGlenn has been selected for the Los Angeles Business Journal's 2025 Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003c/div\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCalifornia Hospital Association\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCalifornia Medical Association\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRegional Medical Center of San Jose, and Good Samaritan Hospital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as amici in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCounty of Santa Clara v. Sup. Ct.\u003c/em\u003e, 14 Cal.5th 1034 (2023), in which the California Supreme Court, reversing a lower court decision, held that government owned health plans are subject to the Knox-Keene Act and lawsuits for reimbursement by out-of-network providers; potential impact exceeds hundreds of millions of dollars for California out-of-network providers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCEP America California dba Vituity\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against Heritage Provider Network regarding underpayments for out-of-network emergency physician services at many hospitals, resulting in jury award in April 2023, against the health plan on claims exceeding $10 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCalifornia Hospital Association\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCalifornia Medical Association\u003c/strong\u003e, and a plaintiff class of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCalifornia hospitals\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against Blue Cross regarding post-claims underwriting; court-approved settlement pool of $11.8 million for the benefit of all California hospitals that were affected by Blue Cross\u0026rsquo;s rescissions of patient policies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented plaintiff's class of California \u003cstrong\u003eAmbulatory Surgery Centers\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eagainst United Healthcare, Ingenix (now Optum) and dozens of self-funded plans regarding out-of-network payments; class settlement reached for $9.5 million for the benefit of California ASCs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChildren's Hospital Central California\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against Blue Cross of California in which appeals court held that the parties can present to the jury ona variety of evidence, includingthe hospital's charges, contracted rates and government rates, but not the costs to render the services at issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJury verdict for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChildren's Hospital Central California\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003edetermining plan was liable at 100% of charges for post-stabilization services rendered by hospital when plan failed to transfer Medi-Cal managed care beneficiaries to alternative providers; jury rejected plan's argument that hospital had not received authorization or been deemed authored.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCalifornia Hospital Association\u003c/strong\u003e, plus a national dialysis provider and a putative class of ambulatory surgery centers nationwide, in obtaining court order that national class action settlement agreement regarding United\u0026rsquo;s reimbursement practices to non-contracted physicians doesn\u0026rsquo;t bar facilities from pursuing underpayment claims for facility services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eC/HCA, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in federal court to obtain preliminary injunction against Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utah from marketing the hospitals as being in-network providers for new tiered network product that was not contemplated by the parties\u0026rsquo; contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCoast Plaza Doctors Hosp.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against an Anthem Blue plan in appeals court decision that providers aren\u0026rsquo;t preempted from pursuing direct state law claims against non-self-funded ERISA health plans and can sue such plans, rather than as assignees of the patient\u0026rsquo;s ERISA benefits.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMount Diablo Medical Center\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in successful defeat of Health Net of California's motion to compel arbitration where dispute also involved the health plan's entity who was not subject to arbitration in multiparty capitation network dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented prominent\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epsychiatric hospitals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein complex negotiations with the city of Los Angeles for a pre-filing settlement and stipulated judgment to resolve allegations of improper psychiatric patient discharges and then develop patient safety standards with the city for wider use as part of a year-long collaborative task force.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a number of prominent non-profit hospitals in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eclass action defense\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eagainst uninsured patients challenging various charges and billing practices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIn addition to these and other public court matters, Mr. Solomon often resolves matters outside the court system, through settlement negotiations, mediations and arbitrations for providers throughout the country. Over the course of his career he has worked on matters collectively generating\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eseveral hundred million dollars\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003efor his provider clients in additional revenue from underpayments and avoided recoupment of similar amounts in alleged overpayments.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Key Lawyer in HealthCare: Service Providers","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"},{"title":"Martindale-Hubbell","detail":"AV Rated"},{"title":"Southern California Super Lawyers","detail":"2013-2020"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2013-2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6579}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:47.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:47.000Z","searchable_text":"Solomon{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Key Lawyer in HealthCare: Service Providers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Martindale-Hubbell\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"AV Rated\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Southern California Super Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2013-2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2013-2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented California Hospital Association, California Medical Association, Regional Medical Center of San Jose, and Good Samaritan Hospital as amici in County of Santa Clara v. Sup. Ct., 14 Cal.5th 1034 (2023), in which the California Supreme Court, reversing a lower court decision, held that government owned health plans are subject to the Knox-Keene Act and lawsuits for reimbursement by out-of-network providers; potential impact exceeds hundreds of millions of dollars for California out-of-network providers.{{ FIELD }}Represented CEP America California dba Vituity against Heritage Provider Network regarding underpayments for out-of-network emergency physician services at many hospitals, resulting in jury award in April 2023, against the health plan on claims exceeding $10 million.{{ FIELD }}Represented California Hospital Association, California Medical Association, and a plaintiff class of California hospitals against Blue Cross regarding post-claims underwriting; court-approved settlement pool of $11.8 million for the benefit of all California hospitals that were affected by Blue Cross’s rescissions of patient policies.{{ FIELD }}Represented plaintiff's class of California Ambulatory Surgery Centers against United Healthcare, Ingenix (now Optum) and dozens of self-funded plans regarding out-of-network payments; class settlement reached for $9.5 million for the benefit of California ASCs.{{ FIELD }}Represented Children's Hospital Central California against Blue Cross of California in which appeals court held that the parties can present to the jury ona variety of evidence, includingthe hospital's charges, contracted rates and government rates, but not the costs to render the services at issue.{{ FIELD }}Jury verdict for Children's Hospital Central California determining plan was liable at 100% of charges for post-stabilization services rendered by hospital when plan failed to transfer Medi-Cal managed care beneficiaries to alternative providers; jury rejected plan's argument that hospital had not received authorization or been deemed authored.{{ FIELD }}Represented California Hospital Association, plus a national dialysis provider and a putative class of ambulatory surgery centers nationwide, in obtaining court order that national class action settlement agreement regarding United’s reimbursement practices to non-contracted physicians doesn’t bar facilities from pursuing underpayment claims for facility services.{{ FIELD }}Represented C/HCA, Inc. in federal court to obtain preliminary injunction against Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utah from marketing the hospitals as being in-network providers for new tiered network product that was not contemplated by the parties’ contract.{{ FIELD }}Represented Coast Plaza Doctors Hosp. against an Anthem Blue plan in appeals court decision that providers aren’t preempted from pursuing direct state law claims against non-self-funded ERISA health plans and can sue such plans, rather than as assignees of the patient’s ERISA benefits.{{ FIELD }}Represented Mount Diablo Medical Center in successful defeat of Health Net of California's motion to compel arbitration where dispute also involved the health plan's entity who was not subject to arbitration in multiparty capitation network dispute.{{ FIELD }}Represented prominent psychiatric hospitals in complex negotiations with the city of Los Angeles for a pre-filing settlement and stipulated judgment to resolve allegations of improper psychiatric patient discharges and then develop patient safety standards with the city for wider use as part of a year-long collaborative task force.{{ FIELD }}Represented a number of prominent non-profit hospitals in class action defense against uninsured patients challenging various charges and billing practices.{{ FIELD }}In addition to these and other public court matters, Mr. Solomon often resolves matters outside the court system, through settlement negotiations, mediations and arbitrations for providers throughout the country. Over the course of his career he has worked on matters collectively generating several hundred million dollars for his provider clients in additional revenue from underpayments and avoided recoupment of similar amounts in alleged overpayments.{{ FIELD }}\nGlenn Solomon specializes in commercial and government managed care, complex business litigation, arbitration, mediation, class action, investigations, and other dispute resolution matters. As a partner in our Healthcare practice, his diverse clientele includes prominent hospitals and health systems, medical groups, independent physician associations, management services organizations, and other health care providers and entities. On behalf of providers, he has both resolved significant disputes with health plans and negotiated high-profile contracts with them, as well as solved disagreements with other providers.  He has helped providers obtain several hundred million dollars through underpayments recoveries, contract improvements, and negotiations.  He also has successfully defended against similarly large amounts of alleged overpayments. \nGlenn’s expertise allows him to break down complex disputes to identify and achieve the best options for his clients, whether that be through litigation, arbitration, mediation, or resolved through contractual negotiation. His clients have recovered combined awards and settlements totaling over several hundred million dollars on the plaintiffs’ side; and have successfully avoided alleged financial exposures of similar figures on the defendants’ side.\nOver the course of his career, Glenn has litigated, arbitrated, mediated and resolved disputes involving managed care, contracting, management services, class actions, internal and external investigations, fraud and abuse, business relations, reimbursement, trade secrets, misappropriation, real estate, employment, and discrimination. His broad health industry experience involves dealings with health plans, insurance companies, ERISA plans, self-funded plans, qui tam relators, employees, other providers and the government. Glenn’s versatile background has allowed him to be a court-designated expert witness.\nGlenn also has experience representing clients in other industries such as telecommunications, accounting, retail, and banking.\nGlenn is also recognized by Legal 500 (2024) as a Key Lawyer in HealthCare: Service Providers, which group has been ranked Tier 1 for this industry. \nGlenn continues to be recognized by Legal 500 (2025) as a Key Lawyer in HealthCare: Service Providers.\nGlenn also has been recognized by Chambers USA, LA Attorney Individual Ranking for Healthcare. \nGlenn has been selected for the Los Angeles Business Journal's 2025 Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys.\n Partner Key Lawyer in HealthCare: Service Providers Legal 500, 2024 Martindale-Hubbell AV Rated Southern California Super Lawyers 2013-2020 Best Lawyers in America 2013-2020 University of California, Berkeley University of California, Berkeley, School of Law Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Texas American Health Lawyers Association Healthcare Financial Management Association California Society of Healthcare Attorneys American Bar Association, Health Law and Litigation Sections California Bar Association, Litigation Section Los Angeles County Bar Association, Health Care and Litigation Sections Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Board of Governors, Executive Committee The Maple Counseling Center, Board of Directors, Executive-Finance-Budget Committees Represented California Hospital Association, California Medical Association, Regional Medical Center of San Jose, and Good Samaritan Hospital as amici in County of Santa Clara v. Sup. Ct., 14 Cal.5th 1034 (2023), in which the California Supreme Court, reversing a lower court decision, held that government owned health plans are subject to the Knox-Keene Act and lawsuits for reimbursement by out-of-network providers; potential impact exceeds hundreds of millions of dollars for California out-of-network providers. Represented CEP America California dba Vituity against Heritage Provider Network regarding underpayments for out-of-network emergency physician services at many hospitals, resulting in jury award in April 2023, against the health plan on claims exceeding $10 million. Represented California Hospital Association, California Medical Association, and a plaintiff class of California hospitals against Blue Cross regarding post-claims underwriting; court-approved settlement pool of $11.8 million for the benefit of all California hospitals that were affected by Blue Cross’s rescissions of patient policies. Represented plaintiff's class of California Ambulatory Surgery Centers against United Healthcare, Ingenix (now Optum) and dozens of self-funded plans regarding out-of-network payments; class settlement reached for $9.5 million for the benefit of California ASCs. Represented Children's Hospital Central California against Blue Cross of California in which appeals court held that the parties can present to the jury ona variety of evidence, includingthe hospital's charges, contracted rates and government rates, but not the costs to render the services at issue. Jury verdict for Children's Hospital Central California determining plan was liable at 100% of charges for post-stabilization services rendered by hospital when plan failed to transfer Medi-Cal managed care beneficiaries to alternative providers; jury rejected plan's argument that hospital had not received authorization or been deemed authored. Represented California Hospital Association, plus a national dialysis provider and a putative class of ambulatory surgery centers nationwide, in obtaining court order that national class action settlement agreement regarding United’s reimbursement practices to non-contracted physicians doesn’t bar facilities from pursuing underpayment claims for facility services. Represented C/HCA, Inc. in federal court to obtain preliminary injunction against Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utah from marketing the hospitals as being in-network providers for new tiered network product that was not contemplated by the parties’ contract. Represented Coast Plaza Doctors Hosp. against an Anthem Blue plan in appeals court decision that providers aren’t preempted from pursuing direct state law claims against non-self-funded ERISA health plans and can sue such plans, rather than as assignees of the patient’s ERISA benefits. Represented Mount Diablo Medical Center in successful defeat of Health Net of California's motion to compel arbitration where dispute also involved the health plan's entity who was not subject to arbitration in multiparty capitation network dispute. Represented prominent psychiatric hospitals in complex negotiations with the city of Los Angeles for a pre-filing settlement and stipulated judgment to resolve allegations of improper psychiatric patient discharges and then develop patient safety standards with the city for wider use as part of a year-long collaborative task force. Represented a number of prominent non-profit hospitals in class action defense against uninsured patients challenging various charges and billing practices. In addition to these and other public court matters, Mr. Solomon often resolves matters outside the court system, through settlement negotiations, mediations and arbitrations for providers throughout the country. Over the course of his career he has worked on matters collectively generating several hundred million dollars for his provider clients in additional revenue from underpayments and avoided recoupment of similar amounts in alleged overpayments.","searchable_name":"Glenn Solomon","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426370,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2965,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Sprange KC provides advocacy and strategic advice in significant, high-value and complex disputes for\u0026nbsp; a diverse range of clients, including corporations, sovereign states, financial institutions and individuals. A partner in our Trial and Global Disputes practice, Tom acts in a broad array of matters\u0026nbsp;under local, private and public international law.\u0026nbsp; He is described by his peers as: \u0026ldquo;Mensa-like intellect with a down-to-earth attitude\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;the best of the best\u0026ldquo;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;He's just a pleasure to watch, I feel sad for the other side,\"\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;A-star advocate, he just walks in and understands everything\" ,\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;a superb advocate\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;class act\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;remarkable,\u0026rdquo; a \u0026ldquo;super lawyer,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;a real star,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;fantastic\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;a very sharp legal mind\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;an excellent advocacy choice across dispute resolution forums\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;a sharp intellect\" who praise \"the precision, energy and tenacity he projects in front of tribunals and judges\" \u0026ldquo;, and highlight his \"great cross-examination skills\", describing him as \u0026ldquo;a unique coming together of legal insight, commercial nous and practical living/implementation\u0026rdquo; and noting that \"He is a master cross-examiner with in-depth knowledge of financial and commercial issues.\"\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;He has a magnificent talent in cross-examination\u0026ldquo;\u0026nbsp;and that \"He is a very good lead advocate but equally adept at managing the team.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has appeared in over 100\u0026nbsp;cases in the Chancery and King's Bench divisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, including\u0026nbsp;cases relating to sovereign immunity, acts of state, conflicts of law, interpretation of contracts, civil fraud, injunctive relief and claims arising from arbitration proceedings.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe has acted as Counsel in more than 300 international arbitrations in the leading arbitration institutes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe has experience working with clients in numerous sectors, including energy, mining, projects, construction, telecommunications, technology, financial services, real estate, pharmaceuticals, fashion and sports.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom is the Managing Partner of the London Office and is a former member of the Firm's Policy Committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe is highly ranked in the latest editions of the Chambers Global, Chambers UK, Chambers Europe, Legal 500 UK and Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Commercial Arbitration, Asset Recovery and Construction directories for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, as well as listing for Civil Fraud and Energy in the former. He is described as: \u0026ldquo;a unique coming together of legal insight, commercial nous and practical living/implementation\u0026rdquo;,\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;a superb advocate\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;class act\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;remarkable,\u0026rdquo; a \u0026ldquo;super lawyer,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;a real star,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;fantastic,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;impressive,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;smart, percipient and energetic, \u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;commercially astute and a great lawyer\u0026rdquo; with sources adding that \u0026ldquo;his advocacy skills are brilliant\u0026rdquo; and he has \u0026ldquo;experience in a range of sectors, including aviation, energy and finance.\u0026rdquo; and that \u0026ldquo;he is very responsive, sharp and quick to seize the key issues\u0026rdquo;, that \"He has good, sharp comments at every stage of proceedings and really contributes a lot,\" \"He's smart - he thinks and understands quickly and he's good at forming case strategy.\" \"He is a top-level litigator with years of experience and he is extremely responsive.\" \"He is very effective as arbitration counsel.\" Sources also say Thomas is a \u0026ldquo;thoroughbred arbitrator who is incredibly smart, \u0026rdquo; a \u0026ldquo;heavyweight arbitration lawyer\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;technically excellent and very creative, with a strong knowledge base and good problem-solving skills\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp; Furthermore, Thomas is said to combine a \u0026ldquo;Mensa-like intellect with a down-to-earth attitude\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;an unparalleled work ethic and outstanding attention to client needs\u0026rdquo;; possess \u0026ldquo;extensive commercial arbitration expertise\u0026rdquo;; to \u0026ldquo;not just go the extra yard in defending his client\u0026rsquo;s position, but the extra mile\u0026rdquo;; to be an \u0026ldquo;accomplished solicitor advocate\u0026rdquo;; \"Tom is an extraordinary litigator. He has a sharp intellect from a legal standpoint and is commercially astute.\" \"He is sensible as a solicitor and impressive as an advocate\"; \"He is an extremely high-quality advocate and his work is very impressive in this space\". \"An A-star advocate, he just walks in and understands everything\". \"He is clever, fast, reasonable, logical, knowledgeable, experienced and creative\" and has \"great cross-examination skills.\"\u0026nbsp; \"He is so sharp and understands how to bring across difficult and complex issues in a pretty easy and very clear manner.\"\u0026nbsp; \"He is very knowledgeable and creative in his approach.\"\u0026nbsp; \"Tom Sprange is not afraid to argue anything but with a certain charm.\"\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\"He is a master cross-examiner with in-depth knowledge of financial and commercial issues.\"\u0026nbsp; \"He is a very good lead advocate but equally adept at managing the team.\" he is \"fearless and has a very strong awareness of both the legal and commercial aspects involved\" he is a \"superb advocate full of energy and tenacity. He gets great results for major clients in hearings across the glove\" he \"provides very complete, practical and realistic advice\" he is described as an \"insightful solicitor and extremely confident in the delivery of his case in a court room\" and his knowledge and memory skills are \"truly magnificent\".\u0026nbsp; Tom has been described as a \"brilliant mind, hard-working and a pleasure to work with\" his clients \"like dealing with him and he can explain complex situations in simple terms\"\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"thomas-sprange","email":"tsprange@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing for the Republic of Turkey in the largest ever public international law dispute between two sovereigns which involved a $40 billion treaty claim, public and private international law issues and related proceedings in a number of jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEnglish Court proceedings relating to terrorist financing, state attribution and sovereign immunity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eICSID proceedings involving claims for $3.5 billion arising from claims for expropriation and breaches of national security, acts of terrorism and acts of state.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eUNCITRAL proceedings against the Government of India relating to $35 billion claims arising under local and international law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEnglish Court proceedings relating to a $3.5 billion fraud and enforcement claim including freezing orders and actions in 25 jurisdictions worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReficar in English Court proceedings relating to the McDermott restructuring where a $1.3 billion New York Convention Award was extinguished in return for a $900 million equity interest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEnglish Court proceedings and related appeals with regards to $68 billion sovereign wealth fund and the act of state and one voice doctrines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent English and International Court Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2025] EWHC 257 (Comm), 23 January 2025\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAlta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2025] EWHC 91 (Comm), 22 January 2025\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Ltd v VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Co [2024] EWHC 3337 (Comm), 23 December 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLiberty Steel East Europe (Holdco) Ltd, Re [2024] 11 WLUK 454, 26 November 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2024] EWHC 2891 (Comm), 14 November 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGlobal Steel Holdings Ltd (In liquidation), Re [2024] 11 WLUK 112, 6 November 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTWC Aviation Limited v. SpiceJet Limited [2024] EWHC 721 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCB\u0026amp;I UK Ltd. re Chancery Division [2024] EHWC 398 (Ch)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2024] EWHC 149 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJensen v. World Rugby CAS 2023/A/9377\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVedanta Limited and Cairn Energy Limited v. Government of India [2023] PCA Case N 2020-39\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 2882 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePinewood Technologies Asia Pacific Ltd v Pinewood Technologies Plc King's Bench Division (Technology \u0026amp; Construction Court) [2023] EHWC 2506 (TCC)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc. v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 1393 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepublic of Iraq v. Republic of Turkey ICC Case 20273/AGF/ZF/AYZ/ELU\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIpek Investment Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/18\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWestwater Resources Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRockhopper Italia S.p.A., Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd., and Rockhopper Exploration Plc v. Republic of Italy ICSID Case No. ARB/17/14\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Limited v. Hytera Communications Corp Limited [2022] EWHC 2887 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHashwah v. Qatar National Bank Limited [2023] 2 W.L.R. 815\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEVG v. HVF [2022] EWHC (Comm) 1012\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOtuska Pharma Co. Limited v. GW Pharma Limited [2022] EWHC 102 (Pat)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCascade Investments NV v. Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/4)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v (1) Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (2) Dubai International Financial Centre Investments LLC [2019] DIFC CFI 013, 2 March 2022\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] 12 WLUK 562\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWorld Anti-Doping Agency v. Swimming Australia, Sport Integrity Australia \u0026amp; Shayna Jack CAS 2020/A/7579 / CAS 2020/A/7580\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2330 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAlta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2021] 4 W.L.R. 72\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2904 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 929 ( Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eShapoorji Pallonji and Co Pvt Ltd v Yumn Limited [2021] EWHC 862 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConocoPhillips v. Chrysaor E\u0026amp;P Limited [2021] 3 WLUK 524\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 286 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 11\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2020] DIFCoA CFI 013/2019\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eC v. D Ltd and X [2020] EWHC 1283 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMohamed v. Breish [2020] EWCA Civ 637\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2020] EWHC 980 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV London Branch [2020] EWHC 916 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2019] DIFC CFI 013\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMohamed v. Breish [2020] EWHC 696 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMohamed v Breish [2019] EWHC 1765 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChung v Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd [2019] EWHC 1479 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV [2018] EWHC 3282 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eStati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWCA Civ 1896\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMontvale Invest Ltd (In Liquidation) v Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd [2018] EWHC 1507 (Ch)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eStati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWHC 1130 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMonde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros [2018] EWCA Civ 25\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBank and Clients Plc v King [2017] EWHC 3099 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArcadia Energy Petroleum Ltd v Bosworth [2017] EWHC 3160 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eStati v Kazakhstan [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSilver Dry Bulk Co Ltd v Homer Hulbert Maritime Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 44 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":231}]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1568,"guid":"1568.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Sprange","nick_name":"Tom","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Tom","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"","name_suffix":"K.C.","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration","detail":"CHAMBERS EUROPE, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration, Energy and Fraud","detail":"CHAMBERS UK, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution","detail":"CHAMBERS GLOBAL, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration and London Fraud","detail":"Chambers UK, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration, Dispute Resolution and Civil Fraud","detail":"Legal 500 UK, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration and Commercial Litigation","detail":"Who’s Who Legal"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":54,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eTom Sprange KC provides advocacy and strategic advice in significant, high-value and complex disputes for\u0026nbsp; a diverse range of clients, including corporations, sovereign states, financial institutions and individuals. A partner in our Trial and Global Disputes practice, Tom acts in a broad array of matters\u0026nbsp;under local, private and public international law.\u0026nbsp; He is described by his peers as: \u0026ldquo;Mensa-like intellect with a down-to-earth attitude\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;the best of the best\u0026ldquo;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;He's just a pleasure to watch, I feel sad for the other side,\"\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;A-star advocate, he just walks in and understands everything\" ,\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;a superb advocate\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;class act\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;remarkable,\u0026rdquo; a \u0026ldquo;super lawyer,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;a real star,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;fantastic\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;a very sharp legal mind\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;an excellent advocacy choice across dispute resolution forums\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;a sharp intellect\" who praise \"the precision, energy and tenacity he projects in front of tribunals and judges\" \u0026ldquo;, and highlight his \"great cross-examination skills\", describing him as \u0026ldquo;a unique coming together of legal insight, commercial nous and practical living/implementation\u0026rdquo; and noting that \"He is a master cross-examiner with in-depth knowledge of financial and commercial issues.\"\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;He has a magnificent talent in cross-examination\u0026ldquo;\u0026nbsp;and that \"He is a very good lead advocate but equally adept at managing the team.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom has appeared in over 100\u0026nbsp;cases in the Chancery and King's Bench divisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, including\u0026nbsp;cases relating to sovereign immunity, acts of state, conflicts of law, interpretation of contracts, civil fraud, injunctive relief and claims arising from arbitration proceedings.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe has acted as Counsel in more than 300 international arbitrations in the leading arbitration institutes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe has experience working with clients in numerous sectors, including energy, mining, projects, construction, telecommunications, technology, financial services, real estate, pharmaceuticals, fashion and sports.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTom is the Managing Partner of the London Office and is a former member of the Firm's Policy Committee.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe is highly ranked in the latest editions of the Chambers Global, Chambers UK, Chambers Europe, Legal 500 UK and Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Commercial Arbitration, Asset Recovery and Construction directories for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, as well as listing for Civil Fraud and Energy in the former. He is described as: \u0026ldquo;a unique coming together of legal insight, commercial nous and practical living/implementation\u0026rdquo;,\u0026nbsp; \u0026ldquo;a superb advocate\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;class act\u0026rdquo;, \u0026ldquo;remarkable,\u0026rdquo; a \u0026ldquo;super lawyer,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;a real star,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;fantastic,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;impressive,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;smart, percipient and energetic, \u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;commercially astute and a great lawyer\u0026rdquo; with sources adding that \u0026ldquo;his advocacy skills are brilliant\u0026rdquo; and he has \u0026ldquo;experience in a range of sectors, including aviation, energy and finance.\u0026rdquo; and that \u0026ldquo;he is very responsive, sharp and quick to seize the key issues\u0026rdquo;, that \"He has good, sharp comments at every stage of proceedings and really contributes a lot,\" \"He's smart - he thinks and understands quickly and he's good at forming case strategy.\" \"He is a top-level litigator with years of experience and he is extremely responsive.\" \"He is very effective as arbitration counsel.\" Sources also say Thomas is a \u0026ldquo;thoroughbred arbitrator who is incredibly smart, \u0026rdquo; a \u0026ldquo;heavyweight arbitration lawyer\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;technically excellent and very creative, with a strong knowledge base and good problem-solving skills\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp; Furthermore, Thomas is said to combine a \u0026ldquo;Mensa-like intellect with a down-to-earth attitude\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;an unparalleled work ethic and outstanding attention to client needs\u0026rdquo;; possess \u0026ldquo;extensive commercial arbitration expertise\u0026rdquo;; to \u0026ldquo;not just go the extra yard in defending his client\u0026rsquo;s position, but the extra mile\u0026rdquo;; to be an \u0026ldquo;accomplished solicitor advocate\u0026rdquo;; \"Tom is an extraordinary litigator. He has a sharp intellect from a legal standpoint and is commercially astute.\" \"He is sensible as a solicitor and impressive as an advocate\"; \"He is an extremely high-quality advocate and his work is very impressive in this space\". \"An A-star advocate, he just walks in and understands everything\". \"He is clever, fast, reasonable, logical, knowledgeable, experienced and creative\" and has \"great cross-examination skills.\"\u0026nbsp; \"He is so sharp and understands how to bring across difficult and complex issues in a pretty easy and very clear manner.\"\u0026nbsp; \"He is very knowledgeable and creative in his approach.\"\u0026nbsp; \"Tom Sprange is not afraid to argue anything but with a certain charm.\"\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\"He is a master cross-examiner with in-depth knowledge of financial and commercial issues.\"\u0026nbsp; \"He is a very good lead advocate but equally adept at managing the team.\" he is \"fearless and has a very strong awareness of both the legal and commercial aspects involved\" he is a \"superb advocate full of energy and tenacity. He gets great results for major clients in hearings across the glove\" he \"provides very complete, practical and realistic advice\" he is described as an \"insightful solicitor and extremely confident in the delivery of his case in a court room\" and his knowledge and memory skills are \"truly magnificent\".\u0026nbsp; Tom has been described as a \"brilliant mind, hard-working and a pleasure to work with\" his clients \"like dealing with him and he can explain complex situations in simple terms\"\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eActing for the Republic of Turkey in the largest ever public international law dispute between two sovereigns which involved a $40 billion treaty claim, public and private international law issues and related proceedings in a number of jurisdictions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEnglish Court proceedings relating to terrorist financing, state attribution and sovereign immunity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eICSID proceedings involving claims for $3.5 billion arising from claims for expropriation and breaches of national security, acts of terrorism and acts of state.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eUNCITRAL proceedings against the Government of India relating to $35 billion claims arising under local and international law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEnglish Court proceedings relating to a $3.5 billion fraud and enforcement claim including freezing orders and actions in 25 jurisdictions worldwide.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReficar in English Court proceedings relating to the McDermott restructuring where a $1.3 billion New York Convention Award was extinguished in return for a $900 million equity interest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEnglish Court proceedings and related appeals with regards to $68 billion sovereign wealth fund and the act of state and one voice doctrines.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent English and International Court Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2025] EWHC 257 (Comm), 23 January 2025\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAlta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2025] EWHC 91 (Comm), 22 January 2025\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Ltd v VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Co [2024] EWHC 3337 (Comm), 23 December 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLiberty Steel East Europe (Holdco) Ltd, Re [2024] 11 WLUK 454, 26 November 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2024] EWHC 2891 (Comm), 14 November 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGlobal Steel Holdings Ltd (In liquidation), Re [2024] 11 WLUK 112, 6 November 2024\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTWC Aviation Limited v. SpiceJet Limited [2024] EWHC 721 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCB\u0026amp;I UK Ltd. re Chancery Division [2024] EHWC 398 (Ch)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2024] EWHC 149 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eJensen v. World Rugby CAS 2023/A/9377\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVedanta Limited and Cairn Energy Limited v. Government of India [2023] PCA Case N 2020-39\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 2882 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePinewood Technologies Asia Pacific Ltd v Pinewood Technologies Plc King's Bench Division (Technology \u0026amp; Construction Court) [2023] EHWC 2506 (TCC)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc. v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 1393 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepublic of Iraq v. Republic of Turkey ICC Case 20273/AGF/ZF/AYZ/ELU\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eIpek Investment Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/18\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWestwater Resources Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRockhopper Italia S.p.A., Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd., and Rockhopper Exploration Plc v. Republic of Italy ICSID Case No. ARB/17/14\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Limited v. Hytera Communications Corp Limited [2022] EWHC 2887 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHashwah v. Qatar National Bank Limited [2023] 2 W.L.R. 815\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eEVG v. HVF [2022] EWHC (Comm) 1012\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOtuska Pharma Co. Limited v. GW Pharma Limited [2022] EWHC 102 (Pat)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCascade Investments NV v. Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/4)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v (1) Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (2) Dubai International Financial Centre Investments LLC [2019] DIFC CFI 013, 2 March 2022\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] 12 WLUK 562\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWorld Anti-Doping Agency v. Swimming Australia, Sport Integrity Australia \u0026amp; Shayna Jack CAS 2020/A/7579 / CAS 2020/A/7580\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2330 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAlta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2021] 4 W.L.R. 72\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVarious Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2904 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 929 ( Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eShapoorji Pallonji and Co Pvt Ltd v Yumn Limited [2021] EWHC 862 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConocoPhillips v. Chrysaor E\u0026amp;P Limited [2021] 3 WLUK 524\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 286 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 11\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2020] DIFCoA CFI 013/2019\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eC v. D Ltd and X [2020] EWHC 1283 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMohamed v. Breish [2020] EWCA Civ 637\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2020] EWHC 980 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV London Branch [2020] EWHC 916 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2019] DIFC CFI 013\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMohamed v. Breish [2020] EWHC 696 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMohamed v Breish [2019] EWHC 1765 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChung v Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd [2019] EWHC 1479 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eNational Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV [2018] EWHC 3282 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eStati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWCA Civ 1896\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMontvale Invest Ltd (In Liquidation) v Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd [2018] EWHC 1507 (Ch)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eStati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWHC 1130 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMonde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros [2018] EWCA Civ 25\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBank and Clients Plc v King [2017] EWHC 3099 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArcadia Energy Petroleum Ltd v Bosworth [2017] EWHC 3160 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eStati v Kazakhstan [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSilver Dry Bulk Co Ltd v Homer Hulbert Maritime Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 44 (Comm)\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration","detail":"CHAMBERS EUROPE, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration, Energy and Fraud","detail":"CHAMBERS UK, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution","detail":"CHAMBERS GLOBAL, 2022"},{"title":"Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration and London Fraud","detail":"Chambers UK, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration, Dispute Resolution and Civil Fraud","detail":"Legal 500 UK, 2017"},{"title":"Ranked for International Arbitration and Commercial Litigation","detail":"Who’s Who Legal"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5368}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:51:59.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:51:59.000Z","searchable_text":"Sprange{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS EUROPE, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for International Arbitration, Energy and Fraud\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS UK, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS GLOBAL, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for International Arbitration and London Fraud\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for International Arbitration, Dispute Resolution and Civil Fraud\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 UK, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for International Arbitration and Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who Legal\"}{{ FIELD }}Acting for the Republic of Turkey in the largest ever public international law dispute between two sovereigns which involved a $40 billion treaty claim, public and private international law issues and related proceedings in a number of jurisdictions.{{ FIELD }}English Court proceedings relating to terrorist financing, state attribution and sovereign immunity.{{ FIELD }}ICSID proceedings involving claims for $3.5 billion arising from claims for expropriation and breaches of national security, acts of terrorism and acts of state.{{ FIELD }}UNCITRAL proceedings against the Government of India relating to $35 billion claims arising under local and international law.{{ FIELD }}English Court proceedings relating to a $3.5 billion fraud and enforcement claim including freezing orders and actions in 25 jurisdictions worldwide.{{ FIELD }}Reficar in English Court proceedings relating to the McDermott restructuring where a $1.3 billion New York Convention Award was extinguished in return for a $900 million equity interest.{{ FIELD }}English Court proceedings and related appeals with regards to $68 billion sovereign wealth fund and the act of state and one voice doctrines.{{ FIELD }}Recent English and International Court Experience\nMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2025] EWHC 257 (Comm), 23 January 2025{{ FIELD }}Alta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2025] EWHC 91 (Comm), 22 January 2025{{ FIELD }}FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Ltd v VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Co [2024] EWHC 3337 (Comm), 23 December 2024{{ FIELD }}Liberty Steel East Europe (Holdco) Ltd, Re [2024] 11 WLUK 454, 26 November 2024{{ FIELD }}Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2024] EWHC 2891 (Comm), 14 November 2024{{ FIELD }}Global Steel Holdings Ltd (In liquidation), Re [2024] 11 WLUK 112, 6 November 2024{{ FIELD }}TWC Aviation Limited v. SpiceJet Limited [2024] EWHC 721 (Comm){{ FIELD }}CB\u0026amp;I UK Ltd. re Chancery Division [2024] EHWC 398 (Ch){{ FIELD }}Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2024] EWHC 149 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Jensen v. World Rugby CAS 2023/A/9377{{ FIELD }}Vedanta Limited and Cairn Energy Limited v. Government of India [2023] PCA Case N 2020-39{{ FIELD }}Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 2882 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Pinewood Technologies Asia Pacific Ltd v Pinewood Technologies Plc King's Bench Division (Technology \u0026amp; Construction Court) [2023] EHWC 2506 (TCC){{ FIELD }}Motorola Solutions Inc. v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 1393 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Republic of Iraq v. Republic of Turkey ICC Case 20273/AGF/ZF/AYZ/ELU{{ FIELD }}Ipek Investment Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/18{{ FIELD }}Westwater Resources Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46{{ FIELD }}Rockhopper Italia S.p.A., Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd., and Rockhopper Exploration Plc v. Republic of Italy ICSID Case No. ARB/17/14{{ FIELD }}Motorola Solutions Limited v. Hytera Communications Corp Limited [2022] EWHC 2887 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Hashwah v. Qatar National Bank Limited [2023] 2 W.L.R. 815{{ FIELD }}EVG v. HVF [2022] EWHC (Comm) 1012{{ FIELD }}Otuska Pharma Co. Limited v. GW Pharma Limited [2022] EWHC 102 (Pat){{ FIELD }}Cascade Investments NV v. Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/4){{ FIELD }}Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v (1) Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (2) Dubai International Financial Centre Investments LLC [2019] DIFC CFI 013, 2 March 2022{{ FIELD }}Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] 12 WLUK 562{{ FIELD }}World Anti-Doping Agency v. Swimming Australia, Sport Integrity Australia \u0026amp; Shayna Jack CAS 2020/A/7579 / CAS 2020/A/7580{{ FIELD }}Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2330 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Alta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2021] 4 W.L.R. 72{{ FIELD }}Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2904 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Sierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 929 ( Comm){{ FIELD }}Shapoorji Pallonji and Co Pvt Ltd v Yumn Limited [2021] EWHC 862 (Comm){{ FIELD }}ConocoPhillips v. Chrysaor E\u0026amp;P Limited [2021] 3 WLUK 524{{ FIELD }}Sierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 286 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 11{{ FIELD }}Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2020] DIFCoA CFI 013/2019{{ FIELD }}C v. D Ltd and X [2020] EWHC 1283 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Mohamed v. Breish [2020] EWCA Civ 637{{ FIELD }}Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2020] EWHC 980 (Comm){{ FIELD }}National Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV London Branch [2020] EWHC 916 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2019] DIFC CFI 013{{ FIELD }}Mohamed v. Breish [2020] EWHC 696 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Tsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Mohamed v Breish [2019] EWHC 1765 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Chung v Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd [2019] EWHC 1479 (Comm){{ FIELD }}National Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV [2018] EWHC 3282 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Stati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWCA Civ 1896{{ FIELD }}Montvale Invest Ltd (In Liquidation) v Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd [2018] EWHC 1507 (Ch){{ FIELD }}Stati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWHC 1130 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Monde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros [2018] EWCA Civ 25{{ FIELD }}Bank and Clients Plc v King [2017] EWHC 3099 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Arcadia Energy Petroleum Ltd v Bosworth [2017] EWHC 3160 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Stati v Kazakhstan [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd v Homer Hulbert Maritime Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 44 (Comm){{ FIELD }}Tom Sprange KC provides advocacy and strategic advice in significant, high-value and complex disputes for  a diverse range of clients, including corporations, sovereign states, financial institutions and individuals. A partner in our Trial and Global Disputes practice, Tom acts in a broad array of matters under local, private and public international law.  He is described by his peers as: “Mensa-like intellect with a down-to-earth attitude”, “the best of the best“  “He's just a pleasure to watch, I feel sad for the other side,\"  “A-star advocate, he just walks in and understands everything\" ,  “a superb advocate”, “class act”, “remarkable,” a “super lawyer,” “a real star,” “fantastic”, “a very sharp legal mind”, “an excellent advocacy choice across dispute resolution forums”, “a sharp intellect\" who praise \"the precision, energy and tenacity he projects in front of tribunals and judges\" “, and highlight his \"great cross-examination skills\", describing him as “a unique coming together of legal insight, commercial nous and practical living/implementation” and noting that \"He is a master cross-examiner with in-depth knowledge of financial and commercial issues.\"  “He has a magnificent talent in cross-examination“ and that \"He is a very good lead advocate but equally adept at managing the team.\"\nTom has appeared in over 100 cases in the Chancery and King's Bench divisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, including cases relating to sovereign immunity, acts of state, conflicts of law, interpretation of contracts, civil fraud, injunctive relief and claims arising from arbitration proceedings. \nHe has acted as Counsel in more than 300 international arbitrations in the leading arbitration institutes.\nHe has experience working with clients in numerous sectors, including energy, mining, projects, construction, telecommunications, technology, financial services, real estate, pharmaceuticals, fashion and sports.\nTom is the Managing Partner of the London Office and is a former member of the Firm's Policy Committee.\nHe is highly ranked in the latest editions of the Chambers Global, Chambers UK, Chambers Europe, Legal 500 UK and Who’s Who of Commercial Arbitration, Asset Recovery and Construction directories for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution, as well as listing for Civil Fraud and Energy in the former. He is described as: “a unique coming together of legal insight, commercial nous and practical living/implementation”,  “a superb advocate”, “class act”, “remarkable,” a “super lawyer,” “a real star,” “fantastic,” “impressive,” “smart, percipient and energetic, ” and “commercially astute and a great lawyer” with sources adding that “his advocacy skills are brilliant” and he has “experience in a range of sectors, including aviation, energy and finance.” and that “he is very responsive, sharp and quick to seize the key issues”, that \"He has good, sharp comments at every stage of proceedings and really contributes a lot,\" \"He's smart - he thinks and understands quickly and he's good at forming case strategy.\" \"He is a top-level litigator with years of experience and he is extremely responsive.\" \"He is very effective as arbitration counsel.\" Sources also say Thomas is a “thoroughbred arbitrator who is incredibly smart, ” a “heavyweight arbitration lawyer” and “technically excellent and very creative, with a strong knowledge base and good problem-solving skills”.  Furthermore, Thomas is said to combine a “Mensa-like intellect with a down-to-earth attitude” and “an unparalleled work ethic and outstanding attention to client needs”; possess “extensive commercial arbitration expertise”; to “not just go the extra yard in defending his client’s position, but the extra mile”; to be an “accomplished solicitor advocate”; \"Tom is an extraordinary litigator. He has a sharp intellect from a legal standpoint and is commercially astute.\" \"He is sensible as a solicitor and impressive as an advocate\"; \"He is an extremely high-quality advocate and his work is very impressive in this space\". \"An A-star advocate, he just walks in and understands everything\". \"He is clever, fast, reasonable, logical, knowledgeable, experienced and creative\" and has \"great cross-examination skills.\"  \"He is so sharp and understands how to bring across difficult and complex issues in a pretty easy and very clear manner.\"  \"He is very knowledgeable and creative in his approach.\"  \"Tom Sprange is not afraid to argue anything but with a certain charm.\"   \"He is a master cross-examiner with in-depth knowledge of financial and commercial issues.\"  \"He is a very good lead advocate but equally adept at managing the team.\" he is \"fearless and has a very strong awareness of both the legal and commercial aspects involved\" he is a \"superb advocate full of energy and tenacity. He gets great results for major clients in hearings across the glove\" he \"provides very complete, practical and realistic advice\" he is described as an \"insightful solicitor and extremely confident in the delivery of his case in a court room\" and his knowledge and memory skills are \"truly magnificent\".  Tom has been described as a \"brilliant mind, hard-working and a pleasure to work with\" his clients \"like dealing with him and he can explain complex situations in simple terms\"  Thomas K Sprange Partner Ranked for International Arbitration CHAMBERS EUROPE, 2022 Ranked for International Arbitration, Energy and Fraud CHAMBERS UK, 2022 Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution CHAMBERS GLOBAL, 2022 Ranked for Arbitration and Dispute Resolution Chambers Global, 2017 Ranked for International Arbitration and London Fraud Chambers UK, 2017 Ranked for International Arbitration Chambers Europe, 2017 Ranked for International Arbitration, Dispute Resolution and Civil Fraud Legal 500 UK, 2017 Ranked for International Arbitration and Commercial Litigation Who’s Who Legal University of Sydney, Australia  University of New South Wales  Dubai International Financial Centre Courts England and Wales Law Society of New South Wales New South Wales Ireland Acting for the Republic of Turkey in the largest ever public international law dispute between two sovereigns which involved a $40 billion treaty claim, public and private international law issues and related proceedings in a number of jurisdictions. English Court proceedings relating to terrorist financing, state attribution and sovereign immunity. ICSID proceedings involving claims for $3.5 billion arising from claims for expropriation and breaches of national security, acts of terrorism and acts of state. UNCITRAL proceedings against the Government of India relating to $35 billion claims arising under local and international law. English Court proceedings relating to a $3.5 billion fraud and enforcement claim including freezing orders and actions in 25 jurisdictions worldwide. Reficar in English Court proceedings relating to the McDermott restructuring where a $1.3 billion New York Convention Award was extinguished in return for a $900 million equity interest. English Court proceedings and related appeals with regards to $68 billion sovereign wealth fund and the act of state and one voice doctrines. Recent English and International Court Experience\nMotorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2025] EWHC 257 (Comm), 23 January 2025 Alta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2025] EWHC 91 (Comm), 22 January 2025 FW Aviation (Holdings) 1 Ltd v VietJet Aviation Joint Stock Co [2024] EWHC 3337 (Comm), 23 December 2024 Liberty Steel East Europe (Holdco) Ltd, Re [2024] 11 WLUK 454, 26 November 2024 Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2024] EWHC 2891 (Comm), 14 November 2024 Global Steel Holdings Ltd (In liquidation), Re [2024] 11 WLUK 112, 6 November 2024 TWC Aviation Limited v. SpiceJet Limited [2024] EWHC 721 (Comm) CB\u0026amp;I UK Ltd. re Chancery Division [2024] EHWC 398 (Ch) Motorola Solutions Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2024] EWHC 149 (Comm) Jensen v. World Rugby CAS 2023/A/9377 Vedanta Limited and Cairn Energy Limited v. Government of India [2023] PCA Case N 2020-39 Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 2882 (Comm) Pinewood Technologies Asia Pacific Ltd v Pinewood Technologies Plc King's Bench Division (Technology \u0026amp; Construction Court) [2023] EHWC 2506 (TCC) Motorola Solutions Inc. v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd. King's Bench Division (Commercial Court) [2023] EWHC 1393 (Comm) Republic of Iraq v. Republic of Turkey ICC Case 20273/AGF/ZF/AYZ/ELU Ipek Investment Limited v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/18 Westwater Resources Inc. v. Republic of Turkey, ICSID Case No. ARB/18/46 Rockhopper Italia S.p.A., Rockhopper Mediterranean Ltd., and Rockhopper Exploration Plc v. Republic of Italy ICSID Case No. ARB/17/14 Motorola Solutions Limited v. Hytera Communications Corp Limited [2022] EWHC 2887 (Comm) Hashwah v. Qatar National Bank Limited [2023] 2 W.L.R. 815 EVG v. HVF [2022] EWHC (Comm) 1012 Otuska Pharma Co. Limited v. GW Pharma Limited [2022] EWHC 102 (Pat) Cascade Investments NV v. Republic of Turkey (ICSID Case No. ARB/18/4) Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v (1) Dubai International Financial Centre Authority (2) Dubai International Financial Centre Investments LLC [2019] DIFC CFI 013, 2 March 2022 Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] 12 WLUK 562 World Anti-Doping Agency v. Swimming Australia, Sport Integrity Australia \u0026amp; Shayna Jack CAS 2020/A/7579 / CAS 2020/A/7580 Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2330 (Comm) Alta Trading UK Ltd (formerly Arcadia Petroleum Ltd) v Bosworth [2021] 4 W.L.R. 72 Various Airfinance Leasing Companies v Saudi Arabian Airlines Corp [2021] EWHC 2904 (Comm) Sierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 929 ( Comm) Shapoorji Pallonji and Co Pvt Ltd v Yumn Limited [2021] EWHC 862 (Comm) ConocoPhillips v. Chrysaor E\u0026amp;P Limited [2021] 3 WLUK 524 Sierra Leone v. SL Mining [2021] EWHC 286 (Comm) Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 11 Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2020] DIFCoA CFI 013/2019 C v. D Ltd and X [2020] EWHC 1283 (Comm) Mohamed v. Breish [2020] EWCA Civ 637 Motorola Solutions Inc v Hytera Communications Corp Ltd [2020] EWHC 980 (Comm) National Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV London Branch [2020] EWHC 916 (Comm) Hexagon Holdings (Cayman) Limited v. DIFC [2019] DIFC CFI 013 Mohamed v. Breish [2020] EWHC 696 (Comm) Tsareva v Ananyev [2019] EWHC 2414 (Comm) Mohamed v Breish [2019] EWHC 1765 (Comm) Chung v Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd [2019] EWHC 1479 (Comm) National Bank of Kazakhstan v Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV [2018] EWHC 3282 (Comm) Stati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWCA Civ 1896 Montvale Invest Ltd (In Liquidation) v Terra Raf Trans Traiding Ltd [2018] EWHC 1507 (Ch) Stati v Kazakhstan [2018] EWHC 1130 (Comm) Monde Petroleum SA v Westernzagros [2018] EWCA Civ 25 Bank and Clients Plc v King [2017] EWHC 3099 (Comm) Arcadia Energy Petroleum Ltd v Bosworth [2017] EWHC 3160 (Comm) Stati v Kazakhstan [2017] EWHC 1348 (Comm) Silver Dry Bulk Co Ltd v Homer Hulbert Maritime Co Ltd [2017] EWHC 44 (Comm)","searchable_name":"Tom Sprange, K.C.","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":447026,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5582,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePeter Starr is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Atlanta office and is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Trial and Global Disputes group.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, including consumer class actions, securities matters, and business disputes.\u0026nbsp; Peter has also represented companies in multidistrict litigation and in disputes arising from data breaches. He has extensive experience in both state and federal court and represents corporate defendants across a range of industries.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Peter served as a law clerk to the Hon. Edward E. Carnes on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.\u0026nbsp; He then entered private practice in New York, working as a litigation associate for Davis Polk \u0026amp; Wardwell LLP before returning home to Atlanta.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"peter-starr","email":"pstarr@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Starr","nick_name":"Peter","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Chief Judge Ed Carnes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"2013 - 2014"}],"first_name":"Peter","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":174,"law_schools":[{"id":2237,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude \u0026 Order of the Coif","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePeter Starr is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Atlanta office and is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Trial and Global Disputes group.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, including consumer class actions, securities matters, and business disputes.\u0026nbsp; Peter has also represented companies in multidistrict litigation and in disputes arising from data breaches. He has extensive experience in both state and federal court and represents corporate defendants across a range of industries.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Peter served as a law clerk to the Hon. Edward E. Carnes on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.\u0026nbsp; He then entered private practice in New York, working as a litigation associate for Davis Polk \u0026amp; Wardwell LLP before returning home to Atlanta.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7467}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-26T04:58:30.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-26T04:58:30.000Z","searchable_text":"Starr{{ FIELD }}Peter Starr is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding's Atlanta office and is a member of the firm’s Trial and Global Disputes group.  His practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, including consumer class actions, securities matters, and business disputes.  Peter has also represented companies in multidistrict litigation and in disputes arising from data breaches. He has extensive experience in both state and federal court and represents corporate defendants across a range of industries.\nBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Peter served as a law clerk to the Hon. Edward E. Carnes on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.  He then entered private practice in New York, working as a litigation associate for Davis Polk \u0026amp; Wardwell LLP before returning home to Atlanta. Partner Birmingham Southern College  University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia New York Law Clerk, Chief Judge Ed Carnes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","searchable_name":"Peter Starr","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":174,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":446161,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3412,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star)\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken\u0026rsquo;s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"kenneth-steinthal","email":"ksteinthal@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 917 825 7293","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Copyright Litigations/Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings \u0026hellip; (\u003c/em\u003eknown as the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeb V\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings). Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels\u0026rsquo; positions and adopting much of Google\u0026rsquo;s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018\u0026ndash;2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit\u0026rsquo;s rejection of the publishers\u0026rsquo; core appeal positions while granting the services\u0026rsquo; request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB\u0026rsquo;s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFour Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Orchard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(known as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePB IV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;). Ken is lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporation for Public Broadcasting\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNPR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;PBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;PB III\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken\u0026rsquo;s clients\u0026rsquo; determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken\u0026rsquo;s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePeloton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton\u0026rsquo;s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers\u0026rsquo; Association (\u0026ldquo;NMPA\u0026rdquo;) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (\u0026ldquo;RMLC\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRMLC,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016\u0026ndash;2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eESPN v. BMI\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI\u0026rsquo;s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePandora\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit\u0026rsquo;s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora\u0026rsquo;s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to \u0026ldquo;partially\u0026rdquo; withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora\u0026rsquo;s position.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMobiTV\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP\u0026rsquo;s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eReal Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo!\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken co-defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo! Music\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Napster II\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al\u003c/em\u003e). Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBertelsmann\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEMI Music v. Multiply Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI\u0026rsquo;s label and publisher catalogues asserting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMultiply\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMusicNet\u003c/strong\u003e, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eColeman, et al. v. ESPN\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN\u0026rsquo;s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN\u0026rsquo;s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN\u0026rsquo;s assertion of the \u0026ldquo;fair use\u0026rdquo; defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers\u0026rsquo; summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eABC Television Network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;had infringed the publishers\u0026rsquo; rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called \u0026ldquo;one time uses\u0026rdquo; of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports \u0026ldquo;bio-pic\u0026rdquo; segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther \u0026ldquo;Rate Court\u0026rdquo; Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eASCAP/BMI licensees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe local television industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the early 1980s (\u003cem\u003eBuffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al\u003c/em\u003e.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (\u003cem\u003eNCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al\u003c/em\u003e.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken has been granted \u0026ldquo;rights of audience\u0026rdquo; in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eiJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebaazee.com\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(the \u0026ldquo;eBay of India,\u0026rdquo; in which News Corp\u0026rsquo;s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColumbia Pictures\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Airlines.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Plaintiff claimed American\u0026rsquo;s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFilm Finances and production/distribution entities.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLeague\u003c/em\u003e. Ken assisted in representing the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNASL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;cross ownership\u0026rdquo; ban, which would have prevented \u0026ldquo;cross-owners\u0026rdquo; such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eN.Y. Islanders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAirborne defendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter alia\u003c/em\u003e, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea national title insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNNN\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBritannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edefendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFirst Aviation and its principals.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants\u0026rsquo; verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePIA v. UBS Securities, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUBS,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;stemming from UBS\u0026rsquo; termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million \u0026ldquo;kitchen sink\u0026rdquo; action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRitz Carlton.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrupo Industrial Alfa\u0026rsquo;s steel company, Hylsa, SA,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of \u0026ldquo;HYL Process\u0026rdquo; steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Steinthal","nick_name":"Kenneth","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Kenneth","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2022"},{"title":"IP Trailblazers","detail":"National Law Journal, 2016"},{"title":"1 of 5 Media \u0026 Entertainment MVPs","detail":"Law360, 2015"},{"title":"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers","detail":"The Daily Journal"},{"title":"Leading IP Attorneys: California","detail":"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)"},{"title":"Legal 500 USA ","detail":"multiple years through 2022"},{"title":"Northern California Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"2026 Lawdragon 500","detail":"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyers"},{"title":"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel ","detail":"Hollywood Reporter"},{"title":"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist ","detail":"AAI, 2014"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by \u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star)\u003c/em\u003e and the \u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken\u0026rsquo;s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice\u0026rsquo;s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Copyright Litigations/Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings \u0026hellip; (\u003c/em\u003eknown as the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWeb V\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings). Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels\u0026rsquo; positions and adopting much of Google\u0026rsquo;s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken leads the representation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGoogle\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018\u0026ndash;2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit\u0026rsquo;s rejection of the publishers\u0026rsquo; core appeal positions while granting the services\u0026rsquo; request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial.\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board\u003c/em\u003e, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB\u0026rsquo;s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFour Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Orchard\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the \u0026ldquo;mechanical\u0026rdquo; reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(known as \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ePB IV\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;). Ken is lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporation for Public Broadcasting\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNPR\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;PBS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;PB III\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNetflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken\u0026rsquo;s clients\u0026rsquo; determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken\u0026rsquo;s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eKen led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePeloton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton\u0026rsquo;s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers\u0026rsquo; Association (\u0026ldquo;NMPA\u0026rdquo;) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (\u0026ldquo;RMLC\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel for the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRMLC,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016\u0026ndash;2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eESPN v. BMI\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI\u0026rsquo;s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ePandora\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit\u0026rsquo;s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora\u0026rsquo;s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to \u0026ldquo;partially\u0026rdquo; withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora\u0026rsquo;s position.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMobiTV\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026rsquo;s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP\u0026rsquo;s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eReal Networks\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo!\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken co-defended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eYahoo! Music\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;Napster II\u0026rdquo; (\u003cem\u003eUMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al\u003c/em\u003e). Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBertelsmann\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEMI Music v. Multiply Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI\u0026rsquo;s label and publisher catalogues asserting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMultiply\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMusicNet\u003c/strong\u003e, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eColeman, et al. v. ESPN\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eESPN\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN\u0026rsquo;s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN\u0026rsquo;s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN\u0026rsquo;s assertion of the \u0026ldquo;fair use\u0026rdquo; defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers\u0026rsquo; summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eABC Television Network\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;had infringed the publishers\u0026rsquo; rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called \u0026ldquo;one time uses\u0026rdquo; of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports \u0026ldquo;bio-pic\u0026rdquo; segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOther \u0026ldquo;Rate Court\u0026rdquo; Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eASCAP/BMI licensees\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe local television industry\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the early 1980s (\u003cem\u003eBuffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al\u003c/em\u003e.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (\u003cem\u003eNCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al\u003c/em\u003e.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken has been granted \u0026ldquo;rights of audience\u0026rdquo; in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eiJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebaazee.com\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;(the \u0026ldquo;eBay of India,\u0026rdquo; in which News Corp\u0026rsquo;s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColumbia Pictures\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmerican Airlines.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Plaintiff claimed American\u0026rsquo;s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFilm Finances and production/distribution entities.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLeague\u003c/em\u003e. Ken assisted in representing the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNASL\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;cross ownership\u0026rdquo; ban, which would have prevented \u0026ldquo;cross-owners\u0026rdquo; such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethe\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eN.Y. Islanders\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Other Engagements\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAirborne defendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003einter alia\u003c/em\u003e, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea national title insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNNN\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBritannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003edefendants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL \u0026sect;17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eFirst Aviation and its principals.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants\u0026rsquo; verdict.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePIA v. UBS Securities, Inc\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eUBS,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;stemming from UBS\u0026rsquo; termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant\u0026rsquo;s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million \u0026ldquo;kitchen sink\u0026rdquo; action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eRitz Carlton.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co\u003c/em\u003e. Ken was lead trial counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGrupo Industrial Alfa\u0026rsquo;s steel company, Hylsa, SA,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of \u0026ldquo;HYL Process\u0026rdquo; steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2022"},{"title":"IP Trailblazers","detail":"National Law Journal, 2016"},{"title":"1 of 5 Media \u0026 Entertainment MVPs","detail":"Law360, 2015"},{"title":"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers","detail":"The Daily Journal"},{"title":"Leading IP Attorneys: California","detail":"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026 Entertainment","detail":"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)"},{"title":"Legal 500 USA ","detail":"multiple years through 2022"},{"title":"Northern California Super Lawyer ","detail":"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)"},{"title":"2026 Lawdragon 500","detail":"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026 Media Lawyers"},{"title":"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel ","detail":"Hollywood Reporter"},{"title":"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist ","detail":"AAI, 2014"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4405},{"id":4405}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-25T16:42:53.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-25T16:42:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Steinthal{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"IP Trailblazers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 10 Copyright Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Daily Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading IP Attorneys: California\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026amp; Entertainment\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 USA \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"multiple years through 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Northern California Super Lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2026 Lawdragon 500\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Hollywood Reporter\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"AAI, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}Representative Copyright Litigations/Matters\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings … (known as the Web V proceedings). Ken leads the representation of Google in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels’ positions and adopting much of Google’s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing.{{ FIELD }}In re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords. Ken leads the representation of Google in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018–2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the publishers’ core appeal positions while granting the services’ request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial. Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB’s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate.{{ FIELD }}Four Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al. Ken led the defense of The Orchard (a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the “mechanical” reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities (known as “PB IV”). Ken is lead counsel for Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR and PBS in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior PB III proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\nDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including Netflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken’s clients’ determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken’s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\nDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. Ken led the defense of Peloton in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton’s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\nSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”). Ken was lead counsel for the RMLC, the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016–2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\nESPN v. BMI. Ken was lead counsel for ESPN in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI’s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\nPandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP. Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on Pandora’s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit’s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora’s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to “partially” withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora’s position.\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc. Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client MobiTV’s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP’s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc. Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of Real Networks and Yahoo! leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\nArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media. Ken co-defended Yahoo! Music (f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\n“Napster II” (UMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al). Ken led the defense of Bertelsmann against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\nEMI Music v. Multiply Inc. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI’s label and publisher catalogues asserting Multiply did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\nSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc. Ken led the defense of MusicNet, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\nColeman, et al. v. ESPN. Ken led the defense of ESPN against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN’s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN’s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN’s assertion of the “fair use” defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers’ summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\nAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the ABC Television Network had infringed the publishers’ rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called “one time uses” of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports “bio-pic” segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\nOther “Rate Court” Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI. Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other ASCAP/BMI licensees engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\nAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI. Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by the local television industry in the early 1980s (Buffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (NCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\nInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters. Ken has been granted “rights of audience” in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Representative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\niJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending baazee.com (the “eBay of India,” in which News Corp’s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\nPersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by Columbia Pictures of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\nRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by American Airlines. Plaintiff claimed American’s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\nEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients Film Finances and production/distribution entities. After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\nNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football League. Ken assisted in representing the NASL in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL’s “cross ownership” ban, which would have prevented “cross-owners” such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\nNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for the N.Y. Islanders hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis.{{ FIELD }}Representative Other Engagements\nDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the Airborne defendants in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging, inter alia, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\nIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation. Ken was lead trial counsel for a national title insurance company in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL §17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\nNNN Britannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for defendants in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL §17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\nRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against First Aviation and its principals. The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants’ verdict.\nPIA v. UBS Securities, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against UBS, stemming from UBS’ termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant’s favor.\nOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million “kitchen sink” action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client Ritz Carlton. The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\nIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co. Ken was lead trial counsel for Grupo Industrial Alfa’s steel company, Hylsa, SA, in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of “HYL Process” steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.{{ FIELD }}Kenneth Steinthal, known for litigating matters in the intellectual property/media sector, is a widely recognized leader in his field, including by National Law Journal as a 2016 IP Trailblazer, by Law360 as 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs in 2015, by Legal 500 as 1 of only 8 members of its U.S. Copyright Hall of Fame, and on a consistent annual basis (including in 2022) by multiple legal publications including each of Legal 500, Chambers USA, Managing IP (as an IP Star) and the Daily Journal’s listing of Top Intellectual Property Lawyers. \nKen has four decades of experience litigating matters spanning the IP/media sector, in jury and bench trial settings and before copyright tribunals in the U.S. and internationally. Ken’s practice is focused on copyright, DMCA and antitrust/rate-setting cases involving the distribution of audio and audiovisual content. His litigation matters typically involve the defense of copyright infringement claims, the application of DMCA safe harbors and the establishment of structures and rates for the exploitation of copyrighted works in both traditional (e.g., cable, satellite, broadcast) and new media distribution environments. In just the last few years, Ken has led teams on behalf of Google, Peloton, the Radio Music License Committee (representing the interests of the U.S. broadcast radio industry), NPR/PBS, The Orchard, ESPN and Pandora before different courts and tribunals (including the U.S. Copyright Royalty Board) in defense of copyright infringement claims and establishing rate structures governing his clients' exploitation of music licensed by publishers and labels (and their representative organizations).\nIn a constantly evolving media distribution environment, Ken and his team also regularly counsel clients regarding the licensing implications and risks associated with their existing or contemplated product offerings spanning both traditional and new media. He also assumed an industry-leading role on behalf of the content distribution community (including Netflix, Paramount Global/ViacomCBS, ESPN, Warner Media/HBO, Discovery Communications, AMC Networks, Fox Cable Network Services, iHeartMedia, Google/YouTube, and many others) in connection with the Department of Justice’s periodic investigations of the ASCAP and BMI antitrust consent decrees governing the licensing of public performance rights in musical compositions. Partner “He is a sophisticated negotiator and provides top-notch service. He is very responsive and detail-oriented.” CHAMBERS USA 2022 IP Trailblazers National Law Journal, 2016 1 of 5 Media \u0026amp; Entertainment MVPs Law360, 2015 Top 10 Copyright Lawyers The Daily Journal Leading IP Attorneys: California The Daily Journal (multiple years through 2021) Leading Lawyer: IP/Media \u0026amp; Entertainment Chambers USA and Chambers Global (multiple years through 2022) Legal 500 USA  multiple years through 2022 Northern California Super Lawyer  Super Lawyers (multiple years through 2021) 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Entertainment, Sports \u0026amp; Media Lawyers Power Lawyers: Top 100 Outside Counsel  Hollywood Reporter Outstanding Antitrust Litigation Achievement in Private Law Practice: Finalist  AAI, 2014 Williams College  Fordham University Fordham University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California California New York Representative Copyright Litigations/Matters\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Digital Performance of Sound Recordings … (known as the Web V proceedings). Ken leads the representation of Google in these Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the labels/recording industry to determine statutory royalty rates for digital performances of sound recordings made by non-interactive music streaming services under sections 112 and 114 of the Copyright Act (for the statutory license term 1/1/21-12/31/25). A five-week virtual Zoom trial was held in August - September 2020 (which was one of the first virtual trials of that magnitude conducted during the global pandemic), and ultimately led to a 300-page decision issued in June 2021 largely rejecting the labels’ positions and adopting much of Google’s arguments to minimize any rate increases. The labels have appealed the decision, which appeal is ongoing. In re Determination of Rates and Terms for Making and Distributing Phonorecords. Ken leads the representation of Google in the Phonorecords III Copyright Royalty Board proceedings against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms for the five-year period 2018–2022; the case involves \"mechanical\" reproduction licenses associated with the distribution of interactive/on-demand streaming services and cloud locker services under section 115 of the Copyright Act. The case is currently on remand to the CRB after the D.C. Circuit’s rejection of the publishers’ core appeal positions while granting the services’ request to vacate and remand for further proceedings certain aspects of the rate structure adopted by the CRB in its Initial Determination after trial. Johnson v. Copyright Royalty Board, 969 F.3d 363 (D.C. Cir. 2020). This follows the CRB’s initial trial determination agreeing with Google (and other services) in rejecting the core position of the publishers who sought to establish a per-play royalty rate. Four Jays Music Company, et al. v. Apple Inc., et al. Ken led the defense of The Orchard (a subsidiary of Sony Music Entertainment) in this copyright infringement suit in the Southern District of New York claiming that The Orchard distributed digital recordings to stores for sale (through digital service providers such as Apple and Google) where the “mechanical” reproduction rights associated with the musical compositions embodied in those recordings were not properly licensed. The suit sought damages for infringement on behalf of Harry Warren, whose works were recorded by jazz and popular artists such as Billie Holliday, Dean Martin, Louis Armstrong, and Miles Davis. The case challenged various historical music clearance practices employed by digital music distributors. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2021.\nIn re Determination of Rates and Terms for Performance or Display of Nondramatic Musical Works ... By Public Broadcasting Entities (known as “PB IV”). Ken is lead counsel for Corporation for Public Broadcasting, NPR and PBS in this Copyright Royalty Board proceeding against the music publishing industry that will determine the statutory license rates and terms (for the five-year period 2023-2027) for public broadcaster uses of musical works under Section 118 of the Copyright Act. Notices of Settlement with 3 of the 5 copyright owner representatives have been filed; if settlements cannot be reached with all the copyright owner participants, trial will be held in 2022. Ken also led the representation of CPB, NPR and PBS in the prior PB III proceedings resulting in favorable statutory rates for the public broadcasters during the five-year term 2018-2022.\nDOJ Investigation of ASCAP and BMI Consent Decrees. Ken led the representation of a consortium of audiovisual content distributors (including Netflix, Viacom/Showtime Networks, HBO/Turner Broadcasting, AMC Networks, Discovery Communications, ESPN, Fox Cable Network Services and several other entities) engaged in the distribution of audio-visual content in connection with preparing and advancing comments responsive to the US Department of Justice investigation regarding whether the existing antitrust consent decrees regulating the conduct of music performing rights collectives Broadcast Music Inc. (BMI) and the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP) should be modified and/or terminated. In January 2021 the DOJ adopted the position advocated by Ken’s clients’ determining that there was no basis to modify or terminate the ASCAP and BMI consent decrees. Ken’s client group had secured a similar result under the prior Administration in 2016 on behalf of a similar consortium.\nDowntown Music Publishing, LLC v. Peloton Interactive, Inc. Ken led the defense of Peloton in a high-profile copyright infringement litigation brought by independent music publishers in the Southern District of New York in which the publishers sued Peloton on the eve of Peloton’s IPO seeking over $300 million based on claims that Peloton willfully infringed over 21,000 musical works. Peloton in response impleaded third-party National Music Publishers’ Association (“NMPA”) and filed counterclaims asserting both antitrust law violations and tortious interference with business relations counterclaims. The case was settled on favorable terms in early 2020.\nSESAC v. Radio Music License Committee (“RMLC”). Ken was lead counsel for the RMLC, the representative body of the broadcast radio industry, in this first-ever arbitration proceeding to determine reasonable industry-wide rates and terms (during the three-year term 2016–2018) for some 7,000 radio stations' broadcasts and simulcasts of the musical works controlled by performing rights organization SESAC. The arbitration took place in 2017 and resulted in a favorable outcome for RMLC, reducing pre-existing SESAC fee levels by more than 50%.\nESPN v. BMI. Ken was lead counsel for ESPN in this litigation against performing rights organization Broadcast Music, Inc. under the BMI antitrust consent decree. ESPN directly licenses from writers and publishers the vast majority of the music it performs; and it sought a determination of reasonable license fees from BMI for the music in commercials or ambient music overheard in stadiums and arenas during sports telecasts, which ESPN is not in a position to directly license. This case would have been the first to challenge BMI’s off-the-shelf license structure and rates for audiovisual programming based on evidence of competitive direct licensing transactions and also involved the issue of whether performances of ambient music captured in connection with live sports broadcasts are fair use. The case was settled shortly before trial in 2017.\nPandora Media, Inc. v. ASCAP. Ken was lead counsel in this federal court trial and appeal on Pandora’s behalf culminating in the Second Circuit’s 2015 affirmance of rulings (i) upholding Pandora’s challenge to the efforts of major ASCAP publisher members to “partially” withdraw from ASCAP in an effort to avoid rate oversight by the court overseeing the ASCAP antitrust consent decree, and (ii) establishing rates consistent with Pandora’s position.\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of MobiTV, Inc. Ken led the federal court trial before the judge supervising the ASCAP antitrust consent decree and ensuing successful Second Circuit appeal resulting in adoption of client MobiTV’s proposal, establishing favorable rates and terms for mobile distribution of TV/radio content (and rejecting ASCAP’s position that mobile/online content distribution entities should be subject to a far more onerous royalty structure than exists for entities distributing content via traditional media vehicles).\nU.S. v. ASCAP, Application of RealNetworks Inc. and Yahoo!, Inc. Ken led the trial and argued the appeal on behalf of Real Networks and Yahoo! leading to this landmark Second Circuit decision in September 2010 (and denial of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2012) holding that transmissions of music downloads do not trigger public performance rights liabilities for entities engaged in content distribution (and rejecting the position of ASCAP and other copyright organizations to the contrary).\nArista Records, et al. v. Launch Media. Ken co-defended Yahoo! Music (f/k/a Launch Media) in a billion-dollar copyright infringement action brought by various record labels in the SDNY challenging the eligibility of Yahoo!'s Internet radio service for the statutory license under section 114 of the Copyright Act; Yahoo! secured a jury verdict in its favor (later affirmed by the Second Circuit).\n“Napster II” (UMG Recordings, et al. v. Bertelsmann AG, et al). Ken led the defense of Bertelsmann against a series of music label and publisher copyright infringement claims brought in the SDNY and NDCA (asserting liability in excess of $20 billion) based on alleged direct, contributory and vicarious liability of Bertelsmann arising from its investments in and relationship with the original Napster file-sharing service; rulings on motions led to favorable settlements shortly before trial.\nEMI Music v. Multiply Inc. Ken represented this social network service in a lawsuit claiming copyright infringement of works in EMI’s label and publisher catalogues asserting Multiply did not qualify for the DMCA safe harbor; representation enabled settlement shortly after lawsuit was fied.\nSony/ATV Songs LLC, et al. v. MusicNet, Inc. Ken led the defense of MusicNet, an early pioneer in the digital on-demand music service industry, against copyright infringement claims based on the alleged failure of the service to secure musical work reproduction rights licenses; representation enabled settlement not long after suit was filed.\nColeman, et al. v. ESPN. Ken led the defense of ESPN against claims of ASCAP members asserting copyright infringement based on ESPN’s alleged unlicensed public performance of musical works audible in the background of ESPN’s broadcasts of sports programming and challenging ESPN’s assertion of the “fair use” defense to such uses. The case was settled on favorable terms on the eve of trial after successfully defeating publishers’ summary judgment motion relating to the fair use defense.\nAngel Music, Inc. et al v. ABC Sports, et al. Ken led the defense of the local television industry in this putative dual plaintiff/defendant class action copyright infringement lawsuit claiming that the ABC Television Network had infringed the publishers’ rights by failing to secure synchronization licenses for so-called “one time uses” of compositions that were used as background for Olympics sports “bio-pic” segments; successfully achieved dismissal of action.\nOther “Rate Court” Proceedings against ASCAP and BMI. Ken is and/or has been lead trial counsel for numerous other ASCAP/BMI licensees engaged both in traditional and new media forms of content distribution; over the years, he has managed or co-managed the negotiations and, where necessary, trial teams in consent decree proceedings against ASCAP, BMI, SESAC and GMR on behalf of more than forty cable/satellite/broadcast/new media content distribution services and providers.\nAntitrust litigation against ASCAP and BMI. Ken was deeply involved in the seminal antitrust cases brought by the local television industry in the early 1980s (Buffalo Broadcasting Co., et al. v. ASCAP, et al.) and the cable TV industry in the early 1990s (NCTA, et al. v. BMI, et al.), against both ASCAP and BMI, which set the framework for the consent decree litigations that have followed.\nInternational Copyright Tribunal Matters. Ken has been granted “rights of audience” in the Copyright Tribunals of the UK and Hong Kong to litigate matters pertaining to the proper structure and rates for musical work public performances (and, in some cases, reproductions), on behalf of both new media/online distributors of content and traditional cable/satellite television distributors. For example, he was lead trial counsel in the precedent-setting UK Copyright Tribunal litigation on behalf of a consortium of music service providers (including AOL, Yahoo!, Apple, Napster LLC, RealNetworks and MusicNet) against the UK collective MCPS/PRS. Prior to that, he represented a consortium of cable and satellite providers in proceedings before the Hong Kong Copyright Tribunal against the Composers and Authors Society of Hong Kong (CASH), which resulted in a favorable industry-wide settlement on the eve of trial. Representative Other Media/Entertainment/Sports Litigation\niJaal.com, Inc., et al. v. baazee.com, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury trial defending baazee.com (the “eBay of India,” in which News Corp’s Star TV was the primary outside investor before acquisition by eBay after trial) and its principals against claims of breach of oral contract, misappropriation of partnership opportunity, misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims; won complete defense verdict.\nPersky-Bright Organization, et al. v. Columbia Pictures Entertainment, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in defense of two $300 million actions brought in SDNY and CDCA, in which the plaintiff motion picture investment groups alleged a series of violations by Columbia Pictures of motion picture distribution agreements, together with RICO, fraud, antitrust/block booking and tax indemnity claims. The case spanned several years and included a mini-trial of non-jury issues that resulted in the substantial curtailment of issues to proceed before a jury, leading to a favorable settlement thereafter.\nRobehr Films, Inc. v. American Airlines, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in this SDNY jury action brought by an in-flight film supplier alleging fraud and breach of contract by American Airlines. Plaintiff claimed American’s conduct had forced it out of business. A three-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict, which was affirmed on appeal to the Second Circuit.\nEuropean American Bank v. Film Finances, Inc., et al. Ken was lead counsel in defending this action brought by EAB under film loan agreements and a completion bond against clients Film Finances and production/distribution entities. After preliminary pre-trial proceedings and motion practice, the case was settled on a zero-liability basis.\nNorth American Soccer League (NASL) v. National Football League. Ken assisted in representing the NASL in this antitrust trial in the SDNY in which the NASL successfully challenged the NFL’s “cross ownership” ban, which would have prevented “cross-owners” such as Lamar Hunt and Joe Robbie from maintaining their investments in the NASL.\nNew York Islanders Hockey Club LP v. SMG, et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for the N.Y. Islanders hockey team in federal and state court litigations against SMG and Nassau County seeking to terminate lease arrangements at the Nassau Coliseum on novel constructive eviction theories. After preliminary injunction trial proceedings and a series of appeals, the case settled on a favorable basis. Representative Other Engagements\nDavid Wilson et al. v. Airborne, Inc. Ken was lead counsel in representation of the Airborne defendants in this consumer class action (removed to Central District of CA under CAFA) alleging, inter alia, false advertising and violations of California consumer protection laws; led to a favorable class settlement.\nIn re CA Title Insurance Litigation. Ken was lead trial counsel for a national title insurance company in this putative class action alleging violations of CA UCL §17200; oversaw successful motion practice leading to dismissal and 2012 order compelling individual claim arbitration.\nNNN Britannia Business Center, et al v. Grubb \u0026amp;amp;amp; Ellis Co., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel for defendants in these CA state court actions alleging violations of CA UCL §17200, fraud, etc., associated with the syndication of certain commercial real estate investments; successful motion practice resulted in substantial curtailment of claims at issue.\nRisko v. First Aviation Services, Inc., et al. Ken was lead trial counsel in this jury trial in Oakland, CA Superior Court alleging fraud and breach of contract against First Aviation and its principals. The case was brought by a former First Aviation principal alleging, among other things, entitlements under an oral agreement, and threatened the continued viability of the client group. A two-week jury trial resulted in a no-liability defendants’ verdict.\nPIA v. UBS Securities, Inc. Ken was lead trial counsel in defending lender liability, fraud and breach of contract claims brought in New York State Supreme Court by the owners of the Roosevelt Hotel in New York City against UBS, stemming from UBS’ termination of an agreement to finance the renovation of the hotel. A three-week bench trial resulted in a no-liability defendant’s verdict. Appellate proceedings in the New York Appellate Division and Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court rulings in defendant’s favor.\nOvernight Partners, et al. v. Ritz Carlton Hotel Co. Ken was lead counsel in defense of this $300 million “kitchen sink” action brought in the SDNY by the owners of the Ritz Carlton hotel properties located in New York, Washington D.C., Houston and Aspen CO, against client Ritz Carlton. The case involved fraud, breach of contract, RICO, trademark and other claims brought by the Saudi group owners of those properties. After protracted pre-trial proceedings, the case settled on a favorable basis, whereby plaintiffs were stripped of their right to operate Ritz Carlton hotels.\nIn re Hylsa, S.A. v. M.W. Kellogg Co. Ken was lead trial counsel for Grupo Industrial Alfa’s steel company, Hylsa, SA, in ICC arbitration involving hundreds of millions of dollars in claims and technology issues relating to construction of “HYL Process” steel plants for SIDOR in Venezuela. After a series of ICC hearings, case was settled on a zero-liability basis to Hylsa.","searchable_name":"Kenneth L. Steinthal","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}