{"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":"cg-2","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"B","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":427219,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6490,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAdam Baker represents global financial institutions, healthcare and life sciences companies, and other public corporations in complex government and internal investigations and regulatory matters. He has extensive experience counseling clients facing investigations by the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, State Attorneys General, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, as well as other criminal and civil authorities. In particular, Adam has defended clients in matters implicating various federal laws and regulations, including insider trading, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Anti-Kickback Statute, healthcare fraud, and the Food, Drug \u0026amp; Cosmetic Act. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Adam served as a criminal Assistant United States Attorney in the Health Care Fraud/Opioid Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Unit in the District of New Jersey. In that role, he led a number of large-scale investigations and prosecutions of major pharmaceutical companies for healthcare fraud, diversion of controlled substances, and violations of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute.\u0026nbsp; He also partnered with the DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Consumer Protection Branch on a significant investigation into potential violations by an opioid manufacturer and related individuals of the Food, Drug \u0026amp; Cosmetic Act.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to his government service, Adam was a Partner at another AmLaw 50 firm where he oversaw complex investigations and regulatory matters for financial institutions and its employees.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdam is active within the LGBTQ+ community. He helped found Boston Colleges\u0026rsquo; first gay-straight alliance and served on his prior firm\u0026rsquo;s Diversity \u0026amp; LGBTQ+ committees. He serves on Boston College Law School\u0026rsquo;s national alumni board and formerly served as a Corp member for Teach For America.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"adam-baker","email":"abaker@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal investigation on behalf of the Special Committee of an international corporation concerning potential financial improprieties resulting in a restatement and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and represented the Special Committee in resulting parallel investigations by the DOJ and SEC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational financial services institution in investigations by the SEC and FINRA related to potential insider trading by current and former employees involved in a nonpublic M\u0026amp;A deal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational financial services institution in an internal investigation of potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and OFAC regulations by an employee who attempted to broker deals with the Iranian government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the former CEO of a publicly-traded company in insider trading investigations by the DOJ and SEC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a men\u0026rsquo;s college basketball coach in investigations by the DOJ and NCAA Enforcement regarding potential provision of payments and benefits to players.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a key figure in the \u0026ldquo;Bridgegate\u0026rdquo; matter in parallel investigations by the New Jersey Legislative Select Committee and U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office, District of New Jersey.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a former Dewey \u0026amp; Leboeuf employee in the New York County District Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office\u0026rsquo;s investigation of the downfall of the firm, successfully obtaining immunity for the client.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baker","nick_name":"Adam","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Adam","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":245,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2008-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/adam-baker-4a471038/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAdam Baker represents global financial institutions, healthcare and life sciences companies, and other public corporations in complex government and internal investigations and regulatory matters. He has extensive experience counseling clients facing investigations by the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, State Attorneys General, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, as well as other criminal and civil authorities. In particular, Adam has defended clients in matters implicating various federal laws and regulations, including insider trading, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Anti-Kickback Statute, healthcare fraud, and the Food, Drug \u0026amp; Cosmetic Act. [[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Adam served as a criminal Assistant United States Attorney in the Health Care Fraud/Opioid Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Unit in the District of New Jersey. In that role, he led a number of large-scale investigations and prosecutions of major pharmaceutical companies for healthcare fraud, diversion of controlled substances, and violations of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute.\u0026nbsp; He also partnered with the DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Consumer Protection Branch on a significant investigation into potential violations by an opioid manufacturer and related individuals of the Food, Drug \u0026amp; Cosmetic Act.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to his government service, Adam was a Partner at another AmLaw 50 firm where he oversaw complex investigations and regulatory matters for financial institutions and its employees.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdam is active within the LGBTQ+ community. He helped found Boston Colleges\u0026rsquo; first gay-straight alliance and served on his prior firm\u0026rsquo;s Diversity \u0026amp; LGBTQ+ committees. He serves on Boston College Law School\u0026rsquo;s national alumni board and formerly served as a Corp member for Teach For America.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal investigation on behalf of the Special Committee of an international corporation concerning potential financial improprieties resulting in a restatement and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and represented the Special Committee in resulting parallel investigations by the DOJ and SEC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational financial services institution in investigations by the SEC and FINRA related to potential insider trading by current and former employees involved in a nonpublic M\u0026amp;A deal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational financial services institution in an internal investigation of potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and OFAC regulations by an employee who attempted to broker deals with the Iranian government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the former CEO of a publicly-traded company in insider trading investigations by the DOJ and SEC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a men\u0026rsquo;s college basketball coach in investigations by the DOJ and NCAA Enforcement regarding potential provision of payments and benefits to players.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a key figure in the \u0026ldquo;Bridgegate\u0026rdquo; matter in parallel investigations by the New Jersey Legislative Select Committee and U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office, District of New Jersey.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a former Dewey \u0026amp; Leboeuf employee in the New York County District Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office\u0026rsquo;s investigation of the downfall of the firm, successfully obtaining immunity for the client.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10412}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:59:19.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:59:19.000Z","searchable_text":"Baker{{ FIELD }}Conducted an internal investigation on behalf of the Special Committee of an international corporation concerning potential financial improprieties resulting in a restatement and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and represented the Special Committee in resulting parallel investigations by the DOJ and SEC.{{ FIELD }}Represented a multinational financial services institution in investigations by the SEC and FINRA related to potential insider trading by current and former employees involved in a nonpublic M\u0026amp;A deal.{{ FIELD }}Represented a multinational financial services institution in an internal investigation of potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and OFAC regulations by an employee who attempted to broker deals with the Iranian government.{{ FIELD }}Represented the former CEO of a publicly-traded company in insider trading investigations by the DOJ and SEC.{{ FIELD }}Represented a men’s college basketball coach in investigations by the DOJ and NCAA Enforcement regarding potential provision of payments and benefits to players.{{ FIELD }}Represented a key figure in the “Bridgegate” matter in parallel investigations by the New Jersey Legislative Select Committee and U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of New Jersey.{{ FIELD }}Represented a former Dewey \u0026amp; Leboeuf employee in the New York County District Attorney’s Office’s investigation of the downfall of the firm, successfully obtaining immunity for the client.{{ FIELD }}Adam Baker represents global financial institutions, healthcare and life sciences companies, and other public corporations in complex government and internal investigations and regulatory matters. He has extensive experience counseling clients facing investigations by the Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, State Attorneys General, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, as well as other criminal and civil authorities. In particular, Adam has defended clients in matters implicating various federal laws and regulations, including insider trading, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, Anti-Kickback Statute, healthcare fraud, and the Food, Drug \u0026amp; Cosmetic Act. \nPreviously, Adam served as a criminal Assistant United States Attorney in the Health Care Fraud/Opioid Abuse Prevention and Enforcement Unit in the District of New Jersey. In that role, he led a number of large-scale investigations and prosecutions of major pharmaceutical companies for healthcare fraud, diversion of controlled substances, and violations of the Federal Anti-Kickback Statute.  He also partnered with the DOJ’s Consumer Protection Branch on a significant investigation into potential violations by an opioid manufacturer and related individuals of the Food, Drug \u0026amp; Cosmetic Act.   \nPrior to his government service, Adam was a Partner at another AmLaw 50 firm where he oversaw complex investigations and regulatory matters for financial institutions and its employees. \nAdam is active within the LGBTQ+ community. He helped found Boston Colleges’ first gay-straight alliance and served on his prior firm’s Diversity \u0026amp; LGBTQ+ committees. He serves on Boston College Law School’s national alumni board and formerly served as a Corp member for Teach For America.   Partner Boston College Boston College Law School Boston College Boston College Law School Fordham University Fordham University 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 New York Conducted an internal investigation on behalf of the Special Committee of an international corporation concerning potential financial improprieties resulting in a restatement and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and represented the Special Committee in resulting parallel investigations by the DOJ and SEC. Represented a multinational financial services institution in investigations by the SEC and FINRA related to potential insider trading by current and former employees involved in a nonpublic M\u0026amp;A deal. Represented a multinational financial services institution in an internal investigation of potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and OFAC regulations by an employee who attempted to broker deals with the Iranian government. Represented the former CEO of a publicly-traded company in insider trading investigations by the DOJ and SEC. Represented a men’s college basketball coach in investigations by the DOJ and NCAA Enforcement regarding potential provision of payments and benefits to players. Represented a key figure in the “Bridgegate” matter in parallel investigations by the New Jersey Legislative Select Committee and U.S. Attorney’s Office, District of New Jersey. Represented a former Dewey \u0026amp; Leboeuf employee in the New York County District Attorney’s Office’s investigation of the downfall of the firm, successfully obtaining immunity for the client.","searchable_name":"Adam Baker","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":445539,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6785,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDana Berkowitz represents healthcare providers in\u0026nbsp;a variety of high-stakes matters,\u0026nbsp;including reimbursement disputes, regulatory proceedings,\u0026nbsp;and commercial litigation and arbitration.\u0026nbsp; She also provides strategic advice to healthcare and life sciences startups and handles bet-the-company litigation on their behalf. \u0026nbsp;Dana has deep expertise in ERISA and behavioral healthcare. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;describes her as \u0026ldquo;the full package\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;a gifted litigator and strategist\u0026rdquo; who is \u0026ldquo;knowledgeable and solutions-based.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;calls Dana \u0026ldquo;a superlative advocate and tactician.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDana has a\u0026nbsp;long track record of achieving favorable outcomes for healthcare providers in a wide variety of payor disputes.\u0026nbsp; Her practice focuses on managed care litigation and arbitration.\u0026nbsp; Dana also helps providers navigate audits, rate disputes, recoupment demands, and other high-risk aspects of their payor relationships. Dana leverages her ERISA expertise to help her clients take advantage of opportunities, such as by using the Parity Act to improve reimbursement for mental health services.\u0026nbsp; Dana also advises providers on best practices, often in anticipation of sale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDana has achieved success in several bet-the-company litigations and appeals for providers and other business clients.\u0026nbsp; For example, in 2019, she secured a complete defense verdict for a behavioral healthcare provider in a $195 million false advertising case.\u0026nbsp; In 2020, she successfully defended another provider in a four-week administrative trial against the State of California.\u0026nbsp; And in 2022, Dana led a large theft of trade secrets case to a favorable resolution for her biotech startup client.\u0026nbsp; Dana has also briefed and argued\u0026nbsp;high-profile appeals in federal and state courts across the nation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSince 2022,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;has recognized Dana as one of the top ERISA litigators in the nation.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal500\u003c/em\u003e says that she is \u0026ldquo;unmatched in her ability to quickly ingest, organize, and master an enormous amount of factual information and synthesize it into a winning narrative.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; Dana has also been listed as a leading lawyer under 40 in \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eNew York Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"dana-berkowitz","email":"dberkowitz@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParties Confidential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eLead counsel to behavioral health company in rate dispute with major payor. Resolved after service of draft complaint for $30 million more than prior offer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHammell v. Pilot Products, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in ERISA pension dispute. Won more than 90 percent of relief sought including over $1M in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel to American biotech startup in nine-figure federal trade secrets litigation and international arbitration relating to next-generation COVID-19 vaccine. Matter resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGrasshopper House LLC v. Clean \u0026amp; Sober Media LLC.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eFirst-chaired bench trial on equitable relief after adverse jury verdict in Lanham Act case against well-known treatment facility, where plaintiff sought $195M. Court found unclean hands and awarded $0 to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParties Confidential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eResolved dispute on behalf of hospital against independent physician organization on eve of trial for double amount of claimed loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Creative Care.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eFirst-chaired four-week administrative trial against California in license revocation action. Secured complete defense victory for substance abuse treatment facility client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel in franchise arbitration against international coffeehouse chain. Awarded full amount of claimed loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBechard v. Brody.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successfully briefed and argued California appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration in dispute involving Michael Avenatti and Republican fundraiser Elliott Brody.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3251}]},"expertise":[{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":502,"guid":"502.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":740,"guid":"740.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Berkowitz","nick_name":"Dana","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Dana","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2011-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"\"She is a superlative advocate and tactician.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2025"},{"title":"\"She's the full package: smart, good on her feet, dogged and fierce in all the right ways.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked in \"ERISA Litigation: Mainly Plaintiffs (Nationwide)\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022-25"},{"title":"Future Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"40 and Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021-2022, 2024"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"New York Law Journal, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Dana is a lawyer at King \u0026 Spalding's New York Office. Read more about her.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDana Berkowitz represents healthcare providers in\u0026nbsp;a variety of high-stakes matters,\u0026nbsp;including reimbursement disputes, regulatory proceedings,\u0026nbsp;and commercial litigation and arbitration.\u0026nbsp; She also provides strategic advice to healthcare and life sciences startups and handles bet-the-company litigation on their behalf. \u0026nbsp;Dana has deep expertise in ERISA and behavioral healthcare. \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;describes her as \u0026ldquo;the full package\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;a gifted litigator and strategist\u0026rdquo; who is \u0026ldquo;knowledgeable and solutions-based.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;calls Dana \u0026ldquo;a superlative advocate and tactician.\u0026rdquo;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDana has a\u0026nbsp;long track record of achieving favorable outcomes for healthcare providers in a wide variety of payor disputes.\u0026nbsp; Her practice focuses on managed care litigation and arbitration.\u0026nbsp; Dana also helps providers navigate audits, rate disputes, recoupment demands, and other high-risk aspects of their payor relationships. Dana leverages her ERISA expertise to help her clients take advantage of opportunities, such as by using the Parity Act to improve reimbursement for mental health services.\u0026nbsp; Dana also advises providers on best practices, often in anticipation of sale.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDana has achieved success in several bet-the-company litigations and appeals for providers and other business clients.\u0026nbsp; For example, in 2019, she secured a complete defense verdict for a behavioral healthcare provider in a $195 million false advertising case.\u0026nbsp; In 2020, she successfully defended another provider in a four-week administrative trial against the State of California.\u0026nbsp; And in 2022, Dana led a large theft of trade secrets case to a favorable resolution for her biotech startup client.\u0026nbsp; Dana has also briefed and argued\u0026nbsp;high-profile appeals in federal and state courts across the nation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSince 2022,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;has recognized Dana as one of the top ERISA litigators in the nation.\u0026nbsp; \u003cem\u003eLegal500\u003c/em\u003e says that she is \u0026ldquo;unmatched in her ability to quickly ingest, organize, and master an enormous amount of factual information and synthesize it into a winning narrative.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; Dana has also been listed as a leading lawyer under 40 in \u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and \u003cem\u003eNew York Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParties Confidential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eLead counsel to behavioral health company in rate dispute with major payor. Resolved after service of draft complaint for $30 million more than prior offer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHammell v. Pilot Products, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in ERISA pension dispute. Won more than 90 percent of relief sought including over $1M in attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel to American biotech startup in nine-figure federal trade secrets litigation and international arbitration relating to next-generation COVID-19 vaccine. Matter resolved on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGrasshopper House LLC v. Clean \u0026amp; Sober Media LLC.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eFirst-chaired bench trial on equitable relief after adverse jury verdict in Lanham Act case against well-known treatment facility, where plaintiff sought $195M. Court found unclean hands and awarded $0 to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParties Confidential.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eResolved dispute on behalf of hospital against independent physician organization on eve of trial for double amount of claimed loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Creative Care.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eFirst-chaired four-week administrative trial against California in license revocation action. Secured complete defense victory for substance abuse treatment facility client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead trial counsel in franchise arbitration against international coffeehouse chain. Awarded full amount of claimed loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBechard v. Brody.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successfully briefed and argued California appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration in dispute involving Michael Avenatti and Republican fundraiser Elliott Brody.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"She is a superlative advocate and tactician.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2025"},{"title":"\"She's the full package: smart, good on her feet, dogged and fierce in all the right ways.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked in \"ERISA Litigation: Mainly Plaintiffs (Nationwide)\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022-25"},{"title":"Future Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023"},{"title":"40 and Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021-2022, 2024"},{"title":"Rising Star","detail":"New York Law Journal, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11963}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-02-03T16:24:39.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T16:24:39.000Z","searchable_text":"Berkowitz{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"She is a superlative advocate and tactician.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"She's the full package: smart, good on her feet, dogged and fierce in all the right ways.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked in \\\"ERISA Litigation: Mainly Plaintiffs (Nationwide)\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2022-25\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Future Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 and Under Hot List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2021-2022, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"New York Law Journal, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Parties Confidential. Lead counsel to behavioral health company in rate dispute with major payor. Resolved after service of draft complaint for $30 million more than prior offer.{{ FIELD }}Hammell v. Pilot Products, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in ERISA pension dispute. Won more than 90 percent of relief sought including over $1M in attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Lead trial counsel to American biotech startup in nine-figure federal trade secrets litigation and international arbitration relating to next-generation COVID-19 vaccine. Matter resolved on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Grasshopper House LLC v. Clean \u0026amp; Sober Media LLC. First-chaired bench trial on equitable relief after adverse jury verdict in Lanham Act case against well-known treatment facility, where plaintiff sought $195M. Court found unclean hands and awarded $0 to plaintiff.{{ FIELD }}Parties Confidential. Resolved dispute on behalf of hospital against independent physician organization on eve of trial for double amount of claimed loss.{{ FIELD }}In re Creative Care. First-chaired four-week administrative trial against California in license revocation action. Secured complete defense victory for substance abuse treatment facility client.{{ FIELD }}Lead trial counsel in franchise arbitration against international coffeehouse chain. Awarded full amount of claimed loss.{{ FIELD }}Bechard v. Brody. Successfully briefed and argued California appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration in dispute involving Michael Avenatti and Republican fundraiser Elliott Brody.{{ FIELD }}Dana Berkowitz represents healthcare providers in a variety of high-stakes matters, including reimbursement disputes, regulatory proceedings, and commercial litigation and arbitration.  She also provides strategic advice to healthcare and life sciences startups and handles bet-the-company litigation on their behalf.  Dana has deep expertise in ERISA and behavioral healthcare.  Chambers USA describes her as “the full package” and “a gifted litigator and strategist” who is “knowledgeable and solutions-based.”  Legal500 calls Dana “a superlative advocate and tactician.”\nDana has a long track record of achieving favorable outcomes for healthcare providers in a wide variety of payor disputes.  Her practice focuses on managed care litigation and arbitration.  Dana also helps providers navigate audits, rate disputes, recoupment demands, and other high-risk aspects of their payor relationships. Dana leverages her ERISA expertise to help her clients take advantage of opportunities, such as by using the Parity Act to improve reimbursement for mental health services.  Dana also advises providers on best practices, often in anticipation of sale.\nDana has achieved success in several bet-the-company litigations and appeals for providers and other business clients.  For example, in 2019, she secured a complete defense verdict for a behavioral healthcare provider in a $195 million false advertising case.  In 2020, she successfully defended another provider in a four-week administrative trial against the State of California.  And in 2022, Dana led a large theft of trade secrets case to a favorable resolution for her biotech startup client.  Dana has also briefed and argued high-profile appeals in federal and state courts across the nation.\nSince 2022, Chambers USA has recognized Dana as one of the top ERISA litigators in the nation.  Legal500 says that she is “unmatched in her ability to quickly ingest, organize, and master an enormous amount of factual information and synthesize it into a winning narrative.”  Dana has also been listed as a leading lawyer under 40 in Benchmark Litigation and New York Law Journal.  Dana Berkowitz lawyer Partner \"She is a superlative advocate and tactician.\" Legal 500, 2025 \"She's the full package: smart, good on her feet, dogged and fierce in all the right ways.\" Chambers USA, 2025 Ranked in \"ERISA Litigation: Mainly Plaintiffs (Nationwide)\" Chambers USA, 2022-25 Future Star Benchmark Litigation, 2023 40 and Under Hot List Benchmark Litigation, 2021-2022, 2024 Rising Star New York Law Journal, 2018 Princeton University  Harvard University Harvard Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Central District of California California New York American Bar Association, Employee Benefits Committee Parties Confidential. Lead counsel to behavioral health company in rate dispute with major payor. Resolved after service of draft complaint for $30 million more than prior offer. Hammell v. Pilot Products, Inc. Defined Benefit Pension Plan. Lead trial counsel for plaintiff in ERISA pension dispute. Won more than 90 percent of relief sought including over $1M in attorneys’ fees. Lead trial counsel to American biotech startup in nine-figure federal trade secrets litigation and international arbitration relating to next-generation COVID-19 vaccine. Matter resolved on favorable terms. Grasshopper House LLC v. Clean \u0026amp; Sober Media LLC. First-chaired bench trial on equitable relief after adverse jury verdict in Lanham Act case against well-known treatment facility, where plaintiff sought $195M. Court found unclean hands and awarded $0 to plaintiff. Parties Confidential. Resolved dispute on behalf of hospital against independent physician organization on eve of trial for double amount of claimed loss. In re Creative Care. First-chaired four-week administrative trial against California in license revocation action. Secured complete defense victory for substance abuse treatment facility client. Lead trial counsel in franchise arbitration against international coffeehouse chain. Awarded full amount of claimed loss. Bechard v. Brody. Successfully briefed and argued California appeal of order denying motion to compel arbitration in dispute involving Michael Avenatti and Republican fundraiser Elliott Brody.","searchable_name":"Dana Berkowitz","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":447699,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3202,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eA partner in the firm\u0026rsquo;s Government Advocacy and Public Policy group, J.C. helps\u0026nbsp;companies\u0026nbsp;and trade associations navigate legal, political and regulatory issues commonly\u0026nbsp;associated with doing business in Europe and the United States.\u0026nbsp; He is recognized by clients for his strong, bipartisan relationships with Members of Congress, State Attorneys General, congressional staff and senior government officials across key regulatory and executive branch agencies.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;He is trusted for his ability to rapidly synthesize complex information and communicate its strategic implications to policymakers and senior institutional stakeholders as well as his candid evaluation of options and potential for success. \u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs former counsel to the Senate Banking Committee, J.C has developed a deep expertise in financial services, fintech, and emerging technology policy.\u0026nbsp; He has a proven track record of influencing federal legislation, regulatory frameworks, and agency rulemaking impacting digital assets, banking, payments, and technology platforms.\u0026nbsp; J.C. regularly interfaces with financial regulators on a wide array of policy and institution-specific issues, and as co-chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s State Attorneys General practice, delivers results on high-impact legal work at the intersection of law, policy and regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJ.C. is skilled in developing and executing comprehensive advocacy strategies, shaping legislative language, and positioning clients to successfully navigate complex and evolving policy environments at the federal, state and international levels.\u0026nbsp; As President of the Parliamentary Intelligence-Security Forum, he has briefed policymakers throughout Europe, Africa, Latin America, and the Indo-Pacific.\u0026nbsp; JC also advises international clients seeking to invest, expand, or operate in the United States.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePresident George W. Bush appointed J.C. to a six-year term as U.S. representative to the World Bank\u0026rsquo;s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).\u0026nbsp; Mayor Muriel Bowser also appointed J.C. to\u0026nbsp;the District of Columbia\u0026nbsp;Board of Elections, in which capacity he also served on the\u0026nbsp;U.S. Election Assistance Commission Standards Board.\u0026nbsp; He is currently chairman of the Board of Visitors of The Catholic University Columbus School of Law and President of\u0026nbsp;the Parliamentary Intelligence-Security Forum, where he is a regular speaker\u0026nbsp;on cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and critical minerals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarlier in his career, J.C. established the Boggs Scholarship for Public Service at the University of Delaware in honor of his grandfather and namesake, former U.S. Congressman, Senator and Governor of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs.\u0026nbsp; He has also served on numerous corporate and non-profit boards, including Jobs for Delaware Graduates (Chairman); The Reserve Trust Company (Vice Chairman), Global Center for Social Entrepreneurship Network (Secretary), Republican National Lawyers Association (President), Kimball Union Academy (Chairman of the Committee on Trustees), and AAA Mid-Atlantic.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJ.C. enjoys open-water swimming and is member of U.S. Masters Swimming and the historic\u0026nbsp;Serpentine Swimming\u0026nbsp;Club situated in London's Hyde Park.\u0026nbsp; He has competed in swimming events across all 50 states, ten Canadian provinces and around the world.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"j-c-boggs","email":"jboggs@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":154},{"id":290}]},"expertise":[{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":699,"guid":"699.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":765,"guid":"765.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":687,"guid":"687.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":110,"guid":"110.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1568,"guid":"1568.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Boggs","nick_name":"J.C.","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Court of Chancery, Delaware","years_held":"1987-88"}],"first_name":"J.C.","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":3010,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1987-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eA partner in the firm\u0026rsquo;s Government Advocacy and Public Policy group, J.C. helps\u0026nbsp;companies\u0026nbsp;and trade associations navigate legal, political and regulatory issues commonly\u0026nbsp;associated with doing business in Europe and the United States.\u0026nbsp; He is recognized by clients for his strong, bipartisan relationships with Members of Congress, State Attorneys General, congressional staff and senior government officials across key regulatory and executive branch agencies.\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;He is trusted for his ability to rapidly synthesize complex information and communicate its strategic implications to policymakers and senior institutional stakeholders as well as his candid evaluation of options and potential for success. \u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs former counsel to the Senate Banking Committee, J.C has developed a deep expertise in financial services, fintech, and emerging technology policy.\u0026nbsp; He has a proven track record of influencing federal legislation, regulatory frameworks, and agency rulemaking impacting digital assets, banking, payments, and technology platforms.\u0026nbsp; J.C. regularly interfaces with financial regulators on a wide array of policy and institution-specific issues, and as co-chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s State Attorneys General practice, delivers results on high-impact legal work at the intersection of law, policy and regulation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJ.C. is skilled in developing and executing comprehensive advocacy strategies, shaping legislative language, and positioning clients to successfully navigate complex and evolving policy environments at the federal, state and international levels.\u0026nbsp; As President of the Parliamentary Intelligence-Security Forum, he has briefed policymakers throughout Europe, Africa, Latin America, and the Indo-Pacific.\u0026nbsp; JC also advises international clients seeking to invest, expand, or operate in the United States.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePresident George W. Bush appointed J.C. to a six-year term as U.S. representative to the World Bank\u0026rsquo;s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).\u0026nbsp; Mayor Muriel Bowser also appointed J.C. to\u0026nbsp;the District of Columbia\u0026nbsp;Board of Elections, in which capacity he also served on the\u0026nbsp;U.S. Election Assistance Commission Standards Board.\u0026nbsp; He is currently chairman of the Board of Visitors of The Catholic University Columbus School of Law and President of\u0026nbsp;the Parliamentary Intelligence-Security Forum, where he is a regular speaker\u0026nbsp;on cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and critical minerals.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEarlier in his career, J.C. established the Boggs Scholarship for Public Service at the University of Delaware in honor of his grandfather and namesake, former U.S. Congressman, Senator and Governor of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs.\u0026nbsp; He has also served on numerous corporate and non-profit boards, including Jobs for Delaware Graduates (Chairman); The Reserve Trust Company (Vice Chairman), Global Center for Social Entrepreneurship Network (Secretary), Republican National Lawyers Association (President), Kimball Union Academy (Chairman of the Committee on Trustees), and AAA Mid-Atlantic.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJ.C. enjoys open-water swimming and is member of U.S. Masters Swimming and the historic\u0026nbsp;Serpentine Swimming\u0026nbsp;Club situated in London's Hyde Park.\u0026nbsp; He has competed in swimming events across all 50 states, ten Canadian provinces and around the world.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9959}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-04-21T21:14:35.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-21T21:14:35.000Z","searchable_text":"Boggs{{ FIELD }}A partner in the firm’s Government Advocacy and Public Policy group, J.C. helps companies and trade associations navigate legal, political and regulatory issues commonly associated with doing business in Europe and the United States.  He is recognized by clients for his strong, bipartisan relationships with Members of Congress, State Attorneys General, congressional staff and senior government officials across key regulatory and executive branch agencies.   He is trusted for his ability to rapidly synthesize complex information and communicate its strategic implications to policymakers and senior institutional stakeholders as well as his candid evaluation of options and potential for success.  \nAs former counsel to the Senate Banking Committee, J.C has developed a deep expertise in financial services, fintech, and emerging technology policy.  He has a proven track record of influencing federal legislation, regulatory frameworks, and agency rulemaking impacting digital assets, banking, payments, and technology platforms.  J.C. regularly interfaces with financial regulators on a wide array of policy and institution-specific issues, and as co-chair of the firm’s State Attorneys General practice, delivers results on high-impact legal work at the intersection of law, policy and regulation.\nJ.C. is skilled in developing and executing comprehensive advocacy strategies, shaping legislative language, and positioning clients to successfully navigate complex and evolving policy environments at the federal, state and international levels.  As President of the Parliamentary Intelligence-Security Forum, he has briefed policymakers throughout Europe, Africa, Latin America, and the Indo-Pacific.  JC also advises international clients seeking to invest, expand, or operate in the United States.\nPresident George W. Bush appointed J.C. to a six-year term as U.S. representative to the World Bank’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).  Mayor Muriel Bowser also appointed J.C. to the District of Columbia Board of Elections, in which capacity he also served on the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Standards Board.  He is currently chairman of the Board of Visitors of The Catholic University Columbus School of Law and President of the Parliamentary Intelligence-Security Forum, where he is a regular speaker on cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and critical minerals.\nEarlier in his career, J.C. established the Boggs Scholarship for Public Service at the University of Delaware in honor of his grandfather and namesake, former U.S. Congressman, Senator and Governor of Delaware, J. Caleb Boggs.  He has also served on numerous corporate and non-profit boards, including Jobs for Delaware Graduates (Chairman); The Reserve Trust Company (Vice Chairman), Global Center for Social Entrepreneurship Network (Secretary), Republican National Lawyers Association (President), Kimball Union Academy (Chairman of the Committee on Trustees), and AAA Mid-Atlantic.\nJ.C. enjoys open-water swimming and is member of U.S. Masters Swimming and the historic Serpentine Swimming Club situated in London's Hyde Park.  He has competed in swimming events across all 50 states, ten Canadian provinces and around the world. J.C. Boggs fintech Partner University of Richmond University of Richmond School of Law Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Federal Claims U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware District of Columbia Delaware Law Clerk, Court of Chancery, Delaware","searchable_name":"J.C. Boggs","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":427703,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1673,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian Bohnenkamp specializes in regulatory and compliance matters relating to drug, biotechnology and medical device companies. A partner in our FDA practice and a member of our Life Sciences group, Brian has extensive experience counseling manufacturers on fraud and abuse laws, industry codes of conduct, federal and state transparency laws and regulations, state and local gift bans, compliance program laws and sales representative licensing requirements, as well as government ethics restrictions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith a master\u0026rsquo;s degree in healthcare administration, Brian provides counsel to companies on a variety of laws and regulations administered and enforced by FDA, OIG, DOJ, and CMS, as well as by state attorneys general, boards of pharmacy, departments of health, and similar administrative and enforcement authorities. He regularly assists manufacturers in designing and implementing comprehensive compliance programs, and conducts risk assessments, audits and other reviews of compliance programs and business activities/operations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is regarded as a national expert on life sciences transparency laws and regulations, including the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act (aka Open Payments) and similar state laws. He provides counsel to the Ad Hoc Sunshine and State Law Compliance Group, a coalition of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device manufacturers.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"brian-bohnenkamp","email":"bbohnenkamp@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":25}]},"expertise":[{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1193,"guid":"1193.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bohnenkamp","nick_name":"Brian","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Brian","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Up and Coming, Healthcare: Pharmaceutical /Medical Products Regulatory ","detail":"Chambers USA, District of Columbia (2020-2022)"},{"title":"\"Brian's knowledge and experience are invaluable.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA (2022) "},{"title":"Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Up and Coming for Pharmaceutical/Medical Products Regulatory","detail":"Chambers"},{"title":"Rising Star ","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2017-2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBrian Bohnenkamp specializes in regulatory and compliance matters relating to drug, biotechnology and medical device companies. A partner in our FDA practice and a member of our Life Sciences group, Brian has extensive experience counseling manufacturers on fraud and abuse laws, industry codes of conduct, federal and state transparency laws and regulations, state and local gift bans, compliance program laws and sales representative licensing requirements, as well as government ethics restrictions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith a master\u0026rsquo;s degree in healthcare administration, Brian provides counsel to companies on a variety of laws and regulations administered and enforced by FDA, OIG, DOJ, and CMS, as well as by state attorneys general, boards of pharmacy, departments of health, and similar administrative and enforcement authorities. He regularly assists manufacturers in designing and implementing comprehensive compliance programs, and conducts risk assessments, audits and other reviews of compliance programs and business activities/operations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBrian is regarded as a national expert on life sciences transparency laws and regulations, including the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act (aka Open Payments) and similar state laws. He provides counsel to the Ad Hoc Sunshine and State Law Compliance Group, a coalition of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device manufacturers.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Up and Coming, Healthcare: Pharmaceutical /Medical Products Regulatory ","detail":"Chambers USA, District of Columbia (2020-2022)"},{"title":"\"Brian's knowledge and experience are invaluable.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA (2022) "},{"title":"Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500"},{"title":"Up and Coming for Pharmaceutical/Medical Products Regulatory","detail":"Chambers"},{"title":"Rising Star ","detail":"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2017-2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":735}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:03:56.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:03:56.000Z","searchable_text":"Bohnenkamp{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Up and Coming, Healthcare: Pharmaceutical /Medical Products Regulatory \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, District of Columbia (2020-2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Brian's knowledge and experience are invaluable.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (2022) \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Next Generation Partner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Up and Coming for Pharmaceutical/Medical Products Regulatory\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2017-2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Brian Bohnenkamp specializes in regulatory and compliance matters relating to drug, biotechnology and medical device companies. A partner in our FDA practice and a member of our Life Sciences group, Brian has extensive experience counseling manufacturers on fraud and abuse laws, industry codes of conduct, federal and state transparency laws and regulations, state and local gift bans, compliance program laws and sales representative licensing requirements, as well as government ethics restrictions.\nWith a master’s degree in healthcare administration, Brian provides counsel to companies on a variety of laws and regulations administered and enforced by FDA, OIG, DOJ, and CMS, as well as by state attorneys general, boards of pharmacy, departments of health, and similar administrative and enforcement authorities. He regularly assists manufacturers in designing and implementing comprehensive compliance programs, and conducts risk assessments, audits and other reviews of compliance programs and business activities/operations.\nBrian is regarded as a national expert on life sciences transparency laws and regulations, including the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act (aka Open Payments) and similar state laws. He provides counsel to the Ad Hoc Sunshine and State Law Compliance Group, a coalition of pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device manufacturers. Brian A Bohnenkamp Partner Up and Coming, Healthcare: Pharmaceutical /Medical Products Regulatory  Chambers USA, District of Columbia (2020-2022) \"Brian's knowledge and experience are invaluable.\"  Chambers USA (2022)  Next Generation Partner Legal 500 Up and Coming for Pharmaceutical/Medical Products Regulatory Chambers Rising Star  Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers, 2017-2020 Indiana University Indiana University School of Law St. Louis University  St. Louis University  District of Columbia Illinois","searchable_name":"Brian A. Bohnenkamp","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":443887,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6347,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKeri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri is ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;and was recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of four MVP\u0026rsquo;s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"keri-borders","email":"kborders@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e--- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Borders","nick_name":"Keri","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Judge Robert J. Timlin, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California","years_held":"1998 - 1998"}],"first_name":"Keri","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2158,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1997-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026 Beverages: Regulatory \u0026 Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023"},{"title":"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)","detail":"2020"},{"title":"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Attorneys","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021"},{"title":"Named Women of Influence","detail":"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021"},{"title":"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner","detail":"Diversity Law Journal"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/keri-borders-36814112/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eKeri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eKeri is ranked in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;and was recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of four MVP\u0026rsquo;s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBustamante v. KIND, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e--- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024),\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;affirming In re: Kind LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eaffirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCleveland v. Campbell Soup Co.,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022)\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eZurilene v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of \u0026ldquo;Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars\u0026rdquo; without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eYu v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled \u0026ldquo;rich milk chocolate.\u0026rdquo; Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;--- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge\u0026rsquo;s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFloyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChong v. Kind LLC,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn\u0026rsquo;t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWong v. The Vons Companies, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrescott v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMacedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePorath v. Logitech, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e.\u003c/em\u003e, 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eParker v. Logitech, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePelayo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase \u0026ldquo;all natural,\u0026rdquo; stating that \u0026ldquo;the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not \u0026lsquo;springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.\u0026rsquo;\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eShin v. Campbell Soup\u003c/em\u003e, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.).\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eSecured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLucido v. Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case was entirely dependent on their experts\u0026rsquo; opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKane v. Chobani LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u003c/em\u003e645 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing \u0026ldquo;only natural ingredients\u0026rdquo; and listing \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice\u0026rdquo; as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWysong Corp. v. APN, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re KIND LLC \u0026ldquo;Healthy and All Natural\u0026rdquo; Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;healthy\u0026rdquo; labeling and stayed claims challenging \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling pending FDA\u0026rsquo;s consideration of the issue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCerreta v. Laclede, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of personal care products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Galderma Laboratories\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMagier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; label statements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRhinerson v. Van\u0026rsquo;s International Foods\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003eNo. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the \u0026ldquo;natural\u0026rdquo; labeling of the products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBackus v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e, 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestl\u0026eacute;\u0026rsquo;s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having \u0026ldquo;0g Trans Fat\u0026rdquo; was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s \u0026lsquo;use\u0026rsquo; theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eWorkman v. Plum PBC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eRoss v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to \u0026ldquo;no preservatives\u0026rdquo; label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAstiana v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to H\u0026auml;agen-Dazs and Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s ice cream products labeled \u0026ldquo;All Natural.\u0026rdquo; This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer\u0026rsquo;s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStoltz v. Chobani, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as \u0026ldquo;Greek Yogurt,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;0%,\u0026rdquo; \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice,\u0026rdquo; and natural and healthy.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eChavez v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestl\u0026eacute; USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant\u0026rsquo;s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIbarrola v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a \u0026ldquo;No Refined Sugars\u0026rdquo; statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBoyle v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBailey v. KIND LLC\u003c/em\u003e, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTrazo v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as \u0026ldquo;0g trans fat.\u0026rdquo; This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing\u0026mdash;challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations\u0026mdash;at the pleading stage\u0026mdash;was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from \u0026ldquo;open-ended\u0026rdquo; to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBelli II v. Nestl\u0026eacute; USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as \u0026ldquo;No Sugar Added.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBurns v. Gerber Prods. Co\u003c/em\u003e., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHawkins v. Gerber\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eReilly v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esee also\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge first denied plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFigy v. Amy\u0026rsquo;s Kitchen, Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient \u0026ldquo;evaporated cane juice.\u0026rdquo; A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSimpson v. California Pizza Kitchen\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestl\u0026eacute; USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have \u0026ldquo;opened the floodgates\u0026rdquo; to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBrower v. Campbell Soup Company\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Campbell Soup Co.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell\u0026rsquo;s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell\u0026rsquo;s labels complied with the federal requirements \u0026ldquo;to the letter.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500, 2023"},{"title":"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026 Beverages: Regulatory \u0026 Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023"},{"title":"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)","detail":"2020"},{"title":"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Attorneys","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021"},{"title":"Named Women of Influence","detail":"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021"},{"title":"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner","detail":"Diversity Law Journal"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9734}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:07.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:00:07.000Z","searchable_text":"Borders{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Next Generation Partner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026amp; Beverages: Regulatory \u0026amp; Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Women of Influence\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Diversity Law Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products.{{ FIELD }}Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement.{{ FIELD }}Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted.{{ FIELD }}Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil.{{ FIELD }}Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., --- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims.{{ FIELD }}Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022).{{ FIELD }}Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product.{{ FIELD }}Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product.{{ FIELD }}Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses.{{ FIELD }}Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product.{{ FIELD }}Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’”{{ FIELD }}Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed.{{ FIELD }}Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case.{{ FIELD }}Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client.{{ FIELD }}In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue.{{ FIELD }}Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products.{{ FIELD }}Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements.{{ FIELD }}Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements.{{ FIELD }}Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products.{{ FIELD }}Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted.{{ FIELD }}Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer.{{ FIELD }}Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products.{{ FIELD }}Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice.{{ FIELD }}Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy.{{ FIELD }}Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception.{{ FIELD }}Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.).{{ FIELD }}Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four.{{ FIELD }}Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.”{{ FIELD }}In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement.{{ FIELD }}Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay).{{ FIELD }}Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend.{{ FIELD }}Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act.{{ FIELD }}Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”{{ FIELD }}Keri Borders is a litigator who focuses her practice on defending food and beverage, dietary supplement and consumer packaged goods manufacturers, retailers, and distributors in complex competitor and consumer class action litigation. Clients rely on Keri and her creative problem solving skills because of her deep understanding of their business and her ability to achieve successful results.\nKeri regularly practices in state, federal, and appellate courts in cases involving false advertising relating to product labeling and advertising, including nutrition and health claims, contaminants (heavy metals, PFAS, glyphosate, mycotoxins), product attributes, sustainability/environmental/green claims, and alleged violation of the FDCA/NLEA, PPIA, FMIA, Lanham Act, and FTC Green Guides (and state counterparts).\nKeri also has significant experience litigating contract, accounting, and intellectual property disputes, and defending unfair business practices, unfair competition, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, and business torts. Keri has experience in a broad spectrum of industries, including entertainment, personal care products, consumer electronics, telecommunications, pet food, and real estate.\nKeri is ranked in Chambers USA, Legal 500, and was recognized by Law360 as one of four MVP’s in the United States in Product Liability in 2020. Partner Next Generation Partner Legal 500, 2023 Ranked Band 4 for Food \u0026amp; Beverages: Regulatory \u0026amp; Litigation Chambers USA (Nationwide), 2022, 2023 Named Law360 MVP (Product Liability) 2020 Named Leader of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Attorneys Los Angeles Business Journal – 2021 Named Women of Influence Attorneys by Los Angeles Business Journal - 2021 2021 Women Worth Watching in Leadership Award Winner Diversity Law Journal University of California  University of California Hastings College of Law University of California Hastings College of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Member, American Bar Association Board of Governors, Association of Business Trial Lawyers, Los Angeles Chapter Member, Food and Drug Law Institute Member, Consumer Brands Association Law Clerk, Judge Robert J. Timlin, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California Bustamante v. KIND, LLC, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 1917155 (2d Cir. May 2, 2024), affirming In re: Kind LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 627 F. Supp. 3d 269 (S.D.N.Y. 2022). In a precedential decision following nine years of litigation, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment and striking of plaintiffs’ “natural” and consumer behavior experts in false advertising MDL class action challenging healthy, natural and non-GMO statements on the labels of snack products. Cleveland v. Campbell Soup Co., 647 F.Supp.3d 772, (N.D. Cal. 2022) Successive motions to dismiss granted in false advertising consumer class action challenging a front-of-pack 0g Total Sugars statement. Zurilene v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc., --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 816636 (S.D. Ill. Mar. 17, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of “Vanilla Milk Chocolate Ice Cream Bars” without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff was attempting to impose label requirements that were in addition to or different from FDA regulations and, therefore, the theory of liability was preempted. Yu v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, Inc. --- F.Supp.3d ---, 2022 WL 799563 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 16, 2022) Motion to dismiss granted in class action alleging false advertising under the Illinois consumer protection laws regarding Haagen-Dazs ice cream bars labeled “rich milk chocolate.” Plaintiff alleged that the use of coconut oil in the chocolate coating of the ice cream bars without disclosing its presence on the front-of-pack was misleading and contrary to FDA regulations. The court ruled that plaintiff had no private right of action to enforce FDA regulations, and that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because, among other reasons, the coating does contain FDA standard-of-identify chocolate, the label fully discloses the presence of oil in the ingredient list, and the label never suggests that the product does not contain oil. Kamara v. Pepperidge Farm, Inc., --- F.Supp.4th, 2021 WL 5234882 (S.D.N.Y. 2021) Achieved a complete victory for Pepperidge Farm in a putative nationwide consumer class action under New York consumer protection law. The complaint alleged that Pepperidge’s Golden Butter Crackers misled consumers into believing that the product does not include oil. In a 2021 published decision dismissing the complaint with prejudice, the court clarified the principle that false advertising claims must be assessed in context. The court also assessed the plausibility of the complaint’s theory of deception against recent Second (Mantikas) and Seventh (Bell) Circuit precedents, and found the complaint deficient. See also Floyd v. Pepperidge Farm, Incorporated, -- F. Supp. 3d--, 2022 WL 203071 (S.D. Ill. Jan, 24, 2022). Chong v. Kind LLC, 585 F. Supp. 3d 1215, (N.D. Cal. 2022). Motion to dismiss granted in class action challenging front-of-pack protein claim on plant-based product. Plaintiffs alleged that the quantitative statement was deceptive and contrary to FDA regulations because it wasn’t corrected for digestibility. Based on our arguments, court reversed a decision it had made on that same issue in a similar lawsuit just a year before. Court also ruled in favor of our client on Buckman preemption, holding that plaintiffs were not able to enforce FDA regulations under the guise of consumer deception claims. Wong v. The Vons Companies, Inc., 2020 WL 5632305 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Sept. 14, 2020) \u0026amp; 2020 WL 6161875 (Alameda County Super. Ct. (Cal.) Oct. 13, 2020). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging label statement on fresh poultry products. Decision affirmed on appeal in unanimous opinion. 2022 WL 1210445 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2022). Cheslow v. Ghirardelli Chocolate Co., 472 F.Supp.3d 686 (N.D. Cal. 2020) \u0026amp; 445 F.Supp.3d 8 (N.D. Cal. 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white chips product. Prescott v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 2020 WL 3035798 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2020). Obtained dismissal on plausibility grounds of consumer class action false advertising action challenging white morsels product. Macedonia Distributing, Inc. v. S-L Distribution Co., LLC, 2020 WL 610702 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2020). Certification denied in distributor class action alleging underpayment for distribution businesses. Porath v. Logitech, Inc., 2019 WL 6134936 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 18, 2019). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Parker v. Logitech, Inc., 2017 WL 4701044 (Cal. Super., Alameda County Oct. 18, 2017). Certification denied in consumer class action challenging labeling and advertising of electronics product. Pelayo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 989 F. Supp. 2d 973 (C.D. Cal. 2013). Defended Buitoni brand of products in case challenging “natural” label statements. Case dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to offer an objective or plausible definition of the allegedly-deceptive phrase “all natural,” stating that “the reasonable consumer is aware that Buitoni pastas are not ‘springing fully formed from ravioli trees and tortellini bushes.’” Shin v. Campbell Soup, No. 17-1082 (C.D. Cal.). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in the Central District of California dismissed a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that labeling of less sodium and fat-free products was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged statements were accurate and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Lucido v. Nestlé Purina Petcare Company, 217 F.Supp.3d 1098 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Successfully moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiffs’ experts in a consumer class action alleging that Purina failed to disclose that Beneful dog food was harmful. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ case was entirely dependent on their experts’ opinions, but the opinions were unreliable and inadmissible. Accordingly, plaintiffs’ case had no evidentiary support and could not proceed. Kane v. Chobani LLC,645 Fed. App’x. 593 (9th Cir. 2016); see also 973 F. Supp. 2d 1120 (N.D. Cal. 2014), 2013 WL 5289253 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2013), and 2013 WL 3776172 (N.D. Cal. July 15, 2013). Defense of a putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Greek yogurt products marketed as containing “only natural ingredients” and listing “evaporated cane juice” as an ingredient. A motion to dismiss was granted. 2013 WL 5289253. The plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction was denied. 2013 WL 3776172. A motion to disqualify the plaintiffs’ expert was granted. 2013 WL 3991107. After a third amended complaint, a second motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice. 2014 WL 657300. The Ninth Circuit then stayed the case. Wysong Corp. v. APN, Inc., 889 F.3d 267 (6th Cir. 2018). Secured a victory for Nestlé Purina Petcare Company when a federal judge in the Eastern District of Michigan dismissed with prejudice a Lanham Act complaint alleging that using realistic images of meat and vegetables on pet food labels was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiff’s theory of deception was not plausible because the challenged label images, especially when considered in context, were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Significantly, the court denied further amendments and entered judgment in favor of our client. In re KIND LLC “Healthy and All Natural” Litigation, 209 F. Supp. 3d 689 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 15, 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for KIND snack bars when a federal judge in the Southern District of New York dismissed claims in an MDL consumer class action challenging KIND’s “healthy” labeling and stayed claims challenging “natural” labeling pending FDA’s consideration of the issue. Cerreta v. Laclede, Inc., No. 14-8066 (C.D. Cal.) (removed from L.A. Sup. Ct.). Defending consumer packaged goods company in nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection law regarding “natural” labeling of personal care products. Greenberg v. Galderma Laboratories, L.P., No. 3:16cv6090 (N.D. Cal.). Defended personal care product company against allegations of false advertising re label statements. Magier v. Tribe Mediterranean Foods, Inc., No. 1:15cv5781 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended manufacturer of hummus against claims of false advertising relating to “natural” label statements. Rhinerson v. Van’s International Foods ,No. 3:13cv9523 (N.D. Cal.). Defended frozen waffle manufacturer against putative nationwide consumer class action challenging the “natural” labeling of the products. Backus v. Nestlé USA, Inc., 167 F. Supp. 3d 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2016). Secured a ground-breaking victory for Nestlé USA and its iconic Coffee-mate brand when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a consumer class action complaint. Plaintiffs alleged that Nestlé’s mere use of partially hydrogenated oil in Coffee-mate was unlawful, and that labeling statements touting the product as having “0g Trans Fat” was misleading. The court ruled that plaintiff’s ‘use’ theory was an obstacle to federal law and therefore preempted, and that plaintiff’s false advertising theory, which attempted to impose labeling requirements not identical to federal law was expressly preempted. Workman v. Plum PBC, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1032 (N.D. Cal. 2015). Secured a victory for Campbell Soup and its subsidiary Plum Organics when a federal judge in the Northern District of California dismissed with prejudice a false advertising consumer class action complaint alleging that food labeling was deceptive. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ theory of deception was not plausible because the labels were not false and were not likely to mislead a reasonable consumer. Ross v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 1:16-cv-09563 (S.D.N.Y.). Defended Lean Cuisine products against false advertising claims relating to “no preservatives” label statement and the presence of citric acid in products. Astiana v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream, No. 11-2910 (N.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to Häagen-Dazs and Dreyer’s ice cream products labeled “All Natural.” This case was consolidated with the copy-cat case Rutledge-Muhs v. Dreyer’s Grand Ice Cream. The action was dismissed with prejudice. Stoltz v. Chobani, LLC, No. 1:14cv3827 (E.D.N.Y.). Defended nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising of Greek Yogurt products, marketed as “Greek Yogurt,” “0%,” “evaporated cane juice,” and natural and healthy. Chavez v. Nestlé USA, No. 09-9192 (C.D. Cal.). Defended putative nationwide consumer class action against Nestlé USA alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to juice products marketed as supporting brain development, immunity and digestive health. Case dismissed following three successive, successful motions to dismiss (2011 WL 10565797 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2011), 2011 WL 2150128 (C.D. Cal. May 19, 2011)). Judgment in defendant’s favor affirmed in part and reversed in part. 511 Fed. App’x. 606 (9th Cir. 2013). Ibarrola v. KIND LLC, 83 F. Supp. 3d 751 (N.D. Ill. 2014). Secured a complete victory for client KIND LLC in the Northern District of Illinois when Judge Sara Ellis dismissed a putative nationwide consumer class action premised on allegations that KIND deceived consumers by including a “No Refined Sugars” statement on the label of snack foods. Judge Ellis granted KIND’s motion to dismiss an amended complaint with prejudice, holding that plaintiff failed to allege a plausible theory of deception. Boyle v. KIND LLC, No. 1:13cv8365 (S.D.N.Y). Defended nationwide consumer class action challenging the labeling of snack bar products as insinuating that consuming the products will not lead to weight gain and that the product is better-for-you product. Also defended copy-cat, follow-on action Bailey v. KIND LLC, No. 8:16cv168(C.D. Cal.). Trazo v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:12cv2272 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Coffee-mate powder products marketed as “0g trans fat.” This case is notable for the scope of its predecessor case at filing—challenging an open-ended number of the products of a major food manufacturer. The broadside attack featured multiple misbranding allegations on diverse labeling statements. Of special significance, we dealt a massive blow when its separate and innovative motion to strike the plaintiffs' class allegations—at the pleading stage—was granted. 201 WL 4083218 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2013). The challenged products were subsequently reduced from “open-ended” to four and the misbranding theories have been reduced from nine to four. Belli II v. Nestlé USA, Inc., No. 5:14cv283 (N.D. Cal.) Defended putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws regarding Eskimo Pie products marketed as “No Sugar Added.” In re Gerber Probiotic Sales Practices Litigation, No. 12-835 (D. N.J.). Defended Gerber in ten-case consolidated nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under consumer protection and warranty laws of multiple states with respect to baby formula and cereal products labeled as containing immune-supporting probiotics, digestion-supporting prebiotics, and brain and eye development-supporting DHA. Motions to consolidate cases granted. Burns v. Gerber Prods. Co., 922 F.Supp.2d 1168 (E.D. Wash. 2013); Hawkins v. Gerber Prods. Co., 924 F.Supp.2d 1208 (S.D. Cal. 2013). Reilly v. Amy’s Kitchen , 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (S.D. Fla. 2014); see also 2014 WL 905441 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 7, 2014) Defended against putative Florida consumer class action alleging false advertising under Florida consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge first denied plaintiff’s request to reinstate claims over 57 products that the named plaintiff never purchased. The court then dismissed the case on jurisdictional grounds because the amount at issue for the three products the named plaintiff did purchase fell below the Class Action Fairness Act amount in controversy requirement. Figy v. Amy’s Kitchen, Inc., 2 F. Supp. 3d 1300 (N.D. Cal. 2014). Defended against putative nationwide consumer class action alleging false advertising under California consumer protection laws with respect to food products containing the ingredient “evaporated cane juice.” A federal judge dismissed action without leave to amend based on primary jurisdiction of FDA (later converted to stay). Simpson v. California Pizza Kitchen, 989 F. Supp. 2d 1015 (S.D. Cal. 2013), 2013, 2013 WL 5718479 (S.D. Cal Oct. 1, 2013). Defended a putative nationwide consumer class action against several frozen pizza brands owned by Nestlé USA and California Pizza Kitchen alleging violation of California's Unfair Competition Law and statutory nuisance law. This was a bellwether case. Using the class action vehicle, plaintiffs sought to impose an unprecedented judicial ban on artificial trans fats in frozen pizza products. Any success could have “opened the floodgates” to numerous other cases seeking to ban individual ingredients. A motion to dismiss was granted as to the entire complaint, with prejudice and without leave to amend. Brower v. Campbell Soup Company, 243 F. Supp. 3d 1124, 2017 WL 1063470 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 21, 2017). Obtained a dismissal with prejudice for Campbell Soup in a consumer class challenging the labels of Chunky Healthy Request soup products. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ state-law false advertising claims are preempted by the federal Poultry Products Inspection Act and the Federal Meat Inspection Act. Bell v. Campbell Soup Co., 65 F. Supp. 3d 1328 (N.D. Fla. 2014). Secured victory for Campbell Soup when a federal judge in Florida dismissed with prejudice an amended consumer class action complaint in an action that initially had challenged the labeling of more than 50 products from multiple product lines under Campbell’s iconic V8 brand. The court ruled that plaintiffs’ amended claims (following an initial motion to dismiss) were expressly preempted as attempting to impose state-law labeling requirements that were not identical to federal labeling law and that Campbell’s labels complied with the federal requirements “to the letter.”","searchable_name":"Keri Borders","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442359,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":850,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJim Boswell is co-head of King \u0026amp; Spalding's national Healthcare Team. His practice is devoted to handling litigation and investigations on behalf of healthcare industry clients. Jim also assists clients with regulatory and compliance questions and in connection with the negotiation of managed care agreements. Jim has particular expertise in handling managed care litigation on behalf of healthcare provider clients. He has also served as counsel in false claims act lawsuits in California, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, New York and Texas.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn experienced healthcare litigator, Jim regularly handles motion arguments, hearings, arbitrations and trials\u0026nbsp;regarding specialized healthcare issues. He joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 1992 after clerking on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and became a partner of the firm in 1999.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJim has been listed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Trend\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Legal Elite. A member of the American Health Lawyers Association\u0026rsquo;s Board of Directors, he chaired their Healthcare Liability and Litigation Practice Group from 2009-2012. In 2008, Jim was recognized as one of 12 \u0026ldquo;Outstanding Healthcare Litigators\u0026rdquo; nationwide by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNightingale\u0026rsquo;s Healthcare News.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;He is a past Chair of the Health Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia. Jim is also a frequent speaker and presenter.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"james-boswell","email":"jboswell@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":151}]},"expertise":[{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":740,"guid":"740.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1187,"guid":"1187.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Boswell","nick_name":"Jim","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Rhesa H. Barksdale, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","years_held":"1991 - 1992"}],"first_name":"James","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"W.","name_suffix":"III","recognitions":[{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, Healthcare","detail":"Chambers USA, Georgia (2014-2015, 2019-2022)"},{"title":"\"He's incredibly knowledgeable and can explain extremely complex healthcare regulations to the court.\"","detail":"Chambers USA (2022)"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/jimboswell2/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJim Boswell is co-head of King \u0026amp; Spalding's national Healthcare Team. His practice is devoted to handling litigation and investigations on behalf of healthcare industry clients. Jim also assists clients with regulatory and compliance questions and in connection with the negotiation of managed care agreements. Jim has particular expertise in handling managed care litigation on behalf of healthcare provider clients. He has also served as counsel in false claims act lawsuits in California, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, New York and Texas.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn experienced healthcare litigator, Jim regularly handles motion arguments, hearings, arbitrations and trials\u0026nbsp;regarding specialized healthcare issues. He joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 1992 after clerking on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and became a partner of the firm in 1999.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJim has been listed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA, Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Trend\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Legal Elite. A member of the American Health Lawyers Association\u0026rsquo;s Board of Directors, he chaired their Healthcare Liability and Litigation Practice Group from 2009-2012. In 2008, Jim was recognized as one of 12 \u0026ldquo;Outstanding Healthcare Litigators\u0026rdquo; nationwide by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eNightingale\u0026rsquo;s Healthcare News.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;He is a past Chair of the Health Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia. Jim is also a frequent speaker and presenter.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, Healthcare","detail":"Chambers USA, Georgia (2014-2015, 2019-2022)"},{"title":"\"He's incredibly knowledgeable and can explain extremely complex healthcare regulations to the court.\"","detail":"Chambers USA (2022)"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5812}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:26.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:26.000Z","searchable_text":"Boswell{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Ranked Lawyer, Healthcare\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Georgia (2014-2015, 2019-2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's incredibly knowledgeable and can explain extremely complex healthcare regulations to the court.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}Jim Boswell is co-head of King \u0026amp; Spalding's national Healthcare Team. His practice is devoted to handling litigation and investigations on behalf of healthcare industry clients. Jim also assists clients with regulatory and compliance questions and in connection with the negotiation of managed care agreements. Jim has particular expertise in handling managed care litigation on behalf of healthcare provider clients. He has also served as counsel in false claims act lawsuits in California, Georgia, Mississippi, Nevada, New York and Texas.\nAn experienced healthcare litigator, Jim regularly handles motion arguments, hearings, arbitrations and trials regarding specialized healthcare issues. He joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 1992 after clerking on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and became a partner of the firm in 1999.\nJim has been listed in Chambers USA, Super Lawyers, Best Lawyers in America, and Georgia Trend’s Legal Elite. A member of the American Health Lawyers Association’s Board of Directors, he chaired their Healthcare Liability and Litigation Practice Group from 2009-2012. In 2008, Jim was recognized as one of 12 “Outstanding Healthcare Litigators” nationwide by Nightingale’s Healthcare News. He is a past Chair of the Health Law Section of the State Bar of Georgia. Jim is also a frequent speaker and presenter. James W Boswell Partner Top Ranked Lawyer, Healthcare Chambers USA, Georgia (2014-2015, 2019-2022) \"He's incredibly knowledgeable and can explain extremely complex healthcare regulations to the court.\" Chambers USA (2022) Millsaps College  Harvard University Harvard Law School Georgia State Bar of Georgia Law Clerk, Hon. Rhesa H. Barksdale, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","searchable_name":"James W. Boswell III (Jim)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":447104,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6224,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSara Brinkmann represents healthcare and life sciences clients in investigations and litigation in federal courts, state courts, arbitrations, and administrative proceedings across the country.\u0026nbsp; Sara has particular expertise in handling matters that arise under the federal False Claims Act and its state law analogues.\u0026nbsp; Sara also focuses on managed care litigation and has successfully recovered millions of dollars for healthcare providers in disputes against heath plans.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn experienced litigator, Sara also represents her clients in disputes involving contracts, business torts, antitrust, and products liability issues. Sara's clients include hospitals, academic medical centers, medical groups, retail pharmacies, medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, and other life sciences companies.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn additional to her litigation practice, she regularly advises clients on regulatory and compliance matters, including those that involved the Stark Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and other fraud and abuse laws. She also provides counseling and training regarding policies, compliance programs, self-disclosures, and billing matters.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, her clients have said:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \"Sara Brinkmann is an excellent litigator. She is very knowledgeable, highly organized, and a pleasure to work with.\"\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \"She cares about each of her cases and comes up with creative ideas to problem-solve.\" \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \"Sara Brinkmann is a fantastic lawyer.\"\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSara is regularly recognized by publications like \u003cem\u003eChambers,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America, \u003c/em\u003eand \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e. She is the past\u0026nbsp;Chair of the Health Law Section of the Houston Bar Association. She is also a frequent speaker and presenter on a variety of healthcare topics.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"sara-brinkmann","email":"sbrinkmann@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 713 295 9930","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a nationwide retail pharmacy client in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas and on appeal in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals involving allegations of regulatory violations related to the dispensing of certain pharmaceuticals, resulting in a full dismissal of the case prior to discovery and was affirmed on appeal at the Fifth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician recruitment and compensation arrangements, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician group compensation, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended an international medical device company in a False Claims Act case in the District of New Jersey involving allegations of coding errors on claim submissions, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended nationwide retail pharmacy in a False Claims Act case in the Central District of Illinois involving allegations related to usual and customary pricing, resulting in the Court\u0026rsquo;s grant of a Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissal of case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended several higher education institutions, academic medical centers, and life sciences companies in responding to Civil Investigative Demands and other government investigation, including conducting internal investigations and presenting to the government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised several higher education institutions on legal and compliance issues, including developing, implementing, and providing training to employees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised hospital systems regarding affiliation agreements and other complex transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised and provided due diligence support to healthcare companies and hospital systems for mergers and acquisitions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised hospital system regarding data privacy and HIPAA compliance issues in responding to third-party subpoenas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a government defense contractor in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Texas involving allegations of kickbacks and failure to comply with certain Federal Acquisition Regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a pharmaceutical company in several product liability cases in federal and state courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented hospitals systems and other healthcare providers in Texas federal and state court cases involving allegations of breach of contract, violations of Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and health care liability claim cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a hospital system in responding to Medicare RAC audits, securing full reimbursements for hospital system.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Louisiana hospital system in federal antitrust case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a managed care organization in response to investigation by the Texas Office of Inspector General, resulting in a favorable result for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a hospital system in responding to third-party subpoenas successfully securing full reimbursements for hospital systems, including obtaining recovery of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees after prosecuting numerous motions to quash and motions for protection of medical and forensic records in civil, family, and criminal cases.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":109,"guid":"109.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Brinkmann","nick_name":"Sara","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. David Hittner, Texas","years_held":"2009 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Sara","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2197,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2009-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"\"She is very calm, organized and responsive.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"\"Sara has a very service-oriented ethos in how she practices.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked as a Band 3 lawyer for Healthcare: Government Matters \u0026 Regulation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked as a Key Lawyer for Healthcare: Service Providers","detail":"Legal 500 USA, 2025"},{"title":"\"Sara is very good at keeping larger business outcomes in mind.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"\"Sara is intelligent and customer-focused, responsive and competent.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"\"Sara is an exceptional attorney who provided outstanding legal analysis.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"Ranked Band 3 for Healthcare in Texas","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"Women in the Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2022"},{"title":"Top Rated Houston, TX Health Care Attorney","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Top Women Attorneys in Texas","detail":"2024"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"Best Lawyers - Texas, 2021 - 2023"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, Healthcare","detail":"Chambers USA, Texas, 2021-2023"},{"title":"“Sara Brinkmann comes recommended for her expert handling of qui tam actions brought under the False Claims Act.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"“Sara offers notable experience in litigation and administrative proceedings.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"“Sara Brinkmann possesses significant experience and knowledge on complex issues.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"Sara is “organized and approachable, and offers thoughtful approaches on ways to achieve the desired result.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"“She is a really sharp lawyer.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/sara-brinkmann-23b78335","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSara Brinkmann represents healthcare and life sciences clients in investigations and litigation in federal courts, state courts, arbitrations, and administrative proceedings across the country.\u0026nbsp; Sara has particular expertise in handling matters that arise under the federal False Claims Act and its state law analogues.\u0026nbsp; Sara also focuses on managed care litigation and has successfully recovered millions of dollars for healthcare providers in disputes against heath plans.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAn experienced litigator, Sara also represents her clients in disputes involving contracts, business torts, antitrust, and products liability issues. Sara's clients include hospitals, academic medical centers, medical groups, retail pharmacies, medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, and other life sciences companies.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn additional to her litigation practice, she regularly advises clients on regulatory and compliance matters, including those that involved the Stark Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and other fraud and abuse laws. She also provides counseling and training regarding policies, compliance programs, self-disclosures, and billing matters.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThrough \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e, her clients have said:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \"Sara Brinkmann is an excellent litigator. She is very knowledgeable, highly organized, and a pleasure to work with.\"\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \"She cares about each of her cases and comes up with creative ideas to problem-solve.\" \u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp; \"Sara Brinkmann is a fantastic lawyer.\"\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSara is regularly recognized by publications like \u003cem\u003eChambers,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America, \u003c/em\u003eand \u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e. She is the past\u0026nbsp;Chair of the Health Law Section of the Houston Bar Association. She is also a frequent speaker and presenter on a variety of healthcare topics.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a nationwide retail pharmacy client in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas and on appeal in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals involving allegations of regulatory violations related to the dispensing of certain pharmaceuticals, resulting in a full dismissal of the case prior to discovery and was affirmed on appeal at the Fifth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician recruitment and compensation arrangements, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician group compensation, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended an international medical device company in a False Claims Act case in the District of New Jersey involving allegations of coding errors on claim submissions, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended nationwide retail pharmacy in a False Claims Act case in the Central District of Illinois involving allegations related to usual and customary pricing, resulting in the Court\u0026rsquo;s grant of a Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissal of case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended several higher education institutions, academic medical centers, and life sciences companies in responding to Civil Investigative Demands and other government investigation, including conducting internal investigations and presenting to the government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised several higher education institutions on legal and compliance issues, including developing, implementing, and providing training to employees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised hospital systems regarding affiliation agreements and other complex transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised and provided due diligence support to healthcare companies and hospital systems for mergers and acquisitions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised hospital system regarding data privacy and HIPAA compliance issues in responding to third-party subpoenas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a government defense contractor in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Texas involving allegations of kickbacks and failure to comply with certain Federal Acquisition Regulations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a pharmaceutical company in several product liability cases in federal and state courts across the country.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented hospitals systems and other healthcare providers in Texas federal and state court cases involving allegations of breach of contract, violations of Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and health care liability claim cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a hospital system in responding to Medicare RAC audits, securing full reimbursements for hospital system.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Louisiana hospital system in federal antitrust case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defended a managed care organization in response to investigation by the Texas Office of Inspector General, resulting in a favorable result for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented a hospital system in responding to third-party subpoenas successfully securing full reimbursements for hospital systems, including obtaining recovery of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees after prosecuting numerous motions to quash and motions for protection of medical and forensic records in civil, family, and criminal cases.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"She is very calm, organized and responsive.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"\"Sara has a very service-oriented ethos in how she practices.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked as a Band 3 lawyer for Healthcare: Government Matters \u0026 Regulation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2025"},{"title":"Ranked as a Key Lawyer for Healthcare: Service Providers","detail":"Legal 500 USA, 2025"},{"title":"\"Sara is very good at keeping larger business outcomes in mind.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"\"Sara is intelligent and customer-focused, responsive and competent.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"\"Sara is an exceptional attorney who provided outstanding legal analysis.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"Ranked Band 3 for Healthcare in Texas","detail":"Chambers USA 2024"},{"title":"Women in the Law","detail":"Best Lawyers, 2022"},{"title":"Top Rated Houston, TX Health Care Attorney","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2023-2024"},{"title":"Top Women Attorneys in Texas","detail":"2024"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"Best Lawyers - Texas, 2021 - 2023"},{"title":"Top Ranked Lawyer, Healthcare","detail":"Chambers USA, Texas, 2021-2023"},{"title":"“Sara Brinkmann comes recommended for her expert handling of qui tam actions brought under the False Claims Act.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"“Sara offers notable experience in litigation and administrative proceedings.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"“Sara Brinkmann possesses significant experience and knowledge on complex issues.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"Sara is “organized and approachable, and offers thoughtful approaches on ways to achieve the desired result.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"},{"title":"“She is a really sharp lawyer.”","detail":"Chambers USA 2022"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9607}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-03-27T19:04:30.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-27T19:04:30.000Z","searchable_text":"Brinkmann{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"She is very calm, organized and responsive.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Sara has a very service-oriented ethos in how she practices.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a Band 3 lawyer for Healthcare: Government Matters \u0026amp; Regulation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked as a Key Lawyer for Healthcare: Service Providers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 USA, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Sara is very good at keeping larger business outcomes in mind.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Sara is intelligent and customer-focused, responsive and competent.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Sara is an exceptional attorney who provided outstanding legal analysis.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Band 3 for Healthcare in Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Women in the Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Rated Houston, TX Health Care Attorney\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2023-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Women Attorneys in Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers - Texas, 2021 - 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top Ranked Lawyer, Healthcare\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Texas, 2021-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Sara Brinkmann comes recommended for her expert handling of qui tam actions brought under the False Claims Act.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Sara offers notable experience in litigation and administrative proceedings.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Sara Brinkmann possesses significant experience and knowledge on complex issues.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Sara is “organized and approachable, and offers thoughtful approaches on ways to achieve the desired result.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“She is a really sharp lawyer.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a nationwide retail pharmacy client in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas and on appeal in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals involving allegations of regulatory violations related to the dispensing of certain pharmaceuticals, resulting in a full dismissal of the case prior to discovery and was affirmed on appeal at the Fifth Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician recruitment and compensation arrangements, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician group compensation, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended an international medical device company in a False Claims Act case in the District of New Jersey involving allegations of coding errors on claim submissions, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended nationwide retail pharmacy in a False Claims Act case in the Central District of Illinois involving allegations related to usual and customary pricing, resulting in the Court’s grant of a Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissal of case.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended several higher education institutions, academic medical centers, and life sciences companies in responding to Civil Investigative Demands and other government investigation, including conducting internal investigations and presenting to the government.{{ FIELD }}Advised several higher education institutions on legal and compliance issues, including developing, implementing, and providing training to employees.{{ FIELD }}Advised hospital systems regarding affiliation agreements and other complex transactions.{{ FIELD }}Advised and provided due diligence support to healthcare companies and hospital systems for mergers and acquisitions.{{ FIELD }}Advised hospital system regarding data privacy and HIPAA compliance issues in responding to third-party subpoenas.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a government defense contractor in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Texas involving allegations of kickbacks and failure to comply with certain Federal Acquisition Regulations.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a pharmaceutical company in several product liability cases in federal and state courts across the country.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented hospitals systems and other healthcare providers in Texas federal and state court cases involving allegations of breach of contract, violations of Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and health care liability claim cases.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a hospital system in responding to Medicare RAC audits, securing full reimbursements for hospital system.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Louisiana hospital system in federal antitrust case.{{ FIELD }}Successfully defended a managed care organization in response to investigation by the Texas Office of Inspector General, resulting in a favorable result for the client.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented a hospital system in responding to third-party subpoenas successfully securing full reimbursements for hospital systems, including obtaining recovery of attorneys’ fees after prosecuting numerous motions to quash and motions for protection of medical and forensic records in civil, family, and criminal cases.{{ FIELD }}Sara Brinkmann represents healthcare and life sciences clients in investigations and litigation in federal courts, state courts, arbitrations, and administrative proceedings across the country.  Sara has particular expertise in handling matters that arise under the federal False Claims Act and its state law analogues.  Sara also focuses on managed care litigation and has successfully recovered millions of dollars for healthcare providers in disputes against heath plans. \nAn experienced litigator, Sara also represents her clients in disputes involving contracts, business torts, antitrust, and products liability issues. Sara's clients include hospitals, academic medical centers, medical groups, retail pharmacies, medical device companies, pharmaceutical companies, and other life sciences companies.  \nIn additional to her litigation practice, she regularly advises clients on regulatory and compliance matters, including those that involved the Stark Law, the Anti-Kickback Statute, and other fraud and abuse laws. She also provides counseling and training regarding policies, compliance programs, self-disclosures, and billing matters.  \nThrough Chambers USA, her clients have said: \n     \"Sara Brinkmann is an excellent litigator. She is very knowledgeable, highly organized, and a pleasure to work with.\"\n     \"She cares about each of her cases and comes up with creative ideas to problem-solve.\" \n     \"Sara Brinkmann is a fantastic lawyer.\"\nSara is regularly recognized by publications like Chambers, Best Lawyers in America, and Super Lawyers. She is the past Chair of the Health Law Section of the Houston Bar Association. She is also a frequent speaker and presenter on a variety of healthcare topics. Partner \"She is very calm, organized and responsive.\" Chambers USA, 2025 \"Sara has a very service-oriented ethos in how she practices.\" Chambers USA, 2025 Ranked as a Band 3 lawyer for Healthcare: Government Matters \u0026amp; Regulation Chambers USA, 2025 Ranked as a Key Lawyer for Healthcare: Service Providers Legal 500 USA, 2025 \"Sara is very good at keeping larger business outcomes in mind.\" Chambers USA 2024 \"Sara is intelligent and customer-focused, responsive and competent.\" Chambers USA 2024 \"Sara is an exceptional attorney who provided outstanding legal analysis.\" Chambers USA 2024 Ranked Band 3 for Healthcare in Texas Chambers USA 2024 Women in the Law Best Lawyers, 2022 Top Rated Houston, TX Health Care Attorney Super Lawyers, 2023-2024 Top Women Attorneys in Texas 2024 Best Lawyers in America Best Lawyers - Texas, 2021 - 2023 Top Ranked Lawyer, Healthcare Chambers USA, Texas, 2021-2023 “Sara Brinkmann comes recommended for her expert handling of qui tam actions brought under the False Claims Act.” Chambers USA 2022 “Sara offers notable experience in litigation and administrative proceedings.” Chambers USA 2022 “Sara Brinkmann possesses significant experience and knowledge on complex issues.” Chambers USA 2022 Sara is “organized and approachable, and offers thoughtful approaches on ways to achieve the desired result.” Chambers USA 2022 “She is a really sharp lawyer.” Chambers USA 2022 Baylor University Baylor University School of Law University of Houston University of Houston Law Center University of Houston University of Houston Law Center Texas Houston Bar Association, Member (Health Law Section, Chair 2021-2022; Campaign for the Homeless Committee, Former Member; Law Week Committee, Former Member) Federal Bar Association, Member State Bar of Texas, Member Texas Bar Foundation, Fellow Defense Research Institute, Member Greater Houston Society for Healthcare Risk Management Law Clerk, Hon. David Hittner, Texas Successfully defended a nationwide retail pharmacy client in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas and on appeal in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals involving allegations of regulatory violations related to the dispensing of certain pharmaceuticals, resulting in a full dismissal of the case prior to discovery and was affirmed on appeal at the Fifth Circuit. Successfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Southern District of Texas involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician recruitment and compensation arrangements, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client. Successfully defended a hospital system in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Wisconsin involving allegations of Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute violations related to physician group compensation, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client. Successfully defended an international medical device company in a False Claims Act case in the District of New Jersey involving allegations of coding errors on claim submissions, resulting in a favorable settlement for the client. Successfully defended nationwide retail pharmacy in a False Claims Act case in the Central District of Illinois involving allegations related to usual and customary pricing, resulting in the Court’s grant of a Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissal of case. Successfully defended several higher education institutions, academic medical centers, and life sciences companies in responding to Civil Investigative Demands and other government investigation, including conducting internal investigations and presenting to the government. Advised several higher education institutions on legal and compliance issues, including developing, implementing, and providing training to employees. Advised hospital systems regarding affiliation agreements and other complex transactions. Advised and provided due diligence support to healthcare companies and hospital systems for mergers and acquisitions. Advised hospital system regarding data privacy and HIPAA compliance issues in responding to third-party subpoenas. Successfully defended a government defense contractor in a False Claims Act case in the Eastern District of Texas involving allegations of kickbacks and failure to comply with certain Federal Acquisition Regulations. Successfully defended a pharmaceutical company in several product liability cases in federal and state courts across the country. Successfully represented hospitals systems and other healthcare providers in Texas federal and state court cases involving allegations of breach of contract, violations of Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act, and health care liability claim cases. Successfully represented a hospital system in responding to Medicare RAC audits, securing full reimbursements for hospital system. Represented a Louisiana hospital system in federal antitrust case. Successfully defended a managed care organization in response to investigation by the Texas Office of Inspector General, resulting in a favorable result for the client. Successfully represented a hospital system in responding to third-party subpoenas successfully securing full reimbursements for hospital systems, including obtaining recovery of attorneys’ fees after prosecuting numerous motions to quash and motions for protection of medical and forensic records in civil, family, and criminal cases.","searchable_name":"Sara Brinkmann","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":442372,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":883,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"mark-brown","email":"mbrown@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePhillip Morris USA\u003c/strong\u003e v. FDA\u003c/em\u003e, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eUnited States v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFranck's Lab\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDuring his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990\u0026ndash;1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e (2008 and 2015), \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eThe General Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e (2007) and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBaxter Healthcare\u003c/strong\u003e (2006).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSince 2002, served on the national counsel team for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eO'Neal v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFrom 1995 to 2001, served on \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eConnaught Laboratories v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNext Nutrition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003ev. SportPharma USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies\u003c/strong\u003e to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Top 10 pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea top tier biotechnology company\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed numerous internal investigations for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ebiotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eseveral drug and device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":51}]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":122,"guid":"122.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Brown","nick_name":"Mark","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Mark","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":196,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney ","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017"},{"title":"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. ","detail":"Legal 500, 2016"},{"title":"Named Life Sciences Star ","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016"},{"title":"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers ","detail":"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016"},{"title":"Superior Achievement Award ","detail":"U.S. Department of Health \u0026 Human Services, 1992"},{"title":"Commendable Service Award ","detail":"FDA, 1992–1994"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePhillip Morris USA\u003c/strong\u003e v. FDA\u003c/em\u003e, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eUnited States v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFranck's Lab\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDuring his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990\u0026ndash;1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMedtronic\u003c/strong\u003e (2008 and 2015), \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eThe General Electric Company\u003c/strong\u003e (2007) and \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eBaxter Healthcare\u003c/strong\u003e (2006).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSince 2002, served on the national counsel team for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGlaxoSmithKline\u003c/strong\u003e in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eO'Neal v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFrom 1995 to 2001, served on \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eConnaught Laboratories v. \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSmithKline Beecham\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNext Nutrition\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003ev. SportPharma USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003epharmaceutical manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies\u003c/strong\u003e to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Top 10 pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a risk assessment for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea top tier biotechnology company\u0026rsquo;s\u003c/strong\u003e drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed numerous internal investigations for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ebiotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eseveral drug and device manufacturers\u003c/strong\u003e concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAssisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney ","detail":"Law \u0026 Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017"},{"title":"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. ","detail":"Legal 500, 2016"},{"title":"Named Life Sciences Star ","detail":"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016"},{"title":"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers ","detail":"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016"},{"title":"Superior Achievement Award ","detail":"U.S. Department of Health \u0026 Human Services, 1992"},{"title":"Commendable Service Award ","detail":"FDA, 1992–1994"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":746}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:44.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Brown{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law \u0026amp; Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S. \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Life Sciences Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Superior Achievement Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Department of Health \u0026amp; Human Services, 1992\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendable Service Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"FDA, 1992–1994\"}{{ FIELD }}Phillip Morris USA v. FDA, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products.{{ FIELD }}United States v. Franck's Lab, 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs.{{ FIELD }}During his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990–1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including Medtronic (2008 and 2015), The General Electric Company (2007) and Baxter Healthcare (2006).{{ FIELD }}Since 2002, served on the national counsel team for GlaxoSmithKline in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in O'Neal v. SmithKline Beecham (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil.{{ FIELD }}From 1995 to 2001, served on 3M's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues.{{ FIELD }}Connaught Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham, 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine.{{ FIELD }}Next Nutrition, Inc. v. SportPharma USA, Inc., No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award.{{ FIELD }}Represented pharmaceutical manufacturers in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation.{{ FIELD }}Conducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of multiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure.{{ FIELD }}Conducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for a Top 10 pharmaceutical company’s blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas.{{ FIELD }}Conducted a risk assessment for a top tier biotechnology company’s drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making.{{ FIELD }}Led numerous internal investigations for biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented several drug and device manufacturers concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation’s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement.{{ FIELD }}Represented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product.{{ FIELD }}Represented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments.{{ FIELD }}Conducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices.{{ FIELD }}Assisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.{{ FIELD }}Mark Brown is nationally recognized in Food \u0026amp; Drug Administration regulatory matters, civil litigation, criminal investigations and prosecutions, compliance matters and comprehensive risk assessments. Mark advises pharmaceutical, medical device and biotech companies, and pharmacies, on a broad range of FDA requirements and FDA regulatory issues that arise in products liability litigation and other disputes. A former Associate Chief Counsel for FDA, Mark is the Chair of the FDA and Life Sciences practice.\nMark has developed a national reputation for successfully resolving difficult and complex FDA compliance matters and enforcement actions. For pharmaceutical, medical device and food companies, and pharmacies, he has successfully negotiated and managed numerous complex consent decrees of injunction, successfully defended an injunction action brought by FDA, and persuaded the government not to bring enforcement actions in other civil and criminal matters.\nMark regularly counsels clients on drug safety issues, clinical trials, adverse event reporting, quality systems and manufacturing practices for drugs and devices. He also provides guidance concerning product failure investigations, factory inspections, recalls, product labeling, drug compounding, advertising, promotion, sales and marketing practices, and regularly advises clients on strategies for obtaining FDA approval and clearance for medical products.\nMark also handles FDA-related issues in product liability and commercial litigation. He was an architect of the preemption defense for both pharmaceutical and medical device clients, developing supporting evidence, briefing and arguing federal preemption motions in various federal and state courts.\nBefore joining the FDA, Mark was an attorney in the Bureau of Consumer Protection at the Federal Trade Commission, where he concentrated on consumer fraud, healthcare advertising and promotional activities. He developed FTC enforcement actions against weight-loss centers, in vitro fertilization clinics and Northern Virginia infertility doctor Cecil B. Jacobson, who was later convicted of defrauding patients. Mark S Brown Partner Recognized by Super Lawyers as Top Rated FDA Attorney  Law \u0026amp; Politics, 2007, 2010–2011, 2013–2017 Ranked Among the Best Life Sciences Lawyers in the U.S.  Legal 500, 2016 Named Life Sciences Star  LMG Life Sciences, 2012–2016 Recognized as one of Washington’s Best Lawyers  Washingtonian magazine, 2004–2016 Superior Achievement Award  U.S. Department of Health \u0026amp; Human Services, 1992 Commendable Service Award  FDA, 1992–1994 University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School St. Louis University  U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin District of Columbia Maryland Pennsylvania District of Columbia Bar Maryland State Bar Phillip Morris USA v. FDA, 202 F.Supp. 3d (D.D.C. 2016). Represented one of the plaintiffs in a successful legal challenge to an FDA guidance governing the Substantial Equivalence Review process for tobacco products. United States v. Franck's Lab, 2011 WL 4031102 (M.D. Fla., Sept. 12, 2011). Lead counsel in successful defense of FDA enforcement action against pharmacy compounder of veterinary drugs. During his 30-year career, he has served as lead counsel and negotiator for numerous consent decrees of injunction, both during his tenure with FDA (1990–1994), and since 1994 in private practice. For example, he has negotiated consent decrees some of the world's largest device manufacturers, including Medtronic (2008 and 2015), The General Electric Company (2007) and Baxter Healthcare (2006). Since 2002, served on the national counsel team for GlaxoSmithKline in the Paxil Products Liability Litigation. Represented GSK on all FDA-related issues, including federal preemption. Argued and won a summary judgment motion on federal preemption grounds in O'Neal v. SmithKline Beecham (E.D. Cal 2008). In 2002, represented GSK in successfully defending an injunction seeking to enjoin GSK from making claims in direct-to-consumer television advertising for Paxil. From 1995 to 2001, served on 3M's National Trial Team in the Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implant Litigation. Responsible for virtually all FDA issues and had primary responsibility for preparation and handling of defense expert witnesses, and cross-examination of adverse witnesses on FDA issues. Connaught Laboratories v. SmithKline Beecham, 7 F.Supp. 2d 477 (D.Del. 1998), appeal dismissed, 165 F.3d 1368 (1999). Represented SmithKline Beecham in winning one of the few successful motions to compel FDA to provide testimony by its research scientists in patent litigation relating to purified form of pertactin, a component of the pertussis vaccine. Next Nutrition, Inc. v. SportPharma USA, Inc., No. 97-CV-1898J (1997). Served as lead counsel to a dietary supplement company that brought an action under the Lanham Act alleging false and misleading comparative advertising relating to competing products. Successfully negotiated a favorable settlement by obtaining a consent decree of permanent injunction and a damage award. Represented pharmaceutical manufacturers in grand jury investigations regarding data integrity concerns in regulatory submissions to FDA, and alleged cGMP violations. In both cases, the U.S. Department of Justice declined to prosecute the company and individuals under investigation. Conducted internal investigations into the sales and marketing practices of multiple international pharmaceutical and biotech companies to develop a risk profile and recommendations for reducing potential liability and risk exposure. Conducted comprehensive prelaunch risk assessments for a Top 10 pharmaceutical company’s blockbuster drug to identify potential medical, scientific, regulatory and products liability risk areas. Conducted a risk assessment for a top tier biotechnology company’s drug safety system to identify areas for possible improvement in pharmacovigilence planning, postmarket signal detection and investigation, and business decision-making. Led numerous internal investigations for biotechnology, pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers into allegations made by current and former employees regarding product integrity issues, sales and marketing activities, and manufacturing quality issues. Represented several drug and device manufacturers concerning product approvals, and in responding to FDA requests for information relating to promotion and advertising, manufacturing practices, field alerts, recalls and numerous post-market issues. Represented one of the nation’s foremost cardiovascular institutes and some of the leading interventional cardiologists in responding to deficiencies identified during FDA inspections and developing appropriate corrective action to avoid further FDA regulatory enforcement. Represented a device manufacturer in obtaining expedited PMA review and approval in 90 days for a first-of-a-kind device to treat aneurysms in the renal vascular arteries. Successfully obtained approval for a major PMA supplement for the same product. Represented a device manufacturer and coordinated an extensive product investigation into reported failures of an implantable device featuring sophisticated failure analyses and clinical assessments. Conducted extensive training on FDA regulatory, IRB and protocol requirements for clinical investigators participating in the study of implantable devices. Assisted numerous companies in preparing for FDA inspections, developing responses to FDA observations (FDA-483 forms) and warning letters related to manufacturing practices, quality systems, adverse event reporting, deviations from approved drug master files and manufacturing processes, and a variety of other regulatory matters. Assisted these companies in preparing for meetings with FDA compliance officials in District Offices, centers for drugs and devices, and the Office of Chief Counsel.","searchable_name":"Mark S. Brown","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":196,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427549,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":613,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChris Burris focuses on white-collar criminal defense, corporate internal investigations, regulatory enforcement action defense and complex litigation. As a partner in our Special Matters and Government Investigations practice, Chris defends corporations and individuals in a variety of criminal, regulatory, False Claims Act and other matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a defense lawyer, Chris represents leading corporations and individuals in criminal and regulatory enforcement matters. He has particular experience with defending clients in False Claims Act/\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;matters, handling dozens of cases concerning a variety of issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Chris counsels clients in matters concerning privacy, information security and related issues. He also conducts internal investigations on behalf of management, boards of directors and audit committees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Chris served on active duty in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General\u0026rsquo;s Corps for nearly six years, where he gained broad experience in trial prosecution and defense, appeals and internal investigations. As a Commander in the Naval Reserves, he currently serves as the Executive Officer of the Navy Reserve unit overseeing issues involving international and operational law, admiralty and maritime law, environmental law, and information operations and intelligence law.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"christopher-burris","email":"cburris@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major international financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of accusations of employee participation in an alleged Ponzi scheme.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large publicly traded manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of potential Bank Secrecy Act violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean elected state official\u003c/strong\u003e during a federal investigation of public corruption, which led to no charges being filed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean owner of a large privately held manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of a federal criminal tax investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean owner of a privately held national pharmaceutical distributor\u003c/strong\u003e in Section 2255 proceedings regarding his conviction on mail/wire fraud and RICO charges stemming from allegations of grey market recycling of drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003enumerous national retail and specialty pharmacy chains\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple False Claims Act /\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e matters focusing on a variety of issues, including allegations of the payment of kickbacks, improper submission of dosage quantities, the failure to timely refund credit balances, coordination of benefits issues, the submission of incorrect \u0026ldquo;usual and customary\u0026rdquo; prices to government payors and the dispensing of expired drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major national financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e in False Claims Act /\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e litigation involving allegations of charging borrowers unallowable fees under the Veteran Administration's Home Loan Guaranty Program.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major national skilled nursing facility chain\u003c/strong\u003e in False Claims Act /\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e litigation focusing on quality of care issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted independent internal investigations on various issues, including allegations of improper accounting, theft of corporate resources, backdated stock option, FCPA violations, and misconduct in the execution of government contracts and grant programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal review for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international nongovernmenta\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003el organization\u003c/strong\u003e regarding potential FCPA issues related to an ongoing cooperative project with a foreign government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large publicly traded corporation\u003c/strong\u003e in one of the first national investigations by a multi-state attorneys' general task force focusing on the loss of consumer information held by the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Fortune 500 financial services company\u003c/strong\u003e in a data breach response and in ensuing investigations by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which focused on Regulation S-P\u0026rsquo;s requirement to safeguard consumer financial and personal information.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Fortune 100 healthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e in responding to a data security incident \u0026mdash; and an ensuing DHHS OCR investigation \u0026mdash; involving the theft of customers\u0026rsquo; personal and medical information. The internal investigation that was conducted led to DHHS OCR and customer disclosures pursuant to the requirements of HIPAA and various state data breach disclosure statutes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major international telecommunications company\u003c/strong\u003e in its response to the disclosure of the United States' Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), and issues and litigation arising from the company\u0026rsquo;s alleged cooperation with the TSP.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":24}]},"expertise":[{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Burris","nick_name":"Chris","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Christopher","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"C.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eChris Burris focuses on white-collar criminal defense, corporate internal investigations, regulatory enforcement action defense and complex litigation. As a partner in our Special Matters and Government Investigations practice, Chris defends corporations and individuals in a variety of criminal, regulatory, False Claims Act and other matters.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a defense lawyer, Chris represents leading corporations and individuals in criminal and regulatory enforcement matters. He has particular experience with defending clients in False Claims Act/\u003cem\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;matters, handling dozens of cases concerning a variety of issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Chris counsels clients in matters concerning privacy, information security and related issues. He also conducts internal investigations on behalf of management, boards of directors and audit committees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePreviously, Chris served on active duty in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General\u0026rsquo;s Corps for nearly six years, where he gained broad experience in trial prosecution and defense, appeals and internal investigations. As a Commander in the Naval Reserves, he currently serves as the Executive Officer of the Navy Reserve unit overseeing issues involving international and operational law, admiralty and maritime law, environmental law, and information operations and intelligence law.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major international financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of accusations of employee participation in an alleged Ponzi scheme.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large publicly traded manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of potential Bank Secrecy Act violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean elected state official\u003c/strong\u003e during a federal investigation of public corruption, which led to no charges being filed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean owner of a large privately held manufacturing company\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of a federal criminal tax investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean owner of a privately held national pharmaceutical distributor\u003c/strong\u003e in Section 2255 proceedings regarding his conviction on mail/wire fraud and RICO charges stemming from allegations of grey market recycling of drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003enumerous national retail and specialty pharmacy chains\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple False Claims Act /\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e matters focusing on a variety of issues, including allegations of the payment of kickbacks, improper submission of dosage quantities, the failure to timely refund credit balances, coordination of benefits issues, the submission of incorrect \u0026ldquo;usual and customary\u0026rdquo; prices to government payors and the dispensing of expired drugs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major national financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e in False Claims Act /\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e litigation involving allegations of charging borrowers unallowable fees under the Veteran Administration's Home Loan Guaranty Program.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major national skilled nursing facility chain\u003c/strong\u003e in False Claims Act /\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003equi tam\u003c/em\u003e litigation focusing on quality of care issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted independent internal investigations on various issues, including allegations of improper accounting, theft of corporate resources, backdated stock option, FCPA violations, and misconduct in the execution of government contracts and grant programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal review for \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international nongovernmenta\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003el organization\u003c/strong\u003e regarding potential FCPA issues related to an ongoing cooperative project with a foreign government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large publicly traded corporation\u003c/strong\u003e in one of the first national investigations by a multi-state attorneys' general task force focusing on the loss of consumer information held by the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Fortune 500 financial services company\u003c/strong\u003e in a data breach response and in ensuing investigations by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which focused on Regulation S-P\u0026rsquo;s requirement to safeguard consumer financial and personal information.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Fortune 100 healthcare company\u003c/strong\u003e in responding to a data security incident \u0026mdash; and an ensuing DHHS OCR investigation \u0026mdash; involving the theft of customers\u0026rsquo; personal and medical information. The internal investigation that was conducted led to DHHS OCR and customer disclosures pursuant to the requirements of HIPAA and various state data breach disclosure statutes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major international telecommunications company\u003c/strong\u003e in its response to the disclosure of the United States' Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), and issues and litigation arising from the company\u0026rsquo;s alleged cooperation with the TSP.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4195}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Burris{{ FIELD }}Represented a major international financial institution in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of accusations of employee participation in an alleged Ponzi scheme.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large publicly traded manufacturing company in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of potential Bank Secrecy Act violations.{{ FIELD }}Represented an elected state official during a federal investigation of public corruption, which led to no charges being filed.{{ FIELD }}Represented an owner of a large privately held manufacturing company in the defense of a federal criminal tax investigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented an owner of a privately held national pharmaceutical distributor in Section 2255 proceedings regarding his conviction on mail/wire fraud and RICO charges stemming from allegations of grey market recycling of drugs.{{ FIELD }}Represented numerous national retail and specialty pharmacy chains in multiple False Claims Act /qui tam matters focusing on a variety of issues, including allegations of the payment of kickbacks, improper submission of dosage quantities, the failure to timely refund credit balances, coordination of benefits issues, the submission of incorrect “usual and customary” prices to government payors and the dispensing of expired drugs.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major national financial institution in False Claims Act /qui tam litigation involving allegations of charging borrowers unallowable fees under the Veteran Administration's Home Loan Guaranty Program.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major national skilled nursing facility chain in False Claims Act /qui tam litigation focusing on quality of care issues.{{ FIELD }}Conducted independent internal investigations on various issues, including allegations of improper accounting, theft of corporate resources, backdated stock option, FCPA violations, and misconduct in the execution of government contracts and grant programs.{{ FIELD }}Conducted an internal review for an international nongovernmental organization regarding potential FCPA issues related to an ongoing cooperative project with a foreign government.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large publicly traded corporation in one of the first national investigations by a multi-state attorneys' general task force focusing on the loss of consumer information held by the company.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Fortune 500 financial services company in a data breach response and in ensuing investigations by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which focused on Regulation S-P’s requirement to safeguard consumer financial and personal information.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Fortune 100 healthcare company in responding to a data security incident — and an ensuing DHHS OCR investigation — involving the theft of customers’ personal and medical information. The internal investigation that was conducted led to DHHS OCR and customer disclosures pursuant to the requirements of HIPAA and various state data breach disclosure statutes.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major international telecommunications company in its response to the disclosure of the United States' Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), and issues and litigation arising from the company’s alleged cooperation with the TSP.{{ FIELD }}Chris Burris focuses on white-collar criminal defense, corporate internal investigations, regulatory enforcement action defense and complex litigation. As a partner in our Special Matters and Government Investigations practice, Chris defends corporations and individuals in a variety of criminal, regulatory, False Claims Act and other matters.\nAs a defense lawyer, Chris represents leading corporations and individuals in criminal and regulatory enforcement matters. He has particular experience with defending clients in False Claims Act/qui tam matters, handling dozens of cases concerning a variety of issues.\nIn addition, Chris counsels clients in matters concerning privacy, information security and related issues. He also conducts internal investigations on behalf of management, boards of directors and audit committees.\nPreviously, Chris served on active duty in the U.S. Navy Judge Advocate General’s Corps for nearly six years, where he gained broad experience in trial prosecution and defense, appeals and internal investigations. As a Commander in the Naval Reserves, he currently serves as the Executive Officer of the Navy Reserve unit overseeing issues involving international and operational law, admiralty and maritime law, environmental law, and information operations and intelligence law. Christopher C Burris Partner Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University of North Carolina School of Law Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Supreme Court of the United States U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina Georgia North Carolina Represented a major international financial institution in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of accusations of employee participation in an alleged Ponzi scheme. Represented a large publicly traded manufacturing company in the internal investigation and self-disclosure of potential Bank Secrecy Act violations. Represented an elected state official during a federal investigation of public corruption, which led to no charges being filed. Represented an owner of a large privately held manufacturing company in the defense of a federal criminal tax investigation. Represented an owner of a privately held national pharmaceutical distributor in Section 2255 proceedings regarding his conviction on mail/wire fraud and RICO charges stemming from allegations of grey market recycling of drugs. Represented numerous national retail and specialty pharmacy chains in multiple False Claims Act /qui tam matters focusing on a variety of issues, including allegations of the payment of kickbacks, improper submission of dosage quantities, the failure to timely refund credit balances, coordination of benefits issues, the submission of incorrect “usual and customary” prices to government payors and the dispensing of expired drugs. Represented a major national financial institution in False Claims Act /qui tam litigation involving allegations of charging borrowers unallowable fees under the Veteran Administration's Home Loan Guaranty Program. Represented a major national skilled nursing facility chain in False Claims Act /qui tam litigation focusing on quality of care issues. Conducted independent internal investigations on various issues, including allegations of improper accounting, theft of corporate resources, backdated stock option, FCPA violations, and misconduct in the execution of government contracts and grant programs. Conducted an internal review for an international nongovernmental organization regarding potential FCPA issues related to an ongoing cooperative project with a foreign government. Represented a large publicly traded corporation in one of the first national investigations by a multi-state attorneys' general task force focusing on the loss of consumer information held by the company. Represented a Fortune 500 financial services company in a data breach response and in ensuing investigations by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which focused on Regulation S-P’s requirement to safeguard consumer financial and personal information. Represented a Fortune 100 healthcare company in responding to a data security incident — and an ensuing DHHS OCR investigation — involving the theft of customers’ personal and medical information. The internal investigation that was conducted led to DHHS OCR and customer disclosures pursuant to the requirements of HIPAA and various state data breach disclosure statutes. Represented a major international telecommunications company in its response to the disclosure of the United States' Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP), and issues and litigation arising from the company’s alleged cooperation with the TSP.","searchable_name":"Christopher C. Burris (Chris)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442383,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1005,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Butterfield helps lead the firm\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta Environmental, Health and Safety Practice Group, where he concentrates his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation as well as\u0026nbsp;emergency incident response. Randy's practice focuses in particular on assisting clients in the wake of catastrophic emergency incidents, such as explosions, fires, industrial accidents, chemical releases, spills, and other environmental and industrial calamities. In that capacity, Randy is frequently called upon in the immediate aftermath of these emergencies to provide time-critical crisis management addressing a wide range of pressing concerns, including forensic investigation; workplace safety; site security and evidence preservation; regulatory disclosures, investigation, and potential enforcement; environmental remediation; internal investigations; and insurance coverage. Recent incidents on which Randy has helped lead the response have involved over $2 billion in property damages, business losses, and insurance claims; significant personal injury lawsuits; as well as enforcement actions from federal and state regulators.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Randy has handled numerous mass joinder and class action cases involving personal injury and property damage claims, both at the trial and appellate levels. Randy has played a particularly significant role in preparing and defending the defense experts\u0026mdash;as well as deposing and critiquing plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts\u0026mdash;on a wide variety of technical topics, such as air and groundwater modeling, emission inventories, dose reconstruction, geostatistics, human health risk assessment, toxicology, epidemiology,\u0026nbsp;fate and transport,\u0026nbsp;remediation,\u0026nbsp;property valuation, and damage assessments. Over his career, Randy\u0026rsquo;s litigation matters have involved nearly every major piece of environmental legislation as well as the entire spectrum of common law tort claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has published several articles involving the potential application and use of federal and state regulatory standards in the toxic tort context. He has also co-authored a chapter on legal defenses in toxic tort cases in a treatise published by the American Bar Association as well as a chapter on administrative appeals published by LexisNexis. Randy served on the Environmental and Toxic Tort Section of the Atlanta Bar Association, including as Board Chair in 2018. Randy also served on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s Environmental Editorial Advisory Board from 2021-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBooks, Articles \u0026amp; Presentations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; LexisNexis Practice Guide:\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Environmental Law\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 ed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield, moderator, Roundtable with Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearing Judges\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp; Litigants, Atlanta Bar Association, Toxic Tort and Environmental Law CLE, Feb. 1, 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield \u0026amp; Stephen A. McCullers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRaising the Class Action Certification Bar in Georgia:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eGeorgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Ratner, Perspectives on Georgia\u0026rsquo;s Environment (State Bar of\u0026nbsp;Georgia), Spring 2015, at 6-9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRecent \u0026amp; Recurring Issues in Toxic Tort Cases\u003c/em\u003e, State Bar of Georgia, Toxic Tort\u0026nbsp;Litigation CLE, Mar. 2014\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; J Kevin Buster \u0026amp; Randy J. Butterfield,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCommon Defenses in Toxic Tort Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(book chapter) (ABA\u0026nbsp;2d ed. 2013)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield, Note,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRecovering Environmental Cleanup Costs Under the Resource Conservation\u0026nbsp;and Recovery Act: A Potential Solution to a Persistent Problem\u003c/em\u003e, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 689 (1997)\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"randall-butterfield","email":"rbutterfield@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eA midstream energy company in connection with investigations by Federal and State environmental agencies as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into an explosion and fire at a natural gas processing facility resulting in catastrophic loss. Oversaw root cause investigation, coordinated responses to agency inquiries, and provided advice and counsel in connection with successful insurance recovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOne of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest producers of methanol from natural gas as standby incident response counsel, including in connection with environmental investigations into spills and releases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn LNG facility in connection with government investigations by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) arising out of an explosion that resulted in operational shutdown and extensive damage to piping and other equipment and in connection with insurance coverage concerns.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Fortune 50 energy company in connection with the February 2023 Norfolk Southern freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn international chemical manufacturer in response to an explosion at its largest U.S. manufacturing facility, including helping to lead the emergency incident response and internal investigation as well as responding to regulatory inquiries by, among others OSHA; State and Federal environmental agencies; the CSB; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe country\u0026rsquo;s largest specialty paper company following the catastrophic explosion of two continuous pulp digesters. Helped lead the team handling the emergency response, including handling the root cause investigation, successfully resolving investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, CSB, and numerous state regulatory agencies, and securing a significant settlement of its insurance claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA worldwide mining and petroleum company as standby incident response counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn engineering and construction company in connection with a trench collapse resulting in a fatality, including responding to OSHA\u0026rsquo;s resulting investigation and implementing a nationwide safety audit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA carbon capture company in connection with building collapse resulting in extensive damages to multiple rail cars. Led root cause investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA water and wastewater treatment provider in connection with a civil and criminal investigation into wastewater treatment plant compliance involving allegations of falsification of records.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOne of the largest specialty pulp and paper manufacturers in the United States in connection with investigations by EPA, OSHA, and various state and local agencies arising out of a catastrophic explosion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical facility following release of trichlorosilane during line break that resulted in serious injuries to contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical facility in connection with explosion caused by the failure of an expansion joint, resulting in numerous injuries and one fatality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA medical sterilization company in pending litigation involving air emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO) from its facility in Colorado.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA world-leading manufacturer to defend the claims of 3,000 plaintiffs stemming from air emissions of lead, arsenic, and other substances from a polymetallic smelter in Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolved regulatory enforcement actions against a Fortune 100 company involving EPA\u0026rsquo;s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (\u0026ldquo;RRP\u0026rdquo;) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (\u0026ldquo;TSCA\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA large paper manufacturer following a catastrophic fire at its New Jersey production facility. Helped lead the core team that successfully resolved all State and Federal regulatory investigations and secured a significant settlement of its insurance claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRayonier Performance Fibers in securing renewal of the NPDES discharge permit for its Jesup pulp mill, the world's largest producer of cellulose specialty products. The permit had been reversed by the administrative law judge, who imposed a novel and unreasonable construction of the narrative water quality standard. That erroneous decision, which threatened the permitting program for all industrial and municipal dischargers in Georgia, was reversed on appeal, ultimately leading to affirmance of the renewed permit.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 816 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), cert. denied (Aug. 5, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRayonier Performance Fibers in a citizen suit alleging that the pulp mill was violating its NPDES discharge permit. District court granted summary judgment in favor of Rayonier on all counts.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. CV 214-44, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42849 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSea Island Company in securing, and successfully defending to an Administrative Law Judge and then to Superior Court, the state Shore Protection Act permit for a controversial beach nourishment, dune construction, and groin project along three miles of beachfront property. In subsequent related litigation brought in federal court, obtained summary judgment upholding the contested permits.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng\u0026rsquo;rs\u003c/em\u003e, No. CV 418-251, 2020 WL 5837650 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA large electric utility company in toxic tort litigation involving approximately 150 residents living near Plant Scherer, one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the country. Following oral argument on an early motion to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA carbon black manufacturer in mass joinder actions filed in West Virginia by hundreds of current and former neighbors, asserting nuisance, trespass, negligence and medical monitoring claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense contractors in a putative personal injury and property damage class action seeking some $200 million for alleged exposure to lead, PCBs, and other chemicals associated with historic forge and foundry operations in Anniston, Alabama. Cases ultimately resolved in nuisance value settlements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe City of Atlanta and other local governments in the tri-state \u0026ldquo;water wars\u0026rdquo; litigation involving Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, including the successful defense of Florida\u0026rsquo;s claims that the operation of Georgia reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River have harmed endangered species.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical manufacturer against claims related to the contamination of a former fertilizer manufacturing facility. Following extensive fact and expert discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Fortune 50 energy company in the appeal of a $27 million jury verdict in a \u0026ldquo;dram shop\u0026rdquo; case asserting agency liability based upon the use of brand standards for independent service stations. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and rendered judgment in favor of the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical manufacturer in a mixture of class actions and individual lawsuits filed in state and federal courts concerning alleged mercury and PCB contamination from the company\u0026rsquo;s former chlor-alkali plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMore than a dozen manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of welding products in several Georgia cases brought on behalf of approximately 500 plaintiffs who alleged personal injury due to inhalation of manganese particles produced by the welding process.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1015,"guid":"1015.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1236,"guid":"1236.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1168,"guid":"1168.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Butterfield","nick_name":"Randy","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Chief Judge Robert L. Echols, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee","years_held":"1997 - 1999"}],"first_name":"Randall","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Law360 Selects Nine from King \u0026 Spalding to Serve on 2021 Editorial Advisory Boards","detail":"Law 360, April 2021"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/randy-butterfield-237ab87/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRandy Butterfield helps lead the firm\u0026rsquo;s Atlanta Environmental, Health and Safety Practice Group, where he concentrates his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation as well as\u0026nbsp;emergency incident response. Randy's practice focuses in particular on assisting clients in the wake of catastrophic emergency incidents, such as explosions, fires, industrial accidents, chemical releases, spills, and other environmental and industrial calamities. In that capacity, Randy is frequently called upon in the immediate aftermath of these emergencies to provide time-critical crisis management addressing a wide range of pressing concerns, including forensic investigation; workplace safety; site security and evidence preservation; regulatory disclosures, investigation, and potential enforcement; environmental remediation; internal investigations; and insurance coverage. Recent incidents on which Randy has helped lead the response have involved over $2 billion in property damages, business losses, and insurance claims; significant personal injury lawsuits; as well as enforcement actions from federal and state regulators.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition, Randy has handled numerous mass joinder and class action cases involving personal injury and property damage claims, both at the trial and appellate levels. Randy has played a particularly significant role in preparing and defending the defense experts\u0026mdash;as well as deposing and critiquing plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; experts\u0026mdash;on a wide variety of technical topics, such as air and groundwater modeling, emission inventories, dose reconstruction, geostatistics, human health risk assessment, toxicology, epidemiology,\u0026nbsp;fate and transport,\u0026nbsp;remediation,\u0026nbsp;property valuation, and damage assessments. Over his career, Randy\u0026rsquo;s litigation matters have involved nearly every major piece of environmental legislation as well as the entire spectrum of common law tort claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRandy has published several articles involving the potential application and use of federal and state regulatory standards in the toxic tort context. He has also co-authored a chapter on legal defenses in toxic tort cases in a treatise published by the American Bar Association as well as a chapter on administrative appeals published by LexisNexis. Randy served on the Environmental and Toxic Tort Section of the Atlanta Bar Association, including as Board Chair in 2018. Randy also served on\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s Environmental Editorial Advisory Board from 2021-2022.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eBooks, Articles \u0026amp; Presentations\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; LexisNexis Practice Guide:\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Environmental Law\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 ed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield, moderator, Roundtable with Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearing Judges\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp; Litigants, Atlanta Bar Association, Toxic Tort and Environmental Law CLE, Feb. 1, 2018\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield \u0026amp; Stephen A. McCullers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRaising the Class Action Certification Bar in Georgia:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eGeorgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Ratner, Perspectives on Georgia\u0026rsquo;s Environment (State Bar of\u0026nbsp;Georgia), Spring 2015, at 6-9\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRecent \u0026amp; Recurring Issues in Toxic Tort Cases\u003c/em\u003e, State Bar of Georgia, Toxic Tort\u0026nbsp;Litigation CLE, Mar. 2014\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; J Kevin Buster \u0026amp; Randy J. Butterfield,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCommon Defenses in Toxic Tort Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(book chapter) (ABA\u0026nbsp;2d ed. 2013)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull; Randy J. Butterfield, Note,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRecovering Environmental Cleanup Costs Under the Resource Conservation\u0026nbsp;and Recovery Act: A Potential Solution to a Persistent Problem\u003c/em\u003e, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 689 (1997)\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eA midstream energy company in connection with investigations by Federal and State environmental agencies as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into an explosion and fire at a natural gas processing facility resulting in catastrophic loss. Oversaw root cause investigation, coordinated responses to agency inquiries, and provided advice and counsel in connection with successful insurance recovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOne of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest producers of methanol from natural gas as standby incident response counsel, including in connection with environmental investigations into spills and releases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn LNG facility in connection with government investigations by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) arising out of an explosion that resulted in operational shutdown and extensive damage to piping and other equipment and in connection with insurance coverage concerns.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Fortune 50 energy company in connection with the February 2023 Norfolk Southern freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn international chemical manufacturer in response to an explosion at its largest U.S. manufacturing facility, including helping to lead the emergency incident response and internal investigation as well as responding to regulatory inquiries by, among others OSHA; State and Federal environmental agencies; the CSB; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe country\u0026rsquo;s largest specialty paper company following the catastrophic explosion of two continuous pulp digesters. Helped lead the team handling the emergency response, including handling the root cause investigation, successfully resolving investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, CSB, and numerous state regulatory agencies, and securing a significant settlement of its insurance claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA worldwide mining and petroleum company as standby incident response counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn engineering and construction company in connection with a trench collapse resulting in a fatality, including responding to OSHA\u0026rsquo;s resulting investigation and implementing a nationwide safety audit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA carbon capture company in connection with building collapse resulting in extensive damages to multiple rail cars. Led root cause investigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA water and wastewater treatment provider in connection with a civil and criminal investigation into wastewater treatment plant compliance involving allegations of falsification of records.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOne of the largest specialty pulp and paper manufacturers in the United States in connection with investigations by EPA, OSHA, and various state and local agencies arising out of a catastrophic explosion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical facility following release of trichlorosilane during line break that resulted in serious injuries to contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical facility in connection with explosion caused by the failure of an expansion joint, resulting in numerous injuries and one fatality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA medical sterilization company in pending litigation involving air emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO) from its facility in Colorado.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA world-leading manufacturer to defend the claims of 3,000 plaintiffs stemming from air emissions of lead, arsenic, and other substances from a polymetallic smelter in Peru.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully resolved regulatory enforcement actions against a Fortune 100 company involving EPA\u0026rsquo;s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (\u0026ldquo;RRP\u0026rdquo;) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (\u0026ldquo;TSCA\u0026rdquo;).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA large paper manufacturer following a catastrophic fire at its New Jersey production facility. Helped lead the core team that successfully resolved all State and Federal regulatory investigations and secured a significant settlement of its insurance claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRayonier Performance Fibers in securing renewal of the NPDES discharge permit for its Jesup pulp mill, the world's largest producer of cellulose specialty products. The permit had been reversed by the administrative law judge, who imposed a novel and unreasonable construction of the narrative water quality standard. That erroneous decision, which threatened the permitting program for all industrial and municipal dischargers in Georgia, was reversed on appeal, ultimately leading to affirmance of the renewed permit.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 816 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), cert. denied (Aug. 5, 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRayonier Performance Fibers in a citizen suit alleging that the pulp mill was violating its NPDES discharge permit. District court granted summary judgment in favor of Rayonier on all counts.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. CV 214-44, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42849 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSea Island Company in securing, and successfully defending to an Administrative Law Judge and then to Superior Court, the state Shore Protection Act permit for a controversial beach nourishment, dune construction, and groin project along three miles of beachfront property. In subsequent related litigation brought in federal court, obtained summary judgment upholding the contested permits.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAltamaha Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng\u0026rsquo;rs\u003c/em\u003e, No. CV 418-251, 2020 WL 5837650 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2020).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA large electric utility company in toxic tort litigation involving approximately 150 residents living near Plant Scherer, one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the country. Following oral argument on an early motion to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA carbon black manufacturer in mass joinder actions filed in West Virginia by hundreds of current and former neighbors, asserting nuisance, trespass, negligence and medical monitoring claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense contractors in a putative personal injury and property damage class action seeking some $200 million for alleged exposure to lead, PCBs, and other chemicals associated with historic forge and foundry operations in Anniston, Alabama. Cases ultimately resolved in nuisance value settlements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe City of Atlanta and other local governments in the tri-state \u0026ldquo;water wars\u0026rdquo; litigation involving Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, including the successful defense of Florida\u0026rsquo;s claims that the operation of Georgia reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River have harmed endangered species.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical manufacturer against claims related to the contamination of a former fertilizer manufacturing facility. Following extensive fact and expert discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA Fortune 50 energy company in the appeal of a $27 million jury verdict in a \u0026ldquo;dram shop\u0026rdquo; case asserting agency liability based upon the use of brand standards for independent service stations. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and rendered judgment in favor of the company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA chemical manufacturer in a mixture of class actions and individual lawsuits filed in state and federal courts concerning alleged mercury and PCB contamination from the company\u0026rsquo;s former chlor-alkali plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMore than a dozen manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of welding products in several Georgia cases brought on behalf of approximately 500 plaintiffs who alleged personal injury due to inhalation of manganese particles produced by the welding process.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Law360 Selects Nine from King \u0026 Spalding to Serve on 2021 Editorial Advisory Boards","detail":"Law 360, April 2021"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":757}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Butterfield{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Selects Nine from King \u0026amp; Spalding to Serve on 2021 Editorial Advisory Boards\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, April 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}A midstream energy company in connection with investigations by Federal and State environmental agencies as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into an explosion and fire at a natural gas processing facility resulting in catastrophic loss. Oversaw root cause investigation, coordinated responses to agency inquiries, and provided advice and counsel in connection with successful insurance recovery.{{ FIELD }}One of the world’s largest producers of methanol from natural gas as standby incident response counsel, including in connection with environmental investigations into spills and releases.{{ FIELD }}An LNG facility in connection with government investigations by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) arising out of an explosion that resulted in operational shutdown and extensive damage to piping and other equipment and in connection with insurance coverage concerns.{{ FIELD }}A Fortune 50 energy company in connection with the February 2023 Norfolk Southern freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio.{{ FIELD }}An international chemical manufacturer in response to an explosion at its largest U.S. manufacturing facility, including helping to lead the emergency incident response and internal investigation as well as responding to regulatory inquiries by, among others OSHA; State and Federal environmental agencies; the CSB; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).{{ FIELD }}The country’s largest specialty paper company following the catastrophic explosion of two continuous pulp digesters. Helped lead the team handling the emergency response, including handling the root cause investigation, successfully resolving investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, CSB, and numerous state regulatory agencies, and securing a significant settlement of its insurance claim.{{ FIELD }}A worldwide mining and petroleum company as standby incident response counsel.{{ FIELD }}An engineering and construction company in connection with a trench collapse resulting in a fatality, including responding to OSHA’s resulting investigation and implementing a nationwide safety audit.{{ FIELD }}A carbon capture company in connection with building collapse resulting in extensive damages to multiple rail cars. Led root cause investigation.{{ FIELD }}A water and wastewater treatment provider in connection with a civil and criminal investigation into wastewater treatment plant compliance involving allegations of falsification of records.{{ FIELD }}One of the largest specialty pulp and paper manufacturers in the United States in connection with investigations by EPA, OSHA, and various state and local agencies arising out of a catastrophic explosion.{{ FIELD }}A chemical facility following release of trichlorosilane during line break that resulted in serious injuries to contractors.{{ FIELD }}A chemical facility in connection with explosion caused by the failure of an expansion joint, resulting in numerous injuries and one fatality.{{ FIELD }}A medical sterilization company in pending litigation involving air emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO) from its facility in Colorado.{{ FIELD }}A world-leading manufacturer to defend the claims of 3,000 plaintiffs stemming from air emissions of lead, arsenic, and other substances from a polymetallic smelter in Peru.{{ FIELD }}Successfully resolved regulatory enforcement actions against a Fortune 100 company involving EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (“RRP”) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”).{{ FIELD }}A large paper manufacturer following a catastrophic fire at its New Jersey production facility. Helped lead the core team that successfully resolved all State and Federal regulatory investigations and secured a significant settlement of its insurance claims.{{ FIELD }}Rayonier Performance Fibers in securing renewal of the NPDES discharge permit for its Jesup pulp mill, the world's largest producer of cellulose specialty products. The permit had been reversed by the administrative law judge, who imposed a novel and unreasonable construction of the narrative water quality standard. That erroneous decision, which threatened the permitting program for all industrial and municipal dischargers in Georgia, was reversed on appeal, ultimately leading to affirmance of the renewed permit. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC, 816 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), cert. denied (Aug. 5, 2019).{{ FIELD }}Rayonier Performance Fibers in a citizen suit alleging that the pulp mill was violating its NPDES discharge permit. District court granted summary judgment in favor of Rayonier on all counts. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier, Inc., No. CV 214-44, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42849 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2015).{{ FIELD }}Sea Island Company in securing, and successfully defending to an Administrative Law Judge and then to Superior Court, the state Shore Protection Act permit for a controversial beach nourishment, dune construction, and groin project along three miles of beachfront property. In subsequent related litigation brought in federal court, obtained summary judgment upholding the contested permits. Altamaha Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. CV 418-251, 2020 WL 5837650 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2020).{{ FIELD }}A large electric utility company in toxic tort litigation involving approximately 150 residents living near Plant Scherer, one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the country. Following oral argument on an early motion to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims.{{ FIELD }}A carbon black manufacturer in mass joinder actions filed in West Virginia by hundreds of current and former neighbors, asserting nuisance, trespass, negligence and medical monitoring claims.{{ FIELD }}Defense contractors in a putative personal injury and property damage class action seeking some $200 million for alleged exposure to lead, PCBs, and other chemicals associated with historic forge and foundry operations in Anniston, Alabama. Cases ultimately resolved in nuisance value settlements.{{ FIELD }}The City of Atlanta and other local governments in the tri-state “water wars” litigation involving Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, including the successful defense of Florida’s claims that the operation of Georgia reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River have harmed endangered species.{{ FIELD }}A chemical manufacturer against claims related to the contamination of a former fertilizer manufacturing facility. Following extensive fact and expert discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.{{ FIELD }}A Fortune 50 energy company in the appeal of a $27 million jury verdict in a “dram shop” case asserting agency liability based upon the use of brand standards for independent service stations. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and rendered judgment in favor of the company.{{ FIELD }}A chemical manufacturer in a mixture of class actions and individual lawsuits filed in state and federal courts concerning alleged mercury and PCB contamination from the company’s former chlor-alkali plant.{{ FIELD }}More than a dozen manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of welding products in several Georgia cases brought on behalf of approximately 500 plaintiffs who alleged personal injury due to inhalation of manganese particles produced by the welding process.{{ FIELD }}Randy Butterfield helps lead the firm’s Atlanta Environmental, Health and Safety Practice Group, where he concentrates his practice on environmental and toxic tort litigation as well as emergency incident response. Randy's practice focuses in particular on assisting clients in the wake of catastrophic emergency incidents, such as explosions, fires, industrial accidents, chemical releases, spills, and other environmental and industrial calamities. In that capacity, Randy is frequently called upon in the immediate aftermath of these emergencies to provide time-critical crisis management addressing a wide range of pressing concerns, including forensic investigation; workplace safety; site security and evidence preservation; regulatory disclosures, investigation, and potential enforcement; environmental remediation; internal investigations; and insurance coverage. Recent incidents on which Randy has helped lead the response have involved over $2 billion in property damages, business losses, and insurance claims; significant personal injury lawsuits; as well as enforcement actions from federal and state regulators.\nIn addition, Randy has handled numerous mass joinder and class action cases involving personal injury and property damage claims, both at the trial and appellate levels. Randy has played a particularly significant role in preparing and defending the defense experts—as well as deposing and critiquing plaintiffs’ experts—on a wide variety of technical topics, such as air and groundwater modeling, emission inventories, dose reconstruction, geostatistics, human health risk assessment, toxicology, epidemiology, fate and transport, remediation, property valuation, and damage assessments. Over his career, Randy’s litigation matters have involved nearly every major piece of environmental legislation as well as the entire spectrum of common law tort claims.\nRandy has published several articles involving the potential application and use of federal and state regulatory standards in the toxic tort context. He has also co-authored a chapter on legal defenses in toxic tort cases in a treatise published by the American Bar Association as well as a chapter on administrative appeals published by LexisNexis. Randy served on the Environmental and Toxic Tort Section of the Atlanta Bar Association, including as Board Chair in 2018. Randy also served on Law360’s Environmental Editorial Advisory Board from 2021-2022.\nBooks, Articles \u0026amp; Presentations\n• LexisNexis Practice Guide: Georgia Environmental Law, 2022 ed.\n• Randy J. Butterfield, moderator, Roundtable with Georgia Office of State Administrative Hearing Judges \u0026amp; Litigants, Atlanta Bar Association, Toxic Tort and Environmental Law CLE, Feb. 1, 2018\n• Randy J. Butterfield \u0026amp; Stephen A. McCullers, Raising the Class Action Certification Bar in Georgia: Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP v. Ratner, Perspectives on Georgia’s Environment (State Bar of Georgia), Spring 2015, at 6-9\n• Randy J. Butterfield, Recent \u0026amp; Recurring Issues in Toxic Tort Cases, State Bar of Georgia, Toxic Tort Litigation CLE, Mar. 2014\n• J Kevin Buster \u0026amp; Randy J. Butterfield, Common Defenses in Toxic Tort Litigation (book chapter) (ABA 2d ed. 2013)\n• Randy J. Butterfield, Note, Recovering Environmental Cleanup Costs Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act: A Potential Solution to a Persistent Problem, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 689 (1997) Partner Law360 Selects Nine from King \u0026amp; Spalding to Serve on 2021 Editorial Advisory Boards Law 360, April 2021 Arizona State University Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law Vanderbilt University Vanderbilt University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Texas Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia State Bar of Georgia, Environmental Law Section Atlanta Bar Association, Environmental and Toxic Tort Section (past President) American Bar Association, Section on Natural Resources, Energy and Environmental Law Defense Research Institute (DRI) Law Clerk, Chief Judge Robert L. Echols, U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee A midstream energy company in connection with investigations by Federal and State environmental agencies as well as the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) into an explosion and fire at a natural gas processing facility resulting in catastrophic loss. Oversaw root cause investigation, coordinated responses to agency inquiries, and provided advice and counsel in connection with successful insurance recovery. One of the world’s largest producers of methanol from natural gas as standby incident response counsel, including in connection with environmental investigations into spills and releases. An LNG facility in connection with government investigations by the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) arising out of an explosion that resulted in operational shutdown and extensive damage to piping and other equipment and in connection with insurance coverage concerns. A Fortune 50 energy company in connection with the February 2023 Norfolk Southern freight train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio. An international chemical manufacturer in response to an explosion at its largest U.S. manufacturing facility, including helping to lead the emergency incident response and internal investigation as well as responding to regulatory inquiries by, among others OSHA; State and Federal environmental agencies; the CSB; and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The country’s largest specialty paper company following the catastrophic explosion of two continuous pulp digesters. Helped lead the team handling the emergency response, including handling the root cause investigation, successfully resolving investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, OSHA, CSB, and numerous state regulatory agencies, and securing a significant settlement of its insurance claim. A worldwide mining and petroleum company as standby incident response counsel. An engineering and construction company in connection with a trench collapse resulting in a fatality, including responding to OSHA’s resulting investigation and implementing a nationwide safety audit. A carbon capture company in connection with building collapse resulting in extensive damages to multiple rail cars. Led root cause investigation. A water and wastewater treatment provider in connection with a civil and criminal investigation into wastewater treatment plant compliance involving allegations of falsification of records. One of the largest specialty pulp and paper manufacturers in the United States in connection with investigations by EPA, OSHA, and various state and local agencies arising out of a catastrophic explosion. A chemical facility following release of trichlorosilane during line break that resulted in serious injuries to contractors. A chemical facility in connection with explosion caused by the failure of an expansion joint, resulting in numerous injuries and one fatality. A medical sterilization company in pending litigation involving air emissions of ethylene oxide (EtO) from its facility in Colorado. A world-leading manufacturer to defend the claims of 3,000 plaintiffs stemming from air emissions of lead, arsenic, and other substances from a polymetallic smelter in Peru. Successfully resolved regulatory enforcement actions against a Fortune 100 company involving EPA’s Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting (“RRP”) Rule under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”). A large paper manufacturer following a catastrophic fire at its New Jersey production facility. Helped lead the core team that successfully resolved all State and Federal regulatory investigations and secured a significant settlement of its insurance claims. Rayonier Performance Fibers in securing renewal of the NPDES discharge permit for its Jesup pulp mill, the world's largest producer of cellulose specialty products. The permit had been reversed by the administrative law judge, who imposed a novel and unreasonable construction of the narrative water quality standard. That erroneous decision, which threatened the permitting program for all industrial and municipal dischargers in Georgia, was reversed on appeal, ultimately leading to affirmance of the renewed permit. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier Performance Fibers, LLC, 816 S.E.2d 125 (Ga. Ct. App. 2018), cert. denied (Aug. 5, 2019). Rayonier Performance Fibers in a citizen suit alleging that the pulp mill was violating its NPDES discharge permit. District court granted summary judgment in favor of Rayonier on all counts. Altamaha Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rayonier, Inc., No. CV 214-44, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42849 (S.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2015). Sea Island Company in securing, and successfully defending to an Administrative Law Judge and then to Superior Court, the state Shore Protection Act permit for a controversial beach nourishment, dune construction, and groin project along three miles of beachfront property. In subsequent related litigation brought in federal court, obtained summary judgment upholding the contested permits. Altamaha Riverkeeper v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, No. CV 418-251, 2020 WL 5837650 (S.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2020). A large electric utility company in toxic tort litigation involving approximately 150 residents living near Plant Scherer, one of the largest coal-fired power plants in the country. Following oral argument on an early motion to dismiss, plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all claims. A carbon black manufacturer in mass joinder actions filed in West Virginia by hundreds of current and former neighbors, asserting nuisance, trespass, negligence and medical monitoring claims. Defense contractors in a putative personal injury and property damage class action seeking some $200 million for alleged exposure to lead, PCBs, and other chemicals associated with historic forge and foundry operations in Anniston, Alabama. Cases ultimately resolved in nuisance value settlements. The City of Atlanta and other local governments in the tri-state “water wars” litigation involving Georgia, Alabama, and Florida, including the successful defense of Florida’s claims that the operation of Georgia reservoirs on the Chattahoochee River have harmed endangered species. A chemical manufacturer against claims related to the contamination of a former fertilizer manufacturing facility. Following extensive fact and expert discovery, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the company on all claims, a decision later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. A Fortune 50 energy company in the appeal of a $27 million jury verdict in a “dram shop” case asserting agency liability based upon the use of brand standards for independent service stations. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed the jury verdict and rendered judgment in favor of the company. A chemical manufacturer in a mixture of class actions and individual lawsuits filed in state and federal courts concerning alleged mercury and PCB contamination from the company’s former chlor-alkali plant. More than a dozen manufacturers, distributors, or sellers of welding products in several Georgia cases brought on behalf of approximately 500 plaintiffs who alleged personal injury due to inhalation of manganese particles produced by the welding process.","searchable_name":"Randall J. Butterfield (Randy)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444778,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6627,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAnkit Bahri is a Counsel in the Singapore office and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Government Matters Group.\u0026nbsp; As both a private practice attorney and in-house counsel, Ankit has represented multi-national clients in a wide range of contentious matters, including investigations, compliance advisory, litigation, and international arbitration.\u0026nbsp; In particular, Ankit has assisted clients in the energy, engineering and construction, financial services, pharmaceutical, shipping, and technology sectors.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA U.S.-trained attorney, Ankit has advised clients on government and regulatory investigations relating to fraud, sanctions compliance, money laundering, securities enforcement, and public corruption.\u0026nbsp; Ankit has worked on investigations involving various international regulators, including the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, the U.K. Prudential Regulation Authority, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2021, Ankit was seconded to the Singapore office of a large public pension fund, where he helped manage compliance reviews, focused on identifying potential concerns relating to bribery, corruption, and money laundering, of the fund\u0026rsquo;s investment opportunities in Asia and Australia.\u0026nbsp; He has continued to advise clients on compliance due diligence matters since his return to private practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBetween 2019 and 2020, Ankit worked in the Disputes and Government Investigations Legal team at Standard Chartered Bank in Singapore, where he managed government and regulatory investigations, as well as local and cross-border disputes, in jurisdictions across South and Southeast Asia. \u0026nbsp;He also managed internal investigations for the Bank into allegations of employee misconduct, bribery, corruption, and money laundering.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnkit also has substantial experience representing clients in domestic and cross-border litigation in U.S. federal and state courts and in disputes arising under the ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, LMAA, and LCIA Rules of Arbitration.\u0026nbsp; Ankit's experience spans disputes arising under contract, tort, antitrust, intellectual property, legal malpractice, anticorruption, and securities laws.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the start of his career, Ankit practiced at two top-tier U.S. law firms in New York and Washington, D.C., where he worked on a wide variety of matters including commercial litigation, international arbitration, white collar and criminal defense, patent law, and government investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"ankit-bahri","email":"abahri@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvestigations and Criminal Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrently retained, along with Richard Sharpe, as standing risk and compliance counsel for one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest, U.S. listed, Private Equity/Private Credit funds for all of their Asia Pacific-focused investments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducting an investigation into allegations of financial misconduct (including money laundering) within an Indian listed group of companies, and specifically involving the family of the Founder and Chairman of the group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducting an investigation, on behalf of the Audit Committee of the Board of a large UK-based technology start-up, into allegations of money laundering and financial misconduct made against the CEO by Indian law enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting one of the top private universities in the world in connection with multiple investigations by the U.S. House of Representatives in connection with the University's response to antisemitism and Islamophobia on its campus.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed compliance reviews of proposed investment opportunities for one of the largest public pension funds in the world. Managed external counsel and background service providers to conduct investigations and due diligence focused on bribery, corruption, money laundering, and sanctions issues into target entities and individuals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading compliance reviews and risk assessments for a large Private Equity firm's portfolio companies in India and Indonesia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a holistic compliance review and risk assessment for a Fortune 500 Company's China operations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational steel producer in conducting a global health and safety review of its manufacturing sites across 30+ jurisdictions. Attended a week-long site assessment at one of the client's largest manufacturing plants, located in Gujarat, India.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an individual client in a criminal corruption trial in U.S. federal court in Arkansas arising out of bribery and corruption charges filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a reinsurance company and its principals in investigations initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as related civil lawsuits arising out of failed investments by the reinsurance company on behalf of its clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international airline before the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission in relation to market manipulation allegations. Prepared submissions to the regulator that successfully warded off any enforcement action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an individual defendant in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;murder trial in Maryland state court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCivil Litigation and Arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a pharmaceutical major in HKIAC arbitration seeking damages for fraudulently induced investments in China. Claims were favorable resolved for the client prior to the hearing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest shipbuilders in two LMAA arbitrations arising out of termination of drillship resale contracts by a drilling contractor. After a 3-week hearing, the Tribunal ruled in the client\u0026rsquo;s favor on almost all of the claims and counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Fortune 500 company in multiple actions, including AAA arbitration, against former employees for misappropriation of confidential information in Singapore. Claims were successfully resolved for the client and misappropriated data was destroyed or returned.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a U.S. energy company in SIAC arbitration against its Indian licensee. Claims were resolved early and favorably for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading software technology company in the successful defense of a patent infringement action in U.S. federal court that sought to invalidate much of the client's business. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the client on all issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a leading technology company in a series of class actions filed by customers in courts across the U.S. based on the disclosure of potential security vulnerabilities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented JPMorgan Chase and related entities (including Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual) in numerous residential mortgage-backed securities actions filed in U.S. federal and state courts in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Morgan Stanley in a U.S. federal class action that alleged a conspiracy to block exchange trading of credit default swaps. The case was settled at an early stage.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented two large U.S. law firms in pre-complaint mediations arising out of claims of legal malpractice. Both mediations led to a settlement of the claims and a successful outcome for the clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a pharmaceutical manufacturer in an ICC arbitration arising out of a licensing dispute with one of its competitors in the industry. Claims were resolved through settlement prior to the final hearing.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1327,"guid":"1327.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bahri","nick_name":"Ankit","clerkships":[{"name":"Intern, Judge Dolores K. Sloviter, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit","years_held":"2011 - 2011"}],"first_name":"Ankit","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"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"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/ankit-bahri-9640962b","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAnkit Bahri is a Counsel in the Singapore office and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Government Matters Group.\u0026nbsp; As both a private practice attorney and in-house counsel, Ankit has represented multi-national clients in a wide range of contentious matters, including investigations, compliance advisory, litigation, and international arbitration.\u0026nbsp; In particular, Ankit has assisted clients in the energy, engineering and construction, financial services, pharmaceutical, shipping, and technology sectors.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA U.S.-trained attorney, Ankit has advised clients on government and regulatory investigations relating to fraud, sanctions compliance, money laundering, securities enforcement, and public corruption.\u0026nbsp; Ankit has worked on investigations involving various international regulators, including the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, the U.K. Prudential Regulation Authority, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn 2021, Ankit was seconded to the Singapore office of a large public pension fund, where he helped manage compliance reviews, focused on identifying potential concerns relating to bribery, corruption, and money laundering, of the fund\u0026rsquo;s investment opportunities in Asia and Australia.\u0026nbsp; He has continued to advise clients on compliance due diligence matters since his return to private practice.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBetween 2019 and 2020, Ankit worked in the Disputes and Government Investigations Legal team at Standard Chartered Bank in Singapore, where he managed government and regulatory investigations, as well as local and cross-border disputes, in jurisdictions across South and Southeast Asia. \u0026nbsp;He also managed internal investigations for the Bank into allegations of employee misconduct, bribery, corruption, and money laundering.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAnkit also has substantial experience representing clients in domestic and cross-border litigation in U.S. federal and state courts and in disputes arising under the ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, LMAA, and LCIA Rules of Arbitration.\u0026nbsp; Ankit's experience spans disputes arising under contract, tort, antitrust, intellectual property, legal malpractice, anticorruption, and securities laws.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAt the start of his career, Ankit practiced at two top-tier U.S. law firms in New York and Washington, D.C., where he worked on a wide variety of matters including commercial litigation, international arbitration, white collar and criminal defense, patent law, and government investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eInvestigations and Criminal Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCurrently retained, along with Richard Sharpe, as standing risk and compliance counsel for one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest, U.S. listed, Private Equity/Private Credit funds for all of their Asia Pacific-focused investments.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducting an investigation into allegations of financial misconduct (including money laundering) within an Indian listed group of companies, and specifically involving the family of the Founder and Chairman of the group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducting an investigation, on behalf of the Audit Committee of the Board of a large UK-based technology start-up, into allegations of money laundering and financial misconduct made against the CEO by Indian law enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting one of the top private universities in the world in connection with multiple investigations by the U.S. House of Representatives in connection with the University's response to antisemitism and Islamophobia on its campus.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed compliance reviews of proposed investment opportunities for one of the largest public pension funds in the world. Managed external counsel and background service providers to conduct investigations and due diligence focused on bribery, corruption, money laundering, and sanctions issues into target entities and individuals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLeading compliance reviews and risk assessments for a large Private Equity firm's portfolio companies in India and Indonesia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted a holistic compliance review and risk assessment for a Fortune 500 Company's China operations\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a multinational steel producer in conducting a global health and safety review of its manufacturing sites across 30+ jurisdictions. Attended a week-long site assessment at one of the client's largest manufacturing plants, located in Gujarat, India.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an individual client in a criminal corruption trial in U.S. federal court in Arkansas arising out of bribery and corruption charges filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a reinsurance company and its principals in investigations initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as related civil lawsuits arising out of failed investments by the reinsurance company on behalf of its clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international airline before the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission in relation to market manipulation allegations. Prepared submissions to the regulator that successfully warded off any enforcement action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an individual defendant in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;murder trial in Maryland state court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCivil Litigation and Arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a pharmaceutical major in HKIAC arbitration seeking damages for fraudulently induced investments in China. Claims were favorable resolved for the client prior to the hearing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest shipbuilders in two LMAA arbitrations arising out of termination of drillship resale contracts by a drilling contractor. After a 3-week hearing, the Tribunal ruled in the client\u0026rsquo;s favor on almost all of the claims and counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Fortune 500 company in multiple actions, including AAA arbitration, against former employees for misappropriation of confidential information in Singapore. Claims were successfully resolved for the client and misappropriated data was destroyed or returned.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a U.S. energy company in SIAC arbitration against its Indian licensee. Claims were resolved early and favorably for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented leading software technology company in the successful defense of a patent infringement action in U.S. federal court that sought to invalidate much of the client's business. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the client on all issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a leading technology company in a series of class actions filed by customers in courts across the U.S. based on the disclosure of potential security vulnerabilities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented JPMorgan Chase and related entities (including Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual) in numerous residential mortgage-backed securities actions filed in U.S. federal and state courts in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Morgan Stanley in a U.S. federal class action that alleged a conspiracy to block exchange trading of credit default swaps. The case was settled at an early stage.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented two large U.S. law firms in pre-complaint mediations arising out of claims of legal malpractice. Both mediations led to a settlement of the claims and a successful outcome for the clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a pharmaceutical manufacturer in an ICC arbitration arising out of a licensing dispute with one of its competitors in the industry. Claims were resolved through settlement prior to the final hearing.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11385}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-01-05T17:55:52.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-05T17:55:52.000Z","searchable_text":"Bahri{{ FIELD }}Investigations and Criminal Matters\nCurrently retained, along with Richard Sharpe, as standing risk and compliance counsel for one of the world’s largest, U.S. listed, Private Equity/Private Credit funds for all of their Asia Pacific-focused investments.{{ FIELD }}Conducting an investigation into allegations of financial misconduct (including money laundering) within an Indian listed group of companies, and specifically involving the family of the Founder and Chairman of the group.{{ FIELD }}Conducting an investigation, on behalf of the Audit Committee of the Board of a large UK-based technology start-up, into allegations of money laundering and financial misconduct made against the CEO by Indian law enforcement.{{ FIELD }}Representing one of the top private universities in the world in connection with multiple investigations by the U.S. House of Representatives in connection with the University's response to antisemitism and Islamophobia on its campus.{{ FIELD }}Led compliance reviews of proposed investment opportunities for one of the largest public pension funds in the world. Managed external counsel and background service providers to conduct investigations and due diligence focused on bribery, corruption, money laundering, and sanctions issues into target entities and individuals.{{ FIELD }}Leading compliance reviews and risk assessments for a large Private Equity firm's portfolio companies in India and Indonesia.{{ FIELD }}Conducted a holistic compliance review and risk assessment for a Fortune 500 Company's China operations{{ FIELD }}Represented a multinational steel producer in conducting a global health and safety review of its manufacturing sites across 30+ jurisdictions. Attended a week-long site assessment at one of the client's largest manufacturing plants, located in Gujarat, India.{{ FIELD }}Represented an individual client in a criminal corruption trial in U.S. federal court in Arkansas arising out of bribery and corruption charges filed by the U.S. Department of Justice.{{ FIELD }}Represented a reinsurance company and its principals in investigations initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as related civil lawsuits arising out of failed investments by the reinsurance company on behalf of its clients.{{ FIELD }}Represented an international airline before the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission in relation to market manipulation allegations. Prepared submissions to the regulator that successfully warded off any enforcement action.{{ FIELD }}Represented an individual defendant in pro bono murder trial in Maryland state court.{{ FIELD }}Civil Litigation and Arbitration\nRepresented a pharmaceutical major in HKIAC arbitration seeking damages for fraudulently induced investments in China. Claims were favorable resolved for the client prior to the hearing.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the world’s largest shipbuilders in two LMAA arbitrations arising out of termination of drillship resale contracts by a drilling contractor. After a 3-week hearing, the Tribunal ruled in the client’s favor on almost all of the claims and counterclaims.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Fortune 500 company in multiple actions, including AAA arbitration, against former employees for misappropriation of confidential information in Singapore. Claims were successfully resolved for the client and misappropriated data was destroyed or returned.{{ FIELD }}Represented a U.S. energy company in SIAC arbitration against its Indian licensee. Claims were resolved early and favorably for the client.{{ FIELD }}Represented leading software technology company in the successful defense of a patent infringement action in U.S. federal court that sought to invalidate much of the client's business. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the client on all issues.{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading technology company in a series of class actions filed by customers in courts across the U.S. based on the disclosure of potential security vulnerabilities.{{ FIELD }}Represented JPMorgan Chase and related entities (including Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual) in numerous residential mortgage-backed securities actions filed in U.S. federal and state courts in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.{{ FIELD }}Represented Morgan Stanley in a U.S. federal class action that alleged a conspiracy to block exchange trading of credit default swaps. The case was settled at an early stage.{{ FIELD }}Represented two large U.S. law firms in pre-complaint mediations arising out of claims of legal malpractice. Both mediations led to a settlement of the claims and a successful outcome for the clients.{{ FIELD }}Represented a pharmaceutical manufacturer in an ICC arbitration arising out of a licensing dispute with one of its competitors in the industry. Claims were resolved through settlement prior to the final hearing.{{ FIELD }}Ankit Bahri is a Counsel in the Singapore office and a member of the firm’s Government Matters Group.  As both a private practice attorney and in-house counsel, Ankit has represented multi-national clients in a wide range of contentious matters, including investigations, compliance advisory, litigation, and international arbitration.  In particular, Ankit has assisted clients in the energy, engineering and construction, financial services, pharmaceutical, shipping, and technology sectors. \nA U.S.-trained attorney, Ankit has advised clients on government and regulatory investigations relating to fraud, sanctions compliance, money laundering, securities enforcement, and public corruption.  Ankit has worked on investigations involving various international regulators, including the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control, the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission, the U.K. Financial Conduct Authority, the U.K. Prudential Regulation Authority, and the Monetary Authority of Singapore.\nIn 2021, Ankit was seconded to the Singapore office of a large public pension fund, where he helped manage compliance reviews, focused on identifying potential concerns relating to bribery, corruption, and money laundering, of the fund’s investment opportunities in Asia and Australia.  He has continued to advise clients on compliance due diligence matters since his return to private practice.\nBetween 2019 and 2020, Ankit worked in the Disputes and Government Investigations Legal team at Standard Chartered Bank in Singapore, where he managed government and regulatory investigations, as well as local and cross-border disputes, in jurisdictions across South and Southeast Asia.  He also managed internal investigations for the Bank into allegations of employee misconduct, bribery, corruption, and money laundering.\nAnkit also has substantial experience representing clients in domestic and cross-border litigation in U.S. federal and state courts and in disputes arising under the ICC, SIAC, HKIAC, LMAA, and LCIA Rules of Arbitration.  Ankit's experience spans disputes arising under contract, tort, antitrust, intellectual property, legal malpractice, anticorruption, and securities laws.\nAt the start of his career, Ankit practiced at two top-tier U.S. law firms in New York and Washington, D.C., where he worked on a wide variety of matters including commercial litigation, international arbitration, white collar and criminal defense, patent law, and government investigations. Counsel Nanyang Technological University  University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School District of Columbia New York Singapore Registered Foreign Lawyer Intern, Judge Dolores K. Sloviter, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Investigations and Criminal Matters\nCurrently retained, along with Richard Sharpe, as standing risk and compliance counsel for one of the world’s largest, U.S. listed, Private Equity/Private Credit funds for all of their Asia Pacific-focused investments. Conducting an investigation into allegations of financial misconduct (including money laundering) within an Indian listed group of companies, and specifically involving the family of the Founder and Chairman of the group. Conducting an investigation, on behalf of the Audit Committee of the Board of a large UK-based technology start-up, into allegations of money laundering and financial misconduct made against the CEO by Indian law enforcement. Representing one of the top private universities in the world in connection with multiple investigations by the U.S. House of Representatives in connection with the University's response to antisemitism and Islamophobia on its campus. Led compliance reviews of proposed investment opportunities for one of the largest public pension funds in the world. Managed external counsel and background service providers to conduct investigations and due diligence focused on bribery, corruption, money laundering, and sanctions issues into target entities and individuals. Leading compliance reviews and risk assessments for a large Private Equity firm's portfolio companies in India and Indonesia. Conducted a holistic compliance review and risk assessment for a Fortune 500 Company's China operations Represented a multinational steel producer in conducting a global health and safety review of its manufacturing sites across 30+ jurisdictions. Attended a week-long site assessment at one of the client's largest manufacturing plants, located in Gujarat, India. Represented an individual client in a criminal corruption trial in U.S. federal court in Arkansas arising out of bribery and corruption charges filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. Represented a reinsurance company and its principals in investigations initiated by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as related civil lawsuits arising out of failed investments by the reinsurance company on behalf of its clients. Represented an international airline before the U.S. Commodities Futures Trading Commission in relation to market manipulation allegations. Prepared submissions to the regulator that successfully warded off any enforcement action. Represented an individual defendant in pro bono murder trial in Maryland state court. Civil Litigation and Arbitration\nRepresented a pharmaceutical major in HKIAC arbitration seeking damages for fraudulently induced investments in China. Claims were favorable resolved for the client prior to the hearing. Represented one of the world’s largest shipbuilders in two LMAA arbitrations arising out of termination of drillship resale contracts by a drilling contractor. After a 3-week hearing, the Tribunal ruled in the client’s favor on almost all of the claims and counterclaims. Represented a Fortune 500 company in multiple actions, including AAA arbitration, against former employees for misappropriation of confidential information in Singapore. Claims were successfully resolved for the client and misappropriated data was destroyed or returned. Represented a U.S. energy company in SIAC arbitration against its Indian licensee. Claims were resolved early and favorably for the client. Represented leading software technology company in the successful defense of a patent infringement action in U.S. federal court that sought to invalidate much of the client's business. Summary judgment was granted in favor of the client on all issues. Represented a leading technology company in a series of class actions filed by customers in courts across the U.S. based on the disclosure of potential security vulnerabilities. Represented JPMorgan Chase and related entities (including Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual) in numerous residential mortgage-backed securities actions filed in U.S. federal and state courts in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Represented Morgan Stanley in a U.S. federal class action that alleged a conspiracy to block exchange trading of credit default swaps. The case was settled at an early stage. Represented two large U.S. law firms in pre-complaint mediations arising out of claims of legal malpractice. Both mediations led to a settlement of the claims and a successful outcome for the clients. Represented a pharmaceutical manufacturer in an ICC arbitration arising out of a licensing dispute with one of its competitors in the industry. Claims were resolved through settlement prior to the final hearing.","searchable_name":"Ankit Bahri","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":436448,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":4101,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHeather Ba\u0026ntilde;uelos\u0026nbsp;is Counsel in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Washington, DC office and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s FDA \u0026amp; Life Sciences practice group. Her practice focuses on regulatory strategies and initiatives for the labeling,\u0026nbsp;advertising and promotion\u0026nbsp;of FDA-regulated products: prescription and OTC drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, foods, and dietary supplements. Heather has served as the legal and/or regulatory member on dozens of promotional review committees and medical and scientific review committees, with a knack for practical advice and recommendations to help clients find a successful path forward.\u0026nbsp;She is also a frequent speaker on advertising and promotion issues at industry conferences and client training.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeather\u0026rsquo;s experience in FDA law spans over 20 years and includes positions as a former Associate Chief Counsel in the FDA\u0026rsquo;s Office of the Chief Counsel and senior in-house regulatory counsel for multiple clients, including two large pharmaceutical companies and a leading food company. Her experiences in government and in-house give her a unique and valuable perspective as outside counsel.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a former Associate Chief Counsel in the FDA\u0026rsquo;s Office of the Chief Counsel, Heather advised the FDA\u0026rsquo;s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition on various matters pertaining to the regulation of food, dietary supplements and cosmetics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeather has also served as senior in-house regulatory counsel for multiple clients, including two large pharmaceutical companies and a leading food company. In these positions, she was responsible for advising on domestic and international regulatory and legal matters, such as the development, marketing and labeling of products, competitor issues, recalls and market withdrawals, and promotion and advertising, among others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeather graduated from the University of Southern California School of Law, where she served as an editorial member of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSouthern California Law Review\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and on the Board of Directors for the Public Interest Law Foundation.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"heather-banuelos","email":"hbanuelos@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Banuelos","nick_name":"Heather","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Heather","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":2389,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2000-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/heatherbanuelos/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":14,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eHeather Ba\u0026ntilde;uelos\u0026nbsp;is Counsel in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Washington, DC office and a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s FDA \u0026amp; Life Sciences practice group. Her practice focuses on regulatory strategies and initiatives for the labeling,\u0026nbsp;advertising and promotion\u0026nbsp;of FDA-regulated products: prescription and OTC drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, foods, and dietary supplements. Heather has served as the legal and/or regulatory member on dozens of promotional review committees and medical and scientific review committees, with a knack for practical advice and recommendations to help clients find a successful path forward.\u0026nbsp;She is also a frequent speaker on advertising and promotion issues at industry conferences and client training.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeather\u0026rsquo;s experience in FDA law spans over 20 years and includes positions as a former Associate Chief Counsel in the FDA\u0026rsquo;s Office of the Chief Counsel and senior in-house regulatory counsel for multiple clients, including two large pharmaceutical companies and a leading food company. Her experiences in government and in-house give her a unique and valuable perspective as outside counsel.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs a former Associate Chief Counsel in the FDA\u0026rsquo;s Office of the Chief Counsel, Heather advised the FDA\u0026rsquo;s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition on various matters pertaining to the regulation of food, dietary supplements and cosmetics.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeather has also served as senior in-house regulatory counsel for multiple clients, including two large pharmaceutical companies and a leading food company. In these positions, she was responsible for advising on domestic and international regulatory and legal matters, such as the development, marketing and labeling of products, competitor issues, recalls and market withdrawals, and promotion and advertising, among others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHeather graduated from the University of Southern California School of Law, where she served as an editorial member of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSouthern California Law Review\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and on the Board of Directors for the Public Interest Law Foundation.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6073}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:54:39.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:54:39.000Z","searchable_text":"Banuelos{{ FIELD }}Heather Bañuelos is Counsel in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Washington, DC office and a member of the firm’s FDA \u0026amp; Life Sciences practice group. Her practice focuses on regulatory strategies and initiatives for the labeling, advertising and promotion of FDA-regulated products: prescription and OTC drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, foods, and dietary supplements. Heather has served as the legal and/or regulatory member on dozens of promotional review committees and medical and scientific review committees, with a knack for practical advice and recommendations to help clients find a successful path forward. She is also a frequent speaker on advertising and promotion issues at industry conferences and client training.\nHeather’s experience in FDA law spans over 20 years and includes positions as a former Associate Chief Counsel in the FDA’s Office of the Chief Counsel and senior in-house regulatory counsel for multiple clients, including two large pharmaceutical companies and a leading food company. Her experiences in government and in-house give her a unique and valuable perspective as outside counsel.\nAs a former Associate Chief Counsel in the FDA’s Office of the Chief Counsel, Heather advised the FDA’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition on various matters pertaining to the regulation of food, dietary supplements and cosmetics.\nHeather has also served as senior in-house regulatory counsel for multiple clients, including two large pharmaceutical companies and a leading food company. In these positions, she was responsible for advising on domestic and international regulatory and legal matters, such as the development, marketing and labeling of products, competitor issues, recalls and market withdrawals, and promotion and advertising, among others.\nHeather graduated from the University of Southern California School of Law, where she served as an editorial member of the Southern California Law Review and on the Board of Directors for the Public Interest Law Foundation. Counsel University of Southern California USC Gould School of Law University of Southern California USC Gould School of Law California District of Columbia Food and Drug Law Institute","searchable_name":"Heather Banuelos","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":101,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}