{"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":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"id":445969,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6173,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGary Adamson represents clients in regulatory proceedings, investigations and complex commercial litigation. He frequently represents accounting firms and individual accountants in litigation, arbitration, and regulatory investigations by the US Securities \u0026amp; Exchange Commission (SEC), Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), and state authorities. Gary also represents clients in complex disputes about items such as fiduciary relationships, breach of contract, civil RICO, and fraud-related matters. He has sophisticated experience representing clients before investigative agencies and in the federal, state, and appeals cases.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFluent in Spanish, Gary also has unique experience in Latin American investigations and enforcement actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*\u003cem\u003eAdmitted in New York and Washington, D.C.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr data-cke-eol=\"1\" /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"gary-adamson","email":"gadamson@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented major US public audit firms and individual professionals in connection with investigations by the Divisions of Enforcement of the SEC and PCAOB.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented foreign public audit firms and their professionals in England, Mexico and Brazil in connection with litigation and regulatory matters, including investigations by the SEC and PCAOB Division of Enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a generic pharmaceutical company in a contract dispute concerning the scope of an exclusive license; obtained an order from the Third Circuit reversing a decision granting summary judgment in favor of the opposing party, and subsequently obtained a multimillion-dollar jury verdict at trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured a favorable settlement on behalf of an international investment company in a suit against an international financial institution concerning unauthorized withdrawals of funds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a government agency in an international arbitration in London concerning breach of a multimillion Euro construction contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Canadian citizen in cross-border litigation seeking to set aside the fraudulent conveyance of various artworks; secured order of attachment and successfully defended multiple attempts to dismiss the cause of action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an individual defendant in a civil RICO matter involving construction contracts with the New York Department of Environmental Protection; secured early dismissal of all claims, including the successful defense of an appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international oil refinery in a contract dispute concerning a counterparty\u0026rsquo;s fraudulent attempt to draw on a letter of credit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international financial institution in Mexico in an SEC investigation and other internal investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international financial institution in an internal investigation related to a shareholder demand.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3616}]},"expertise":[{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":699,"guid":"699.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1241,"guid":"1241.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":132,"guid":"132.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":108,"guid":"108.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":688,"guid":"688.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Adamson","nick_name":"Gary","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Gary","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":512,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","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":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/gary-adamson-9b11545/","seodescription":"Gary Adamson is a lawyer of our Special Matters \u0026 Government Investigations Practice Group. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGary Adamson represents clients in regulatory proceedings, investigations and complex commercial litigation. He frequently represents accounting firms and individual accountants in litigation, arbitration, and regulatory investigations by the US Securities \u0026amp; Exchange Commission (SEC), Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), and state authorities. Gary also represents clients in complex disputes about items such as fiduciary relationships, breach of contract, civil RICO, and fraud-related matters. He has sophisticated experience representing clients before investigative agencies and in the federal, state, and appeals cases.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFluent in Spanish, Gary also has unique experience in Latin American investigations and enforcement actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e*\u003cem\u003eAdmitted in New York and Washington, D.C.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cbr data-cke-eol=\"1\" /\u003e\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented major US public audit firms and individual professionals in connection with investigations by the Divisions of Enforcement of the SEC and PCAOB.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented foreign public audit firms and their professionals in England, Mexico and Brazil in connection with litigation and regulatory matters, including investigations by the SEC and PCAOB Division of Enforcement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a generic pharmaceutical company in a contract dispute concerning the scope of an exclusive license; obtained an order from the Third Circuit reversing a decision granting summary judgment in favor of the opposing party, and subsequently obtained a multimillion-dollar jury verdict at trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured a favorable settlement on behalf of an international investment company in a suit against an international financial institution concerning unauthorized withdrawals of funds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a government agency in an international arbitration in London concerning breach of a multimillion Euro construction contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a Canadian citizen in cross-border litigation seeking to set aside the fraudulent conveyance of various artworks; secured order of attachment and successfully defended multiple attempts to dismiss the cause of action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an individual defendant in a civil RICO matter involving construction contracts with the New York Department of Environmental Protection; secured early dismissal of all claims, including the successful defense of an appeal to the Second Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international oil refinery in a contract dispute concerning a counterparty\u0026rsquo;s fraudulent attempt to draw on a letter of credit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international financial institution in Mexico in an SEC investigation and other internal investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international financial institution in an internal investigation related to a shareholder demand.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9331}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-02-18T22:01:14.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-18T22:01:14.000Z","searchable_text":"Adamson{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented major US public audit firms and individual professionals in connection with investigations by the Divisions of Enforcement of the SEC and PCAOB.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented foreign public audit firms and their professionals in England, Mexico and Brazil in connection with litigation and regulatory matters, including investigations by the SEC and PCAOB Division of Enforcement.{{ FIELD }}Represented a generic pharmaceutical company in a contract dispute concerning the scope of an exclusive license; obtained an order from the Third Circuit reversing a decision granting summary judgment in favor of the opposing party, and subsequently obtained a multimillion-dollar jury verdict at trial.{{ FIELD }}Secured a favorable settlement on behalf of an international investment company in a suit against an international financial institution concerning unauthorized withdrawals of funds.{{ FIELD }}Represented a government agency in an international arbitration in London concerning breach of a multimillion Euro construction contract.{{ FIELD }}Represented a Canadian citizen in cross-border litigation seeking to set aside the fraudulent conveyance of various artworks; secured order of attachment and successfully defended multiple attempts to dismiss the cause of action.{{ FIELD }}Represented an individual defendant in a civil RICO matter involving construction contracts with the New York Department of Environmental Protection; secured early dismissal of all claims, including the successful defense of an appeal to the Second Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Represented an international oil refinery in a contract dispute concerning a counterparty’s fraudulent attempt to draw on a letter of credit.{{ FIELD }}Represented an international financial institution in Mexico in an SEC investigation and other internal investigations.{{ FIELD }}Represented an international financial institution in an internal investigation related to a shareholder demand.{{ FIELD }} \nGary Adamson represents clients in regulatory proceedings, investigations and complex commercial litigation. He frequently represents accounting firms and individual accountants in litigation, arbitration, and regulatory investigations by the US Securities \u0026amp; Exchange Commission (SEC), Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (PCAOB), and state authorities. Gary also represents clients in complex disputes about items such as fiduciary relationships, breach of contract, civil RICO, and fraud-related matters. He has sophisticated experience representing clients before investigative agencies and in the federal, state, and appeals cases.\nFluent in Spanish, Gary also has unique experience in Latin American investigations and enforcement actions.\n*Admitted in New York and Washington, D.C.\n Gary Adamson lawyer Partner Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School Cornell University Cornell Law School District of Columbia New York Utah Successfully represented major US public audit firms and individual professionals in connection with investigations by the Divisions of Enforcement of the SEC and PCAOB. Successfully represented foreign public audit firms and their professionals in England, Mexico and Brazil in connection with litigation and regulatory matters, including investigations by the SEC and PCAOB Division of Enforcement. Represented a generic pharmaceutical company in a contract dispute concerning the scope of an exclusive license; obtained an order from the Third Circuit reversing a decision granting summary judgment in favor of the opposing party, and subsequently obtained a multimillion-dollar jury verdict at trial. Secured a favorable settlement on behalf of an international investment company in a suit against an international financial institution concerning unauthorized withdrawals of funds. Represented a government agency in an international arbitration in London concerning breach of a multimillion Euro construction contract. Represented a Canadian citizen in cross-border litigation seeking to set aside the fraudulent conveyance of various artworks; secured order of attachment and successfully defended multiple attempts to dismiss the cause of action. Represented an individual defendant in a civil RICO matter involving construction contracts with the New York Department of Environmental Protection; secured early dismissal of all claims, including the successful defense of an appeal to the Second Circuit. Represented an international oil refinery in a contract dispute concerning a counterparty’s fraudulent attempt to draw on a letter of credit. Represented an international financial institution in Mexico in an SEC investigation and other internal investigations. Represented an international financial institution in an internal investigation related to a shareholder demand.","searchable_name":"Gary Adamson","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":442316,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":217,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eElizabeth\u0026nbsp;D. Adler is a Partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Data, Privacy\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp; Security practice based in Atlanta GA. Elizabeth advises\u0026nbsp;clients in responding to and managing data security incidents of all types and sizes, including crisis management and public relations efforts, investigations, notifications, and government inquiries. She also represents clients in privacy and data breach class action and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country, and has extensive experience successfully defending large, multi-district class action litigation arising out of some of the most prominent data security incidents. Elizabeth has prepared witnesses to testify before Congress and has briefed Congressional staffers on data breach issues. Law360 recognized her as a \"Rising Star\" in Privacy and Cybersecurity in 2019 (one of five attorneys named worldwide).[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth's representation of clients spans a variety of industries and regularly involve significant corporate risk and financial impact to global companies, are at the cutting-edge of U.S. and international law, and require innovative solutions to constantly evolving\u0026nbsp;privacy and security issues.\u0026nbsp;Clients consistently turn to Elizabeth as a key advisor to lead and manage\u0026nbsp;the many workstreams that an organization faces during data security incidents, and her work includes extensive experience defending\u0026nbsp;of some of the most prominent data security incidents in U.S. history, including Capital One and Equifax.\u0026nbsp;Her defense of class actions includes\u0026nbsp;defeating class claims alleging violations of data protection and privacy laws, violations of state and federal consumer protection statutes, fraud, and breaches of contract.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA regular author and speaker on data privacy and cybersecurity, Elizabeth also serves as the Editor for the Firm\u0026rsquo;s publication, the King \u0026amp; Spalding Data, Privacy \u0026amp; Security Practice Report.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining the firm, Elizabeth served as a law clerk for United States District Judge Kristi K. DuBose in the Southern\u0026nbsp;District\u0026nbsp;of Alabama\u0026nbsp;in Mobile, Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth is active in the Atlanta community and serves on the Board of Directors of The Atlanta Opera.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"elizabeth-adler","email":"eadler@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":109,"guid":"109.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1143,"guid":"1143.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Adler","nick_name":"Elizabeth","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Kristi K. DuBose, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama","years_held":"2007-2008"}],"first_name":"Elizabeth","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized in Leadership Academy Class of 2012","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, Young Lawyers Division"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eElizabeth\u0026nbsp;D. Adler is a Partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Data, Privacy\u0026nbsp;\u0026amp; Security practice based in Atlanta GA. Elizabeth advises\u0026nbsp;clients in responding to and managing data security incidents of all types and sizes, including crisis management and public relations efforts, investigations, notifications, and government inquiries. She also represents clients in privacy and data breach class action and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country, and has extensive experience successfully defending large, multi-district class action litigation arising out of some of the most prominent data security incidents. Elizabeth has prepared witnesses to testify before Congress and has briefed Congressional staffers on data breach issues. Law360 recognized her as a \"Rising Star\" in Privacy and Cybersecurity in 2019 (one of five attorneys named worldwide).[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth's representation of clients spans a variety of industries and regularly involve significant corporate risk and financial impact to global companies, are at the cutting-edge of U.S. and international law, and require innovative solutions to constantly evolving\u0026nbsp;privacy and security issues.\u0026nbsp;Clients consistently turn to Elizabeth as a key advisor to lead and manage\u0026nbsp;the many workstreams that an organization faces during data security incidents, and her work includes extensive experience defending\u0026nbsp;of some of the most prominent data security incidents in U.S. history, including Capital One and Equifax.\u0026nbsp;Her defense of class actions includes\u0026nbsp;defeating class claims alleging violations of data protection and privacy laws, violations of state and federal consumer protection statutes, fraud, and breaches of contract.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA regular author and speaker on data privacy and cybersecurity, Elizabeth also serves as the Editor for the Firm\u0026rsquo;s publication, the King \u0026amp; Spalding Data, Privacy \u0026amp; Security Practice Report.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to joining the firm, Elizabeth served as a law clerk for United States District Judge Kristi K. DuBose in the Southern\u0026nbsp;District\u0026nbsp;of Alabama\u0026nbsp;in Mobile, Alabama.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth is active in the Atlanta community and serves on the Board of Directors of The Atlanta Opera.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized in Leadership Academy Class of 2012","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, Young Lawyers Division"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6249}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:02:09.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:02:09.000Z","searchable_text":"Adler{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized in Leadership Academy Class of 2012\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, Young Lawyers Division\"}{{ FIELD }}Elizabeth D. Adler is a Partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Data, Privacy \u0026amp; Security practice based in Atlanta GA. Elizabeth advises clients in responding to and managing data security incidents of all types and sizes, including crisis management and public relations efforts, investigations, notifications, and government inquiries. She also represents clients in privacy and data breach class action and other complex litigation in state and federal courts across the country, and has extensive experience successfully defending large, multi-district class action litigation arising out of some of the most prominent data security incidents. Elizabeth has prepared witnesses to testify before Congress and has briefed Congressional staffers on data breach issues. Law360 recognized her as a \"Rising Star\" in Privacy and Cybersecurity in 2019 (one of five attorneys named worldwide).\nElizabeth's representation of clients spans a variety of industries and regularly involve significant corporate risk and financial impact to global companies, are at the cutting-edge of U.S. and international law, and require innovative solutions to constantly evolving privacy and security issues. Clients consistently turn to Elizabeth as a key advisor to lead and manage the many workstreams that an organization faces during data security incidents, and her work includes extensive experience defending of some of the most prominent data security incidents in U.S. history, including Capital One and Equifax. Her defense of class actions includes defeating class claims alleging violations of data protection and privacy laws, violations of state and federal consumer protection statutes, fraud, and breaches of contract. \nA regular author and speaker on data privacy and cybersecurity, Elizabeth also serves as the Editor for the Firm’s publication, the King \u0026amp; Spalding Data, Privacy \u0026amp; Security Practice Report.\nPrior to joining the firm, Elizabeth served as a law clerk for United States District Judge Kristi K. DuBose in the Southern District of Alabama in Mobile, Alabama.\nElizabeth is active in the Atlanta community and serves on the Board of Directors of The Atlanta Opera. Partner Recognized in Leadership Academy Class of 2012 State Bar of Georgia, Young Lawyers Division The University of Alabama The University of Alabama School of Law Mercer University Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia American Bar Association International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) Barrister, Lamar American Inn of Court Atlanta Bar Association, Litigation Section Board of Directors Member, Lawyers Club of Atlanta Member, State Bar of Georgia Law Clerk, Honorable Kristi K. DuBose, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama","searchable_name":"Elizabeth D. Adler","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":447303,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7295,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCorey Amundson is a first-chair trial lawyer, expert at leading and conducting complex corporate investigations on both sides of the table, and former DOJ bipartisan leader and public servant known for his judgment and problem-solving ability in high-stakes enforcement and crisis matters. As a partner of the Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations practice group, he represents corporations, boards of directors, and senior executives in a broad array of government investigations, internal reviews, white-collar and civil litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis experience spans matters involving alleged corporate financial fraud, bribery and corruption, false claims and statements, obstruction, cyber crime, and other enforcement risks across the financial services, energy, life sciences, accounting, defense, chemical, construction, technology \u0026amp; trade secrets, and public sectors. He regularly advises clients facing scrutiny from DOJ and state Attorneys General, congressional committees, Inspectors General, and domestic and international enforcement authorities.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorey has more than two decades of public service as a career official at DOJ under multiple administrations, both in the field trying cases and leading the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office in the Middle District of Louisiana, and in Washington, D.C. as chief of multiple offices. He has tried over 20 federal jury trials, primarily involving complex corporate\u0026nbsp;fraud and bribery \u0026amp; corruption, along with supervising more than 100 trials in over 20 federal districts throughout the U.S. across a wide range of industries.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Washington, D.C. at Main Justice, Corey served with distinction for over six years in two roles, first as the Director and Chief Counsel of DOJ\u0026rsquo;s internal affairs department, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and then as Chief of DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Public Integrity Section across multiple administrations. He previously served in leadership roles while at the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office in the Middle District of Louisiana for more than fifteen years, including overseeing all civil and criminal litigation for four years as Acting United States Attorney and First Assistant United States Attorney, and leading all criminal matters as Criminal Chief, including as DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Fifth Circuit representative advising on national criminal policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn these capacities he led multiple crisis response efforts and implemented or developed a variety of proactive enforcement initiatives consistent with DOJ priorities, including one of the first healthcare fraud strike forces in the country, the Criminal Division Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, a financial fraud task force focused on data-mining, a lauded multi-agency initiative with the state AG to combat the online sexual exploitation of children, and a violent criminal enterprises strike force targeting gangs and other violent groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe also led, as Executive Director, the National Center for Disaster Fraud, a multi-agency entity responsible for coordinating nationwide disaster fraud enforcement, recovery and policies, many of which still are deployed today to address disaster-related fraud. He was a DOJ instructor for 20 years, teaching federal prosecutors and agents how to conduct investigations and try cases at the National Advocacy Center, the FBI Academy, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and was an Adjunct Law Professor at LSU teaching corporate and white collar crime.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring his years of public service, Corey received numerous awards and recognition for outstanding service, including the Assistant Attorney General Award for Exceptional Service, the EOUSA Director\u0026rsquo;s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Team, the HHS-OIG Integrity Award, the IRS-Criminal Investigations Honorary Special Agent Award, the FBI Exceptional Service Award, as well as numerous commendations from the Attorney General, DEA, DHS, FBI, and Treasury.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"corey-amundson","email":"camundson@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eSupervised financial fraud, false claims, bribery and corruption, and national security investigations and prosecutions involving public and private corporations, including a multinational investment company, a state-owned oil company in Azerbaijan, an online payment processing company, a Turkish construction firm, a domestic footwear manufacturer, a financial institution in Mexico, a Missouri-based healthcare entity, a defense contracting firm, numerous political action committees, and an international bank based in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of three engineers for stealing Dow Chemical trade secrets surrounding a highly regarded chemical manufacturing process and selling secrets to state-affiliated firms in the People\u0026rsquo;s Republic of China, culminating in the lead defendant being convicted following a four-week jury trial and the others pleading guilty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-counsel in defending federal healthcare fraud matter prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office in Boston, in which our team persuaded prosecutors to dismiss a 17-count healthcare fraud indictment against our client, a product manager for a major medical device and healthcare company that had pled guilty and agreed to pay more than $500 million, the largest such fine in history at the time.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-counsel in defending a civil matter filed in the District of Columbia against a major tobacco company, seeking class certification and alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Our team successfully defended the suit by prevailing on class certification after extensive discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a multinational defense and energy firm, for criminal Clean Air Act violations associated with the death of a worker at a chemical manufacturing facility, resulting in a criminal conviction and $12 million in fines and restitution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervised the investigation and prosecution of insider trading associated with the public sale of a Fortune 500 energy and chemical company, resulting in the convictions of a senior corporate executive, among others.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a subsidiary of a multinational medical device and healthcare company for a healthcare fraud scheme involving kickbacks and off-label promotion, resulting in a global resolution involving over $40 million in criminal and civil penalties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervised the creation and implementation of one of the first Medicare Fraud Strike Forces in the country, in partnership with the DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Fraud Section, the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Louisiana AG\u0026rsquo;s Office, resulting in the successful prosecution of more than 80 corporate and individual defendants involving more than $300 million in fraudulent claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an accounting firm president, a government tax auditor, and four prominent business owners for a multi-million-dollar tax fraud and bribery scheme, including the funneling of money to Syria.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an Audit Manager with the Internal Revenue Service for criminal conflict of interest and illegally accessing government databases in connection with undisclosed private tax business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of the state deputy insurance commissioner, four mayors, two police chiefs, and a city council member involving the corrupt passage of state and municipal legislation and multi-million-dollar federal procurement fraud and extortion schemes, resulting in four multi-week jury trials on charges under the RICO Act and the longest corruption sentence in Louisiana history.\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":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":687,"guid":"687.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1114,"guid":"1114.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":699,"guid":"699.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Amundson","nick_name":"Corey","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, The Honorable Sarah Evans Barker, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana","years_held":"1997 - 1999"}],"first_name":"Corey","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":659,"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":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Exceptional Service Award","detail":"U.S. Department of Justice, 2024 and 2022"},{"title":"Honorary Special Agent Award","detail":"Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations, 2018"},{"title":"Commendation","detail":"U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, 2018"},{"title":"Commendations","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017, 2008, 2004"},{"title":"Commendation","detail":"Inspector General, Tax Administration, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2016"},{"title":"Director’s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Group","detail":"U.S. Department of Justice, 2013"},{"title":"Commendations","detail":"Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2013 and 2010"},{"title":"Commendation","detail":"U.S. Attorney General, 2013"},{"title":"Extraordinary Efforts Award","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012"},{"title":"Integrity Award","detail":"Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008"},{"title":"Exceptional Service in the Public Interest Award","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/corey-r-amundson-6632ab18b/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eCorey Amundson is a first-chair trial lawyer, expert at leading and conducting complex corporate investigations on both sides of the table, and former DOJ bipartisan leader and public servant known for his judgment and problem-solving ability in high-stakes enforcement and crisis matters. As a partner of the Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations practice group, he represents corporations, boards of directors, and senior executives in a broad array of government investigations, internal reviews, white-collar and civil litigation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis experience spans matters involving alleged corporate financial fraud, bribery and corruption, false claims and statements, obstruction, cyber crime, and other enforcement risks across the financial services, energy, life sciences, accounting, defense, chemical, construction, technology \u0026amp; trade secrets, and public sectors. He regularly advises clients facing scrutiny from DOJ and state Attorneys General, congressional committees, Inspectors General, and domestic and international enforcement authorities.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCorey has more than two decades of public service as a career official at DOJ under multiple administrations, both in the field trying cases and leading the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office in the Middle District of Louisiana, and in Washington, D.C. as chief of multiple offices. He has tried over 20 federal jury trials, primarily involving complex corporate\u0026nbsp;fraud and bribery \u0026amp; corruption, along with supervising more than 100 trials in over 20 federal districts throughout the U.S. across a wide range of industries.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn Washington, D.C. at Main Justice, Corey served with distinction for over six years in two roles, first as the Director and Chief Counsel of DOJ\u0026rsquo;s internal affairs department, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and then as Chief of DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Public Integrity Section across multiple administrations. He previously served in leadership roles while at the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office in the Middle District of Louisiana for more than fifteen years, including overseeing all civil and criminal litigation for four years as Acting United States Attorney and First Assistant United States Attorney, and leading all criminal matters as Criminal Chief, including as DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Fifth Circuit representative advising on national criminal policies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn these capacities he led multiple crisis response efforts and implemented or developed a variety of proactive enforcement initiatives consistent with DOJ priorities, including one of the first healthcare fraud strike forces in the country, the Criminal Division Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, a financial fraud task force focused on data-mining, a lauded multi-agency initiative with the state AG to combat the online sexual exploitation of children, and a violent criminal enterprises strike force targeting gangs and other violent groups.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe also led, as Executive Director, the National Center for Disaster Fraud, a multi-agency entity responsible for coordinating nationwide disaster fraud enforcement, recovery and policies, many of which still are deployed today to address disaster-related fraud. He was a DOJ instructor for 20 years, teaching federal prosecutors and agents how to conduct investigations and try cases at the National Advocacy Center, the FBI Academy, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and was an Adjunct Law Professor at LSU teaching corporate and white collar crime.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDuring his years of public service, Corey received numerous awards and recognition for outstanding service, including the Assistant Attorney General Award for Exceptional Service, the EOUSA Director\u0026rsquo;s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Team, the HHS-OIG Integrity Award, the IRS-Criminal Investigations Honorary Special Agent Award, the FBI Exceptional Service Award, as well as numerous commendations from the Attorney General, DEA, DHS, FBI, and Treasury.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSupervised financial fraud, false claims, bribery and corruption, and national security investigations and prosecutions involving public and private corporations, including a multinational investment company, a state-owned oil company in Azerbaijan, an online payment processing company, a Turkish construction firm, a domestic footwear manufacturer, a financial institution in Mexico, a Missouri-based healthcare entity, a defense contracting firm, numerous political action committees, and an international bank based in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of three engineers for stealing Dow Chemical trade secrets surrounding a highly regarded chemical manufacturing process and selling secrets to state-affiliated firms in the People\u0026rsquo;s Republic of China, culminating in the lead defendant being convicted following a four-week jury trial and the others pleading guilty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-counsel in defending federal healthcare fraud matter prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney\u0026rsquo;s Office in Boston, in which our team persuaded prosecutors to dismiss a 17-count healthcare fraud indictment against our client, a product manager for a major medical device and healthcare company that had pled guilty and agreed to pay more than $500 million, the largest such fine in history at the time.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-counsel in defending a civil matter filed in the District of Columbia against a major tobacco company, seeking class certification and alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Our team successfully defended the suit by prevailing on class certification after extensive discovery.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a multinational defense and energy firm, for criminal Clean Air Act violations associated with the death of a worker at a chemical manufacturing facility, resulting in a criminal conviction and $12 million in fines and restitution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervised the investigation and prosecution of insider trading associated with the public sale of a Fortune 500 energy and chemical company, resulting in the convictions of a senior corporate executive, among others.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCo-counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a subsidiary of a multinational medical device and healthcare company for a healthcare fraud scheme involving kickbacks and off-label promotion, resulting in a global resolution involving over $40 million in criminal and civil penalties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSupervised the creation and implementation of one of the first Medicare Fraud Strike Forces in the country, in partnership with the DOJ\u0026rsquo;s Fraud Section, the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Louisiana AG\u0026rsquo;s Office, resulting in the successful prosecution of more than 80 corporate and individual defendants involving more than $300 million in fraudulent claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an accounting firm president, a government tax auditor, and four prominent business owners for a multi-million-dollar tax fraud and bribery scheme, including the funneling of money to Syria.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an Audit Manager with the Internal Revenue Service for criminal conflict of interest and illegally accessing government databases in connection with undisclosed private tax business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of the state deputy insurance commissioner, four mayors, two police chiefs, and a city council member involving the corrupt passage of state and municipal legislation and multi-million-dollar federal procurement fraud and extortion schemes, resulting in four multi-week jury trials on charges under the RICO Act and the longest corruption sentence in Louisiana history.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Exceptional Service Award","detail":"U.S. Department of Justice, 2024 and 2022"},{"title":"Honorary Special Agent Award","detail":"Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations, 2018"},{"title":"Commendation","detail":"U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, 2018"},{"title":"Commendations","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017, 2008, 2004"},{"title":"Commendation","detail":"Inspector General, Tax Administration, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2016"},{"title":"Director’s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Group","detail":"U.S. Department of Justice, 2013"},{"title":"Commendations","detail":"Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2013 and 2010"},{"title":"Commendation","detail":"U.S. Attorney General, 2013"},{"title":"Extraordinary Efforts Award","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012"},{"title":"Integrity Award","detail":"Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008"},{"title":"Exceptional Service in the Public Interest Award","detail":"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13326}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-04-04T09:08:37.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-04T09:08:37.000Z","searchable_text":"Amundson{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Exceptional Service Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Department of Justice, 2024 and 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Honorary Special Agent Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendations\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017, 2008, 2004\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Inspector General, Tax Administration, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Director’s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Group\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Department of Justice, 2013\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendations\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2013 and 2010\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commendation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. Attorney General, 2013\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Extraordinary Efforts Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Integrity Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Exceptional Service in the Public Interest Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008\"}{{ FIELD }}Supervised financial fraud, false claims, bribery and corruption, and national security investigations and prosecutions involving public and private corporations, including a multinational investment company, a state-owned oil company in Azerbaijan, an online payment processing company, a Turkish construction firm, a domestic footwear manufacturer, a financial institution in Mexico, a Missouri-based healthcare entity, a defense contracting firm, numerous political action committees, and an international bank based in South America.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of three engineers for stealing Dow Chemical trade secrets surrounding a highly regarded chemical manufacturing process and selling secrets to state-affiliated firms in the People’s Republic of China, culminating in the lead defendant being convicted following a four-week jury trial and the others pleading guilty.{{ FIELD }}Co-counsel in defending federal healthcare fraud matter prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston, in which our team persuaded prosecutors to dismiss a 17-count healthcare fraud indictment against our client, a product manager for a major medical device and healthcare company that had pled guilty and agreed to pay more than $500 million, the largest such fine in history at the time.{{ FIELD }}Co-counsel in defending a civil matter filed in the District of Columbia against a major tobacco company, seeking class certification and alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Our team successfully defended the suit by prevailing on class certification after extensive discovery.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a multinational defense and energy firm, for criminal Clean Air Act violations associated with the death of a worker at a chemical manufacturing facility, resulting in a criminal conviction and $12 million in fines and restitution.{{ FIELD }}Supervised the investigation and prosecution of insider trading associated with the public sale of a Fortune 500 energy and chemical company, resulting in the convictions of a senior corporate executive, among others.{{ FIELD }}Co-counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a subsidiary of a multinational medical device and healthcare company for a healthcare fraud scheme involving kickbacks and off-label promotion, resulting in a global resolution involving over $40 million in criminal and civil penalties.{{ FIELD }}Supervised the creation and implementation of one of the first Medicare Fraud Strike Forces in the country, in partnership with the DOJ’s Fraud Section, the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Louisiana AG’s Office, resulting in the successful prosecution of more than 80 corporate and individual defendants involving more than $300 million in fraudulent claims.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an accounting firm president, a government tax auditor, and four prominent business owners for a multi-million-dollar tax fraud and bribery scheme, including the funneling of money to Syria.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an Audit Manager with the Internal Revenue Service for criminal conflict of interest and illegally accessing government databases in connection with undisclosed private tax business.{{ FIELD }}Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of the state deputy insurance commissioner, four mayors, two police chiefs, and a city council member involving the corrupt passage of state and municipal legislation and multi-million-dollar federal procurement fraud and extortion schemes, resulting in four multi-week jury trials on charges under the RICO Act and the longest corruption sentence in Louisiana history.{{ FIELD }}Corey Amundson is a first-chair trial lawyer, expert at leading and conducting complex corporate investigations on both sides of the table, and former DOJ bipartisan leader and public servant known for his judgment and problem-solving ability in high-stakes enforcement and crisis matters. As a partner of the Special Matters \u0026amp; Government Investigations practice group, he represents corporations, boards of directors, and senior executives in a broad array of government investigations, internal reviews, white-collar and civil litigation.\nHis experience spans matters involving alleged corporate financial fraud, bribery and corruption, false claims and statements, obstruction, cyber crime, and other enforcement risks across the financial services, energy, life sciences, accounting, defense, chemical, construction, technology \u0026amp; trade secrets, and public sectors. He regularly advises clients facing scrutiny from DOJ and state Attorneys General, congressional committees, Inspectors General, and domestic and international enforcement authorities. \nCorey has more than two decades of public service as a career official at DOJ under multiple administrations, both in the field trying cases and leading the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Middle District of Louisiana, and in Washington, D.C. as chief of multiple offices. He has tried over 20 federal jury trials, primarily involving complex corporate fraud and bribery \u0026amp; corruption, along with supervising more than 100 trials in over 20 federal districts throughout the U.S. across a wide range of industries.  \nIn Washington, D.C. at Main Justice, Corey served with distinction for over six years in two roles, first as the Director and Chief Counsel of DOJ’s internal affairs department, the Office of Professional Responsibility, and then as Chief of DOJ’s Public Integrity Section across multiple administrations. He previously served in leadership roles while at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Middle District of Louisiana for more than fifteen years, including overseeing all civil and criminal litigation for four years as Acting United States Attorney and First Assistant United States Attorney, and leading all criminal matters as Criminal Chief, including as DOJ’s Fifth Circuit representative advising on national criminal policies.\nIn these capacities he led multiple crisis response efforts and implemented or developed a variety of proactive enforcement initiatives consistent with DOJ priorities, including one of the first healthcare fraud strike forces in the country, the Criminal Division Corporate Whistleblower Awards Pilot Program, a financial fraud task force focused on data-mining, a lauded multi-agency initiative with the state AG to combat the online sexual exploitation of children, and a violent criminal enterprises strike force targeting gangs and other violent groups.\nHe also led, as Executive Director, the National Center for Disaster Fraud, a multi-agency entity responsible for coordinating nationwide disaster fraud enforcement, recovery and policies, many of which still are deployed today to address disaster-related fraud. He was a DOJ instructor for 20 years, teaching federal prosecutors and agents how to conduct investigations and try cases at the National Advocacy Center, the FBI Academy, and the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, and was an Adjunct Law Professor at LSU teaching corporate and white collar crime.\nDuring his years of public service, Corey received numerous awards and recognition for outstanding service, including the Assistant Attorney General Award for Exceptional Service, the EOUSA Director’s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Team, the HHS-OIG Integrity Award, the IRS-Criminal Investigations Honorary Special Agent Award, the FBI Exceptional Service Award, as well as numerous commendations from the Attorney General, DEA, DHS, FBI, and Treasury. Partner Exceptional Service Award U.S. Department of Justice, 2024 and 2022 Honorary Special Agent Award Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigations, 2018 Commendation U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, 2018 Commendations Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017, 2008, 2004 Commendation Inspector General, Tax Administration, U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2016 Director’s Award for Superior Performance by a Litigative Group U.S. Department of Justice, 2013 Commendations Inspector General, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 2013 and 2010 Commendation U.S. Attorney General, 2013 Extraordinary Efforts Award Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2012 Integrity Award Inspector General, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008 Exceptional Service in the Public Interest Award Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2008 Indiana University Indiana University School of Law Emory University Emory University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Supreme Court of Louisiana American Bar Association Law Clerk, The Honorable Sarah Evans Barker, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana Supervised financial fraud, false claims, bribery and corruption, and national security investigations and prosecutions involving public and private corporations, including a multinational investment company, a state-owned oil company in Azerbaijan, an online payment processing company, a Turkish construction firm, a domestic footwear manufacturer, a financial institution in Mexico, a Missouri-based healthcare entity, a defense contracting firm, numerous political action committees, and an international bank based in South America. Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of three engineers for stealing Dow Chemical trade secrets surrounding a highly regarded chemical manufacturing process and selling secrets to state-affiliated firms in the People’s Republic of China, culminating in the lead defendant being convicted following a four-week jury trial and the others pleading guilty. Co-counsel in defending federal healthcare fraud matter prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston, in which our team persuaded prosecutors to dismiss a 17-count healthcare fraud indictment against our client, a product manager for a major medical device and healthcare company that had pled guilty and agreed to pay more than $500 million, the largest such fine in history at the time. Co-counsel in defending a civil matter filed in the District of Columbia against a major tobacco company, seeking class certification and alleging violations of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Our team successfully defended the suit by prevailing on class certification after extensive discovery. Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a multinational defense and energy firm, for criminal Clean Air Act violations associated with the death of a worker at a chemical manufacturing facility, resulting in a criminal conviction and $12 million in fines and restitution. Supervised the investigation and prosecution of insider trading associated with the public sale of a Fortune 500 energy and chemical company, resulting in the convictions of a senior corporate executive, among others. Co-counsel in the investigation and prosecution of a subsidiary of a multinational medical device and healthcare company for a healthcare fraud scheme involving kickbacks and off-label promotion, resulting in a global resolution involving over $40 million in criminal and civil penalties. Supervised the creation and implementation of one of the first Medicare Fraud Strike Forces in the country, in partnership with the DOJ’s Fraud Section, the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and the Louisiana AG’s Office, resulting in the successful prosecution of more than 80 corporate and individual defendants involving more than $300 million in fraudulent claims. Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an accounting firm president, a government tax auditor, and four prominent business owners for a multi-million-dollar tax fraud and bribery scheme, including the funneling of money to Syria. Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of an Audit Manager with the Internal Revenue Service for criminal conflict of interest and illegally accessing government databases in connection with undisclosed private tax business. Lead counsel in the investigation and prosecution of the state deputy insurance commissioner, four mayors, two police chiefs, and a city council member involving the corrupt passage of state and municipal legislation and multi-million-dollar federal procurement fraud and extortion schemes, resulting in four multi-week jury trials on charges under the RICO Act and the longest corruption sentence in Louisiana history.","searchable_name":"Corey R. Amundson","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":436428,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3554,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGardner Armsby is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Healthcare practice and advises healthcare industry clients on corporate transactions and regulatory compliance matters. He represents for-profit and non-profit healthcare companies, as well as lenders, private equity firms, and other healthcare investors. With a unique combination of corporate and regulatory expertise, Gardner assists clients in structuring, negotiating, and executing transactions in the highly regulated healthcare industry, including mergers and acquisitions, reorganizations, joint ventures, financings, management arrangements, affiliations, and other complex transactions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGardner also counsels clients on healthcare regulatory and compliance matters, including corporate practice of medicine restrictions, fraud and abuse laws, HIPAA, licensing and certificate of need requirements, and 501(c)(3) tax-exemption issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGardner has worked with a broad spectrum of healthcare businesses, including health systems, hospitals, surgery centers, nursing homes, physician practices, home health and hospice agencies, laboratories, pharmacies, medical supply companies, and electronic health records companies, among others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGardner graduated first in his class from Georgia State University College of Law. He received his undergraduate degree in Economics from the University of Georgia. Prior to attending law school, Gardner worked as CFO and Corporate Compliance Officer for a 501(c)(3) non-profit provider of vocational training services for adults with disabilities.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"john-armsby","email":"garmsby@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented nonprofit and for-profit health system clients in acquisitions and divestitures of dozens of acute-care and specialty hospitals, including a $1 billion acquisition of a three-hospital nonprofit system, a $950 million acquisition of three hospitals from a publicly traded system, and a $750 million sale of three acute-care hospitals and an LTACH by a publicly traded system.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented multiple health systems in joint venture transactions with private equity sponsors and other investor-owned entities involving ambulatory surgery centers, rehabilitation hospitals, behavioral health facilities, urgent care centers, and other specialty facilities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented multi-specialty physician group in $2 billion sale to physician practice management subsidiary of publicly traded company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented committee of physician and management investors in private equity-backed physician practice management company in $900+ million recapitalization transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented private equity sponsors and portfolio companies in platform and roll-up acquisitions of physician practices and related ancillary healthcare businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented physician practices of various specialties (including anesthesiology, emergency medicine, oncology, orthopedics, primary care, radiology, and multi-specialty groups) in sales to private equity sponsors, health systems, and other buyers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented foreign investor in platform acquisition of nurse staffing business and subsequent roll-up transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented academic medical center system in overhaul of its corporate governance structure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented hospital owned by state-government entity in reorganization transaction involving transfer of hospital operations and lease of assets to newly formed nonprofit entity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented multiple buyers and sellers in transactions involving skilled nursing facilities, personal care homes, and other senior living facilities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented closely held hospice business in carve-out sale of multiple hospice agencies to private equity-backed national hospice chain.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":826,"guid":"826.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Armsby","nick_name":"Gardner","clerkships":[],"first_name":"John","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":761,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"summa cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2015-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"Gardner","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGardner Armsby is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Healthcare practice and advises healthcare industry clients on corporate transactions and regulatory compliance matters. He represents for-profit and non-profit healthcare companies, as well as lenders, private equity firms, and other healthcare investors. With a unique combination of corporate and regulatory expertise, Gardner assists clients in structuring, negotiating, and executing transactions in the highly regulated healthcare industry, including mergers and acquisitions, reorganizations, joint ventures, financings, management arrangements, affiliations, and other complex transactions.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGardner also counsels clients on healthcare regulatory and compliance matters, including corporate practice of medicine restrictions, fraud and abuse laws, HIPAA, licensing and certificate of need requirements, and 501(c)(3) tax-exemption issues.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGardner has worked with a broad spectrum of healthcare businesses, including health systems, hospitals, surgery centers, nursing homes, physician practices, home health and hospice agencies, laboratories, pharmacies, medical supply companies, and electronic health records companies, among others.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGardner graduated first in his class from Georgia State University College of Law. He received his undergraduate degree in Economics from the University of Georgia. Prior to attending law school, Gardner worked as CFO and Corporate Compliance Officer for a 501(c)(3) non-profit provider of vocational training services for adults with disabilities.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented nonprofit and for-profit health system clients in acquisitions and divestitures of dozens of acute-care and specialty hospitals, including a $1 billion acquisition of a three-hospital nonprofit system, a $950 million acquisition of three hospitals from a publicly traded system, and a $750 million sale of three acute-care hospitals and an LTACH by a publicly traded system.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented multiple health systems in joint venture transactions with private equity sponsors and other investor-owned entities involving ambulatory surgery centers, rehabilitation hospitals, behavioral health facilities, urgent care centers, and other specialty facilities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented multi-specialty physician group in $2 billion sale to physician practice management subsidiary of publicly traded company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented committee of physician and management investors in private equity-backed physician practice management company in $900+ million recapitalization transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented private equity sponsors and portfolio companies in platform and roll-up acquisitions of physician practices and related ancillary healthcare businesses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented physician practices of various specialties (including anesthesiology, emergency medicine, oncology, orthopedics, primary care, radiology, and multi-specialty groups) in sales to private equity sponsors, health systems, and other buyers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented foreign investor in platform acquisition of nurse staffing business and subsequent roll-up transactions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented academic medical center system in overhaul of its corporate governance structure.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented hospital owned by state-government entity in reorganization transaction involving transfer of hospital operations and lease of assets to newly formed nonprofit entity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented multiple buyers and sellers in transactions involving skilled nursing facilities, personal care homes, and other senior living facilities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented closely held hospice business in carve-out sale of multiple hospice agencies to private equity-backed national hospice chain.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11781}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:53:09.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:53:09.000Z","searchable_text":"Armsby{{ FIELD }}Represented nonprofit and for-profit health system clients in acquisitions and divestitures of dozens of acute-care and specialty hospitals, including a $1 billion acquisition of a three-hospital nonprofit system, a $950 million acquisition of three hospitals from a publicly traded system, and a $750 million sale of three acute-care hospitals and an LTACH by a publicly traded system.{{ FIELD }}Represented multiple health systems in joint venture transactions with private equity sponsors and other investor-owned entities involving ambulatory surgery centers, rehabilitation hospitals, behavioral health facilities, urgent care centers, and other specialty facilities.{{ FIELD }}Represented multi-specialty physician group in $2 billion sale to physician practice management subsidiary of publicly traded company.{{ FIELD }}Represented committee of physician and management investors in private equity-backed physician practice management company in $900+ million recapitalization transaction.{{ FIELD }}Represented private equity sponsors and portfolio companies in platform and roll-up acquisitions of physician practices and related ancillary healthcare businesses.{{ FIELD }}Represented physician practices of various specialties (including anesthesiology, emergency medicine, oncology, orthopedics, primary care, radiology, and multi-specialty groups) in sales to private equity sponsors, health systems, and other buyers.{{ FIELD }}Represented foreign investor in platform acquisition of nurse staffing business and subsequent roll-up transactions.{{ FIELD }}Represented academic medical center system in overhaul of its corporate governance structure.{{ FIELD }}Represented hospital owned by state-government entity in reorganization transaction involving transfer of hospital operations and lease of assets to newly formed nonprofit entity.{{ FIELD }}Represented multiple buyers and sellers in transactions involving skilled nursing facilities, personal care homes, and other senior living facilities.{{ FIELD }}Represented closely held hospice business in carve-out sale of multiple hospice agencies to private equity-backed national hospice chain.{{ FIELD }}Gardner Armsby is a partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Healthcare practice and advises healthcare industry clients on corporate transactions and regulatory compliance matters. He represents for-profit and non-profit healthcare companies, as well as lenders, private equity firms, and other healthcare investors. With a unique combination of corporate and regulatory expertise, Gardner assists clients in structuring, negotiating, and executing transactions in the highly regulated healthcare industry, including mergers and acquisitions, reorganizations, joint ventures, financings, management arrangements, affiliations, and other complex transactions.\nGardner also counsels clients on healthcare regulatory and compliance matters, including corporate practice of medicine restrictions, fraud and abuse laws, HIPAA, licensing and certificate of need requirements, and 501(c)(3) tax-exemption issues.\nGardner has worked with a broad spectrum of healthcare businesses, including health systems, hospitals, surgery centers, nursing homes, physician practices, home health and hospice agencies, laboratories, pharmacies, medical supply companies, and electronic health records companies, among others.\nGardner graduated first in his class from Georgia State University College of Law. He received his undergraduate degree in Economics from the University of Georgia. Prior to attending law school, Gardner worked as CFO and Corporate Compliance Officer for a 501(c)(3) non-profit provider of vocational training services for adults with disabilities. Partner University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law Georgia State University Georgia State University College of Law Georgia Georgia Academy of Healthcare Attorneys American Health Lawyers Association Represented nonprofit and for-profit health system clients in acquisitions and divestitures of dozens of acute-care and specialty hospitals, including a $1 billion acquisition of a three-hospital nonprofit system, a $950 million acquisition of three hospitals from a publicly traded system, and a $750 million sale of three acute-care hospitals and an LTACH by a publicly traded system. Represented multiple health systems in joint venture transactions with private equity sponsors and other investor-owned entities involving ambulatory surgery centers, rehabilitation hospitals, behavioral health facilities, urgent care centers, and other specialty facilities. Represented multi-specialty physician group in $2 billion sale to physician practice management subsidiary of publicly traded company. Represented committee of physician and management investors in private equity-backed physician practice management company in $900+ million recapitalization transaction. Represented private equity sponsors and portfolio companies in platform and roll-up acquisitions of physician practices and related ancillary healthcare businesses. Represented physician practices of various specialties (including anesthesiology, emergency medicine, oncology, orthopedics, primary care, radiology, and multi-specialty groups) in sales to private equity sponsors, health systems, and other buyers. Represented foreign investor in platform acquisition of nurse staffing business and subsequent roll-up transactions. Represented academic medical center system in overhaul of its corporate governance structure. Represented hospital owned by state-government entity in reorganization transaction involving transfer of hospital operations and lease of assets to newly formed nonprofit entity. Represented multiple buyers and sellers in transactions involving skilled nursing facilities, personal care homes, and other senior living facilities. Represented closely held hospice business in carve-out sale of multiple hospice agencies to private equity-backed national hospice chain.","searchable_name":"John Gardner Armsby (Gardner)","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":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":446166,"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 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.[[--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. 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\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. 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.\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). 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.\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. 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 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.\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 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.[[--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. 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\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. 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.\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). 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.\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. 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 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.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9959}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2026-02-25T20:07:32.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-25T20:07:32.000Z","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}]}}