{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"cg-3","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":"S","per_page":12,"people":[{"id":444627,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3560,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eFranklin Sacha defends\u0026nbsp;manufacturers in high-exposure class action and mass tort lawsuits involving automobiles, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other consumer products.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFranklin has\u0026nbsp;experience in numerous phases of class action litigation, including initial case assessment and motions practice, discovery, settlement, and appeals.\u0026nbsp; He has particular experience with the automotive industry, having represented clients in class action cases in federal courts throughout the country.\u0026nbsp; In addition to his class action experience, Franklin has litigated toxic tort cases and general commercial cases, including insurance recovery, antitrust, and professional liability matters.\u0026nbsp; He also maintains an active appellate practice and has represented clients in the United States Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals, and state appellate courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his litigation experience, Franklin has contributed to several treatises covering class action and product liability litigation.\u0026nbsp; He is a co-author (along with Chilton Varner and Madison Kitchens) of the Eighth Edition of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe\u0026nbsp;Product Regulation and Liability\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eReview\u003c/em\u003e, which analyzes the current state of product liability law in the United States and numerous other countries.\u0026nbsp; He has also contributed to chapters\u0026nbsp;on food and drug litigation in the Fifth Edition of the ABA's\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBusiness and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;treatise and\u0026nbsp;third-party payor litigation in the Third Edition of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRegulation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;treatise.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFranklin graduated from Duke University,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esumma cum laude\u003c/em\u003e, in 2012 with an A.B.\u0026nbsp;in History and Political Science.\u0026nbsp; He earned his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2015.\u0026nbsp; While in law school, Franklin was\u0026nbsp;an Articles Editor on the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVirginia Law Review\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand during his third year served as an appellate intern in\u0026nbsp;the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia.\u0026nbsp; After graduating from law school, he clerked for Chief Judge Ed Carnes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and Judge T.S. Ellis, III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFranklin is actively involved in the Atlanta community.\u0026nbsp; Among other activities, he serves on the\u0026nbsp;Young Professionals Advisory Committee of the Atlanta Children's Shelter and coaches the Westminster Schools' high school mock trial team.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"john-sacha","email":"fsacha@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Sacha","nick_name":"Franklin","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Chief Judge Ed Carnes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"2017 - 2018"},{"name":"Law Clerk, T.S. Ellis, III, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia","years_held":"2016 - 2017"},{"name":"Law Clerk, Chief Judge Ed Carnes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","years_held":"2015 - 2016"}],"first_name":"John","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":2410,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Order of the Coif","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"F.","name_suffix":"Jr.","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eFranklin Sacha defends\u0026nbsp;manufacturers in high-exposure class action and mass tort lawsuits involving automobiles, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other consumer products.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFranklin has\u0026nbsp;experience in numerous phases of class action litigation, including initial case assessment and motions practice, discovery, settlement, and appeals.\u0026nbsp; He has particular experience with the automotive industry, having represented clients in class action cases in federal courts throughout the country.\u0026nbsp; In addition to his class action experience, Franklin has litigated toxic tort cases and general commercial cases, including insurance recovery, antitrust, and professional liability matters.\u0026nbsp; He also maintains an active appellate practice and has represented clients in the United States Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals, and state appellate courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his litigation experience, Franklin has contributed to several treatises covering class action and product liability litigation.\u0026nbsp; He is a co-author (along with Chilton Varner and Madison Kitchens) of the Eighth Edition of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe\u0026nbsp;Product Regulation and Liability\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eReview\u003c/em\u003e, which analyzes the current state of product liability law in the United States and numerous other countries.\u0026nbsp; He has also contributed to chapters\u0026nbsp;on food and drug litigation in the Fifth Edition of the ABA's\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBusiness and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;treatise and\u0026nbsp;third-party payor litigation in the Third Edition of the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRegulation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;treatise.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFranklin graduated from Duke University,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003esumma cum laude\u003c/em\u003e, in 2012 with an A.B.\u0026nbsp;in History and Political Science.\u0026nbsp; He earned his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2015.\u0026nbsp; While in law school, Franklin was\u0026nbsp;an Articles Editor on the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVirginia Law Review\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand during his third year served as an appellate intern in\u0026nbsp;the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia.\u0026nbsp; After graduating from law school, he clerked for Chief Judge Ed Carnes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and Judge T.S. Ellis, III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFranklin is actively involved in the Atlanta community.\u0026nbsp; Among other activities, he serves on the\u0026nbsp;Young Professionals Advisory Committee of the Atlanta Children's Shelter and coaches the Westminster Schools' high school mock trial team.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6809}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-02T15:54:16.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-02T15:54:16.000Z","searchable_text":"Sacha{{ FIELD }}Franklin Sacha defends manufacturers in high-exposure class action and mass tort lawsuits involving automobiles, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other consumer products.  \nFranklin has experience in numerous phases of class action litigation, including initial case assessment and motions practice, discovery, settlement, and appeals.  He has particular experience with the automotive industry, having represented clients in class action cases in federal courts throughout the country.  In addition to his class action experience, Franklin has litigated toxic tort cases and general commercial cases, including insurance recovery, antitrust, and professional liability matters.  He also maintains an active appellate practice and has represented clients in the United States Supreme Court, federal courts of appeals, and state appellate courts.\nIn addition to his litigation experience, Franklin has contributed to several treatises covering class action and product liability litigation.  He is a co-author (along with Chilton Varner and Madison Kitchens) of the Eighth Edition of The Product Regulation and Liability Review, which analyzes the current state of product liability law in the United States and numerous other countries.  He has also contributed to chapters on food and drug litigation in the Fifth Edition of the ABA's Business and Commercial Litigation in Federal Courts treatise and third-party payor litigation in the Third Edition of the Regulation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers treatise.\nFranklin graduated from Duke University, summa cum laude, in 2012 with an A.B. in History and Political Science.  He earned his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2015.  While in law school, Franklin was an Articles Editor on the Virginia Law Review and during his third year served as an appellate intern in the United States Attorney's Office for the Western District of Virginia.  After graduating from law school, he clerked for Chief Judge Ed Carnes of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and Judge T.S. Ellis, III of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.\nFranklin is actively involved in the Atlanta community.  Among other activities, he serves on the Young Professionals Advisory Committee of the Atlanta Children's Shelter and coaches the Westminster Schools' high school mock trial team.    Partner Duke University Duke University School of Law University of Virginia University of Virginia School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Georgia Law Clerk, Chief Judge Ed Carnes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit Law Clerk, T.S. Ellis, III, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Law Clerk, Chief Judge Ed Carnes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit","searchable_name":"John F. Sacha, Jr. (Franklin)","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":444107,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2780,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJohn Savage KC is a partner in our Paris and London offices, specializing in international arbitration. John has represented clients in approximately 200 arbitrations around the world in 30\u0026nbsp;years of practice. He has particular expertise in complex, high-stakes corporate, investment and projects disputes, with an emphasis on the oil and gas, mining and power sectors. John has been lauded in the directories as \"a tremendously effective advocate\" with \"real global stature in arbitration.\" John was previously a vice president of the SIAC Court of Arbitration and a Director of the SIAC.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn has worked for high-profile clients including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical, GE, Samsung C\u0026amp;T and Shell, and his recent successes for clients include some of the largest awards handed down in international arbitration. He also has substantial experience in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn is a King's\u0026nbsp;Counsel in England, was admitted as a member of the Paris bar in 1997 and was one of the first foreign lawyers to gain rights of audience at the Singapore International Commercial Court. John spent 12 years in Singapore establishing himself as one of the leading arbitration lawyers in Asia, and has also practiced arbitration in Paris and Washington DC. John studied law and was admitted to practice in England and France and is equally comfortable in common and civil law environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn has been recognized for many years by Chambers Global as one of the world's top arbitration lawyers. Among recent accolades, legal directories describe John as \"a tremendously effective advocate and fine arbitrator\" with \"real global stature in arbitration,\" \"a gifted strategist,\" \"hugely respected and extremely well-regarded\" and \"a talented advocate whose clear and effective arguments are often case-winning interventions.\" Legal 500 (2021) observes that\u0026nbsp;John \"is the type of lawyer that comes into the case at the appropriate time, learns everything, dispenses sage advice and then advocates on your behalf in a manner that never fails to impress.\u0026rdquo; and that John \"has the ability to absorb a lot of material in a short amount of time. He sees a case from the lens of an arbitrator, which makes him brilliant in anticipating the important issues that the arbitrators will focus on in deciding a case.\u0026rdquo; Chambers (2020) writes, \u0026ldquo;He is exceptionally good. He's very astute, strategic and a very formidable litigator of large disputes\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;From a client perspective, you couldn't want anyone better. He gives everything to a case.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"john-savage","email":"jsavage@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShell\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Manila against the Republic of the Philippines concerning the Malampaya gas project. Our clients secured an award valued at over US$ 4 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShell\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multibillion dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell\u0026rsquo;s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCA Investment\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Sao Paulo against J\u0026amp;F Investimentos concerning the acquisition of Eldorado, a large Brazilian pulp company. Our client has secured a partial award valued at billions of US dollars.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea consortium of energy companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LNG price review arbitration in Singapore against an Asian buyer. Our clients secured an award of most of the relief sought plus costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGE Hitachi Nuclear Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Taipei against Taiwan Power Company, concerning the design and construction of the Lungmen nuclear power plant in Taiwan. Our client secured an award of substantially all relief sought, including payment of US$ 158 million, which was received in full, and the dismissal of counterclaims valued at US$ 350 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSL Mining\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGerald International\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC and ICSID arbitrations against the Republic of Sierra Leone, concerning the mistreatment by the state of our clients\u0026rsquo; investments in the Marampa Iron Ore Project in Sierra Leone. Over US$ 1.5 billion is in dispute, and SL Mining has already secured two favourable partial awards, as well as related judgments from the English High Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eInterGlobe Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration against Rakesh Gangwal and related parties in relation to the ownership and management of IndiGo, India\u0026rsquo;s largest airline. The arbitration is seated in New Delhi and administered by the LCIA. The claimants seek damages of US$600 million as well as declarative and injunctive relief.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebuyer of LNG\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a price review arbitration under the ICC rules in London against a Middle Eastern seller.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Indian business house\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against its European joint venture partner. Indian law governed. Our client secured declaratory relief valued at over US$200 million and an award of US$5 million in costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDow Chemical\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as claimant in an ICC arbitration in London against Petrochemical Industries Company (PIC), which is wholly-owned by the State of Kuwait, arising out of a wide-ranging joint venture agreement. English law governed. The tribunal awarded our client damages, interest and costs of over US$2.4 billion\u0026mdash;one of the largest arbitration awards in history. Dow received US$2.2 billion in a direct cash payment from PIC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest multinationals\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as claimant in an HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong against a publicly-traded Chinese joint venture party in the renewable energy sector. New York law governed. The Tribunal awarded our client over US$360 million (100% of relief claimed).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eConocoPhillips China\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two SIAC arbitrations in Singapore against an independent gas producer and its parent company. The dispute concerned coalbed methane assets in East Asia. The tribunal awarded our client US$50 million in damages, interest and costs, and dismissed counterclaims of US$150 million against it. English law governed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large independent oil company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration in London against a Southeast Asian pipeline operator. The tribunal awarded our client over US$70 million plus compound interest and most of its costs. We then represented our client in defeating an action to set aside the award in the English High Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. satellite communications provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against an Asian customer concerning the termination by the customer of our client\u0026rsquo;s project for shipboard communications. The client has secured an award of all of the relief it sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGaranti Koza LLP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;a UK construction contractor, in an ICSID arbitration against Turkmenistan arising out of violations by Turkmenistan of its obligations under the UK-Turkmenistan BIT. Our client defeated Turkmenistan\u0026rsquo;s objections to jurisdiction and secured an award of compensation on the merits.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Asian construction contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Asia against a subcontractor arising out of the construction of a port in North Asia. All claims against the client were dismissed and it secured an award of all of its costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMalaysian Historical Salvors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its successful action to annul an ICSID award made in favour of Malaysia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSGS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as claimant in its ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in a settlement of CHF 150 million (of CHF 174 million claimed).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSamsung C\u0026amp;T Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple arbitrations and adjudications against different parties arising out of the engineering and construction of the Roy Hill Iron Ore project in Western Australia. Over US$1 billion was in dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":207}]},"expertise":[{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1157,"guid":"1157.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Savage","nick_name":"John","clerkships":[],"first_name":"John","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"K.C.","recognitions":[{"title":"\"We are truly privileged to have him on our side.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024"},{"title":"\"His invaluable counsel and advocacy finds its source in his extensive experience in arbitration across the globe.\" ","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024"},{"title":"\"He is a class act. He has a mastery of the facts and cuts straight to what's important.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024"},{"title":"\"He is a very astute, commercial lawyer.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2024"},{"title":"\"Experience, wisdom and unruffled.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"},{"title":"\"He is a formidable advocate.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"Measured, thoughtful and thinks deeply about opening cases.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"His particular strengths are his strategy, cross-examination and he commands the respect of clients and co-counsel\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"He has an incredible and well-deserved reputation.\" ","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"He's an excellent cross-examiner who commands the respect of clients and co-counsel.\" ","detail":"Chambers UK (2022)"},{"title":"\"Very measured and thoughtful. He's someone who thinks deeply about how to make an opening case.\" ","detail":"Chambers UK (2022)"},{"title":"\"A master strategist, a terrific advocate, and truly among the best globally of his generation of practitioners\" ","detail":"Legal 500 UK (2022)"},{"title":"\"Comes into the case at the appropriate time and then advocates on your behalf in a manner that never fails to impress.\" ","detail":"Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"“He sees a case from the lens of an a arbitrator, which makes him brilliant in anticipating the important issues.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"\"He is exceptionally good. He's very astute, strategic and a very formidable litigator of large disputes.\" ","detail":"Chambers Global, 2020"},{"title":"\"One of the best advocates in the market... a very good cross-examiner.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-savage-kc/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJohn Savage KC is a partner in our Paris and London offices, specializing in international arbitration. John has represented clients in approximately 200 arbitrations around the world in 30\u0026nbsp;years of practice. He has particular expertise in complex, high-stakes corporate, investment and projects disputes, with an emphasis on the oil and gas, mining and power sectors. John has been lauded in the directories as \"a tremendously effective advocate\" with \"real global stature in arbitration.\" John was previously a vice president of the SIAC Court of Arbitration and a Director of the SIAC.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn has worked for high-profile clients including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical, GE, Samsung C\u0026amp;T and Shell, and his recent successes for clients include some of the largest awards handed down in international arbitration. He also has substantial experience in mediation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn is a King's\u0026nbsp;Counsel in England, was admitted as a member of the Paris bar in 1997 and was one of the first foreign lawyers to gain rights of audience at the Singapore International Commercial Court. John spent 12 years in Singapore establishing himself as one of the leading arbitration lawyers in Asia, and has also practiced arbitration in Paris and Washington DC. John studied law and was admitted to practice in England and France and is equally comfortable in common and civil law environments.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJohn has been recognized for many years by Chambers Global as one of the world's top arbitration lawyers. Among recent accolades, legal directories describe John as \"a tremendously effective advocate and fine arbitrator\" with \"real global stature in arbitration,\" \"a gifted strategist,\" \"hugely respected and extremely well-regarded\" and \"a talented advocate whose clear and effective arguments are often case-winning interventions.\" Legal 500 (2021) observes that\u0026nbsp;John \"is the type of lawyer that comes into the case at the appropriate time, learns everything, dispenses sage advice and then advocates on your behalf in a manner that never fails to impress.\u0026rdquo; and that John \"has the ability to absorb a lot of material in a short amount of time. He sees a case from the lens of an arbitrator, which makes him brilliant in anticipating the important issues that the arbitrators will focus on in deciding a case.\u0026rdquo; Chambers (2020) writes, \u0026ldquo;He is exceptionally good. He's very astute, strategic and a very formidable litigator of large disputes\u0026rdquo; and \u0026ldquo;From a client perspective, you couldn't want anyone better. He gives everything to a case.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShell\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Manila against the Republic of the Philippines concerning the Malampaya gas project. Our clients secured an award valued at over US$ 4 billion.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShell\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multibillion dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell\u0026rsquo;s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCA Investment\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Sao Paulo against J\u0026amp;F Investimentos concerning the acquisition of Eldorado, a large Brazilian pulp company. Our client has secured a partial award valued at billions of US dollars.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea consortium of energy companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LNG price review arbitration in Singapore against an Asian buyer. Our clients secured an award of most of the relief sought plus costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGE Hitachi Nuclear Energy\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Taipei against Taiwan Power Company, concerning the design and construction of the Lungmen nuclear power plant in Taiwan. Our client secured an award of substantially all relief sought, including payment of US$ 158 million, which was received in full, and the dismissal of counterclaims valued at US$ 350 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSL Mining\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGerald International\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC and ICSID arbitrations against the Republic of Sierra Leone, concerning the mistreatment by the state of our clients\u0026rsquo; investments in the Marampa Iron Ore Project in Sierra Leone. Over US$ 1.5 billion is in dispute, and SL Mining has already secured two favourable partial awards, as well as related judgments from the English High Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eInterGlobe Enterprises\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration against Rakesh Gangwal and related parties in relation to the ownership and management of IndiGo, India\u0026rsquo;s largest airline. The arbitration is seated in New Delhi and administered by the LCIA. The claimants seek damages of US$600 million as well as declarative and injunctive relief.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently representing a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ebuyer of LNG\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a price review arbitration under the ICC rules in London against a Middle Eastern seller.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Indian business house\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against its European joint venture partner. Indian law governed. Our client secured declaratory relief valued at over US$200 million and an award of US$5 million in costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDow Chemical\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as claimant in an ICC arbitration in London against Petrochemical Industries Company (PIC), which is wholly-owned by the State of Kuwait, arising out of a wide-ranging joint venture agreement. English law governed. The tribunal awarded our client damages, interest and costs of over US$2.4 billion\u0026mdash;one of the largest arbitration awards in history. Dow received US$2.2 billion in a direct cash payment from PIC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest multinationals\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as claimant in an HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong against a publicly-traded Chinese joint venture party in the renewable energy sector. New York law governed. The Tribunal awarded our client over US$360 million (100% of relief claimed).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eConocoPhillips China\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two SIAC arbitrations in Singapore against an independent gas producer and its parent company. The dispute concerned coalbed methane assets in East Asia. The tribunal awarded our client US$50 million in damages, interest and costs, and dismissed counterclaims of US$150 million against it. English law governed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea large independent oil company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration in London against a Southeast Asian pipeline operator. The tribunal awarded our client over US$70 million plus compound interest and most of its costs. We then represented our client in defeating an action to set aside the award in the English High Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. satellite communications provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against an Asian customer concerning the termination by the customer of our client\u0026rsquo;s project for shipboard communications. The client has secured an award of all of the relief it sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGaranti Koza LLP\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003e,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;a UK construction contractor, in an ICSID arbitration against Turkmenistan arising out of violations by Turkmenistan of its obligations under the UK-Turkmenistan BIT. Our client defeated Turkmenistan\u0026rsquo;s objections to jurisdiction and secured an award of compensation on the merits.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Asian construction contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Asia against a subcontractor arising out of the construction of a port in North Asia. All claims against the client were dismissed and it secured an award of all of its costs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMalaysian Historical Salvors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its successful action to annul an ICSID award made in favour of Malaysia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSGS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as claimant in its ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in a settlement of CHF 150 million (of CHF 174 million claimed).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSamsung C\u0026amp;T Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple arbitrations and adjudications against different parties arising out of the engineering and construction of the Roy Hill Iron Ore project in Western Australia. Over US$1 billion was in dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"\"We are truly privileged to have him on our side.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024"},{"title":"\"His invaluable counsel and advocacy finds its source in his extensive experience in arbitration across the globe.\" ","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024"},{"title":"\"He is a class act. He has a mastery of the facts and cuts straight to what's important.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024"},{"title":"\"He is a very astute, commercial lawyer.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2024"},{"title":"\"Experience, wisdom and unruffled.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2024"},{"title":"\"He is a formidable advocate.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"Measured, thoughtful and thinks deeply about opening cases.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"His particular strengths are his strategy, cross-examination and he commands the respect of clients and co-counsel\"","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"He has an incredible and well-deserved reputation.\" ","detail":"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)"},{"title":"\"He's an excellent cross-examiner who commands the respect of clients and co-counsel.\" ","detail":"Chambers UK (2022)"},{"title":"\"Very measured and thoughtful. He's someone who thinks deeply about how to make an opening case.\" ","detail":"Chambers UK (2022)"},{"title":"\"A master strategist, a terrific advocate, and truly among the best globally of his generation of practitioners\" ","detail":"Legal 500 UK (2022)"},{"title":"\"Comes into the case at the appropriate time and then advocates on your behalf in a manner that never fails to impress.\" ","detail":"Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"“He sees a case from the lens of an a arbitrator, which makes him brilliant in anticipating the important issues.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"\"He is exceptionally good. He's very astute, strategic and a very formidable litigator of large disputes.\" ","detail":"Chambers Global, 2020"},{"title":"\"One of the best advocates in the market... a very good cross-examiner.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11419}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-09T20:22:45.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-09T20:22:45.000Z","searchable_text":"Savage{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"We are truly privileged to have him on our side.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"His invaluable counsel and advocacy finds its source in his extensive experience in arbitration across the globe.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is a class act. He has a mastery of the facts and cuts straight to what's important.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe-Wide 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is a very astute, commercial lawyer.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Experience, wisdom and unruffled.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is a formidable advocate.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Measured, thoughtful and thinks deeply about opening cases.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"His particular strengths are his strategy, cross-examination and he commands the respect of clients and co-counsel\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He has an incredible and well-deserved reputation.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe-Wide (2023)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's an excellent cross-examiner who commands the respect of clients and co-counsel.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Very measured and thoughtful. He's someone who thinks deeply about how to make an opening case.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers UK (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"A master strategist, a terrific advocate, and truly among the best globally of his generation of practitioners\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 UK (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Comes into the case at the appropriate time and then advocates on your behalf in a manner that never fails to impress.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He sees a case from the lens of an a arbitrator, which makes him brilliant in anticipating the important issues.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is exceptionally good. He's very astute, strategic and a very formidable litigator of large disputes.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"One of the best advocates in the market... a very good cross-examiner.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented Shell and Chevron in an ICC arbitration in Manila against the Republic of the Philippines concerning the Malampaya gas project. Our clients secured an award valued at over US$ 4 billion.{{ FIELD }}Currently representing Shell in a multibillion dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell’s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project.{{ FIELD }}Currently representing CA Investment in an ICC arbitration in Sao Paulo against J\u0026amp;F Investimentos concerning the acquisition of Eldorado, a large Brazilian pulp company. Our client has secured a partial award valued at billions of US dollars.{{ FIELD }}Represented a consortium of energy companies in an LNG price review arbitration in Singapore against an Asian buyer. Our clients secured an award of most of the relief sought plus costs.{{ FIELD }}Represented GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy in an ICC arbitration in Taipei against Taiwan Power Company, concerning the design and construction of the Lungmen nuclear power plant in Taiwan. Our client secured an award of substantially all relief sought, including payment of US$ 158 million, which was received in full, and the dismissal of counterclaims valued at US$ 350 million.{{ FIELD }}Currently representing SL Mining and Gerald International in ICC and ICSID arbitrations against the Republic of Sierra Leone, concerning the mistreatment by the state of our clients’ investments in the Marampa Iron Ore Project in Sierra Leone. Over US$ 1.5 billion is in dispute, and SL Mining has already secured two favourable partial awards, as well as related judgments from the English High Court.{{ FIELD }}Currently representing InterGlobe Enterprises in an LCIA arbitration against Rakesh Gangwal and related parties in relation to the ownership and management of IndiGo, India’s largest airline. The arbitration is seated in New Delhi and administered by the LCIA. The claimants seek damages of US$600 million as well as declarative and injunctive relief.{{ FIELD }}Currently representing a buyer of LNG in a price review arbitration under the ICC rules in London against a Middle Eastern seller.{{ FIELD }}Represented an Indian business house in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against its European joint venture partner. Indian law governed. Our client secured declaratory relief valued at over US$200 million and an award of US$5 million in costs.{{ FIELD }}Represented Dow Chemical as claimant in an ICC arbitration in London against Petrochemical Industries Company (PIC), which is wholly-owned by the State of Kuwait, arising out of a wide-ranging joint venture agreement. English law governed. The tribunal awarded our client damages, interest and costs of over US$2.4 billion—one of the largest arbitration awards in history. Dow received US$2.2 billion in a direct cash payment from PIC.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the world’s largest multinationals as claimant in an HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong against a publicly-traded Chinese joint venture party in the renewable energy sector. New York law governed. The Tribunal awarded our client over US$360 million (100% of relief claimed).{{ FIELD }}Represented ConocoPhillips China in two SIAC arbitrations in Singapore against an independent gas producer and its parent company. The dispute concerned coalbed methane assets in East Asia. The tribunal awarded our client US$50 million in damages, interest and costs, and dismissed counterclaims of US$150 million against it. English law governed.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large independent oil company in an UNCITRAL arbitration in London against a Southeast Asian pipeline operator. The tribunal awarded our client over US$70 million plus compound interest and most of its costs. We then represented our client in defeating an action to set aside the award in the English High Court.{{ FIELD }}Represented a U.S. satellite communications provider in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against an Asian customer concerning the termination by the customer of our client’s project for shipboard communications. The client has secured an award of all of the relief it sought.{{ FIELD }}Represented Garanti Koza LLP, a UK construction contractor, in an ICSID arbitration against Turkmenistan arising out of violations by Turkmenistan of its obligations under the UK-Turkmenistan BIT. Our client defeated Turkmenistan’s objections to jurisdiction and secured an award of compensation on the merits.{{ FIELD }}Represented an Asian construction contractor in an ICC arbitration in Asia against a subcontractor arising out of the construction of a port in North Asia. All claims against the client were dismissed and it secured an award of all of its costs.{{ FIELD }}Represented Malaysian Historical Salvors in its successful action to annul an ICSID award made in favour of Malaysia.{{ FIELD }}Represented SGS as claimant in its ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in a settlement of CHF 150 million (of CHF 174 million claimed).{{ FIELD }}Represented Samsung C\u0026amp;T Corporation in multiple arbitrations and adjudications against different parties arising out of the engineering and construction of the Roy Hill Iron Ore project in Western Australia. Over US$1 billion was in dispute.{{ FIELD }}John Savage KC is a partner in our Paris and London offices, specializing in international arbitration. John has represented clients in approximately 200 arbitrations around the world in 30 years of practice. He has particular expertise in complex, high-stakes corporate, investment and projects disputes, with an emphasis on the oil and gas, mining and power sectors. John has been lauded in the directories as \"a tremendously effective advocate\" with \"real global stature in arbitration.\" John was previously a vice president of the SIAC Court of Arbitration and a Director of the SIAC.\nJohn has worked for high-profile clients including Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Dow Chemical, GE, Samsung C\u0026amp;T and Shell, and his recent successes for clients include some of the largest awards handed down in international arbitration. He also has substantial experience in mediation.\nJohn is a King's Counsel in England, was admitted as a member of the Paris bar in 1997 and was one of the first foreign lawyers to gain rights of audience at the Singapore International Commercial Court. John spent 12 years in Singapore establishing himself as one of the leading arbitration lawyers in Asia, and has also practiced arbitration in Paris and Washington DC. John studied law and was admitted to practice in England and France and is equally comfortable in common and civil law environments.\nJohn has been recognized for many years by Chambers Global as one of the world's top arbitration lawyers. Among recent accolades, legal directories describe John as \"a tremendously effective advocate and fine arbitrator\" with \"real global stature in arbitration,\" \"a gifted strategist,\" \"hugely respected and extremely well-regarded\" and \"a talented advocate whose clear and effective arguments are often case-winning interventions.\" Legal 500 (2021) observes that John \"is the type of lawyer that comes into the case at the appropriate time, learns everything, dispenses sage advice and then advocates on your behalf in a manner that never fails to impress.” and that John \"has the ability to absorb a lot of material in a short amount of time. He sees a case from the lens of an arbitrator, which makes him brilliant in anticipating the important issues that the arbitrators will focus on in deciding a case.” Chambers (2020) writes, “He is exceptionally good. He's very astute, strategic and a very formidable litigator of large disputes” and “From a client perspective, you couldn't want anyone better. He gives everything to a case.” John Savage Partner \"We are truly privileged to have him on our side.\" Chambers Europe-Wide 2024 \"His invaluable counsel and advocacy finds its source in his extensive experience in arbitration across the globe.\"  Chambers Europe-Wide 2024 \"He is a class act. He has a mastery of the facts and cuts straight to what's important.\" Chambers Europe-Wide 2024 \"He is a very astute, commercial lawyer.\" Chambers Global, 2024 \"Experience, wisdom and unruffled.\" Legal 500, 2024 \"He is a formidable advocate.\" Chambers Europe-Wide (2023) \"Measured, thoughtful and thinks deeply about opening cases.\" Chambers Europe-Wide (2023) \"His particular strengths are his strategy, cross-examination and he commands the respect of clients and co-counsel\" Chambers Europe-Wide (2023) \"He has an incredible and well-deserved reputation.\"  Chambers Europe-Wide (2023) \"He's an excellent cross-examiner who commands the respect of clients and co-counsel.\"  Chambers UK (2022) \"Very measured and thoughtful. He's someone who thinks deeply about how to make an opening case.\"  Chambers UK (2022) \"A master strategist, a terrific advocate, and truly among the best globally of his generation of practitioners\"  Legal 500 UK (2022) \"Comes into the case at the appropriate time and then advocates on your behalf in a manner that never fails to impress.\"  Legal 500, 2021 “He sees a case from the lens of an a arbitrator, which makes him brilliant in anticipating the important issues.\" Legal 500, 2021 \"He is exceptionally good. He's very astute, strategic and a very formidable litigator of large disputes.\"  Chambers Global, 2020 \"One of the best advocates in the market... a very good cross-examiner.\" Chambers Global, 2020 Guildhall University, London  King's College, University of London, UK  Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne  England and Wales France Represented Shell and Chevron in an ICC arbitration in Manila against the Republic of the Philippines concerning the Malampaya gas project. Our clients secured an award valued at over US$ 4 billion. Currently representing Shell in a multibillion dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell’s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project. Currently representing CA Investment in an ICC arbitration in Sao Paulo against J\u0026amp;F Investimentos concerning the acquisition of Eldorado, a large Brazilian pulp company. Our client has secured a partial award valued at billions of US dollars. Represented a consortium of energy companies in an LNG price review arbitration in Singapore against an Asian buyer. Our clients secured an award of most of the relief sought plus costs. Represented GE Hitachi Nuclear Energy in an ICC arbitration in Taipei against Taiwan Power Company, concerning the design and construction of the Lungmen nuclear power plant in Taiwan. Our client secured an award of substantially all relief sought, including payment of US$ 158 million, which was received in full, and the dismissal of counterclaims valued at US$ 350 million. Currently representing SL Mining and Gerald International in ICC and ICSID arbitrations against the Republic of Sierra Leone, concerning the mistreatment by the state of our clients’ investments in the Marampa Iron Ore Project in Sierra Leone. Over US$ 1.5 billion is in dispute, and SL Mining has already secured two favourable partial awards, as well as related judgments from the English High Court. Currently representing InterGlobe Enterprises in an LCIA arbitration against Rakesh Gangwal and related parties in relation to the ownership and management of IndiGo, India’s largest airline. The arbitration is seated in New Delhi and administered by the LCIA. The claimants seek damages of US$600 million as well as declarative and injunctive relief. Currently representing a buyer of LNG in a price review arbitration under the ICC rules in London against a Middle Eastern seller. Represented an Indian business house in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against its European joint venture partner. Indian law governed. Our client secured declaratory relief valued at over US$200 million and an award of US$5 million in costs. Represented Dow Chemical as claimant in an ICC arbitration in London against Petrochemical Industries Company (PIC), which is wholly-owned by the State of Kuwait, arising out of a wide-ranging joint venture agreement. English law governed. The tribunal awarded our client damages, interest and costs of over US$2.4 billion—one of the largest arbitration awards in history. Dow received US$2.2 billion in a direct cash payment from PIC. Represented one of the world’s largest multinationals as claimant in an HKIAC arbitration in Hong Kong against a publicly-traded Chinese joint venture party in the renewable energy sector. New York law governed. The Tribunal awarded our client over US$360 million (100% of relief claimed). Represented ConocoPhillips China in two SIAC arbitrations in Singapore against an independent gas producer and its parent company. The dispute concerned coalbed methane assets in East Asia. The tribunal awarded our client US$50 million in damages, interest and costs, and dismissed counterclaims of US$150 million against it. English law governed. Represented a large independent oil company in an UNCITRAL arbitration in London against a Southeast Asian pipeline operator. The tribunal awarded our client over US$70 million plus compound interest and most of its costs. We then represented our client in defeating an action to set aside the award in the English High Court. Represented a U.S. satellite communications provider in an ICC arbitration in Singapore against an Asian customer concerning the termination by the customer of our client’s project for shipboard communications. The client has secured an award of all of the relief it sought. Represented Garanti Koza LLP, a UK construction contractor, in an ICSID arbitration against Turkmenistan arising out of violations by Turkmenistan of its obligations under the UK-Turkmenistan BIT. Our client defeated Turkmenistan’s objections to jurisdiction and secured an award of compensation on the merits. Represented an Asian construction contractor in an ICC arbitration in Asia against a subcontractor arising out of the construction of a port in North Asia. All claims against the client were dismissed and it secured an award of all of its costs. Represented Malaysian Historical Salvors in its successful action to annul an ICSID award made in favour of Malaysia. Represented SGS as claimant in its ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines, resulting in a settlement of CHF 150 million (of CHF 174 million claimed). Represented Samsung C\u0026amp;T Corporation in multiple arbitrations and adjudications against different parties arising out of the engineering and construction of the Roy Hill Iron Ore project in Western Australia. Over US$1 billion was in dispute.","searchable_name":"John Savage, K.C.","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":441657,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3111,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp style=\"background: white;\"\u003eJan K. Schaefer heads King \u0026amp; Spalding's dispute resolution practice in Germany. He represents foreign and German clients in domestic and international arbitration matters, both commercial and investor-state. He appears before German courts in first- and second-instance matters, including for the taking of evidence for foreign proceedings, interim relief and enforcement applications, and is in high demand as international arbitrator.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith substantial trial and arbitration experience, Jan represents clients in post\u0026ndash;merger and acquisition, joint venture, distribution, sales and license matters, as well as in foreign investment, construction and energy-related disputes, both within Germany and across international borders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan represents clients as counsel and advocate in complex and high-value domestic and international arbitration proceedings conducted under various arbitration rules, including those of the ICC, DIS (German Institute of Arbitration), SCC (Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce), and ICSID in multiple venues. He also has experience in ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan regularly advises clients on compliance and corruption issues. In several post-M\u0026amp;A matters, he has closely cooperated with criminal defense counsel to align strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan has served as chairman, party-appointed, sole or emergency arbitrator in some 70 arbitrations under a variety of rules, including ad hoc proceedings. He also advises clients on effective, efficient resolution of disputes at early stages, including the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan has been recognized as leader in his field by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Europe\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand other leading legal guides. He was named\u0026nbsp;Lawyer of the Year\u0026nbsp;for Arbitration\u0026nbsp;by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHandelsblatt\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u0026nbsp;2021/22\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;have been naming\u0026nbsp;Jan a \"Leading Name\" for Arbitration for many years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan is a board member of the DIS, the SCC and the Dutch Arbitration Association and a member of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. He is a member of the Litigation Committee\u0026nbsp;of the German Federal Bar Association (BRAK). He speaks English, German, Dutch and some French.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jan-schaefer","email":"jschaefer@kslaw.com","phone":"+49 171 3041424","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejet broker\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with a major European charter airline.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Korean industrial company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against Egyptian and Kuwaiti respondents, Paris seat, Egyptian law, English language, multimillion contract termination claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Eastern European renewable energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, delivery claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. renewable energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, multimillion price-review dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ad hoc arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, German language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute re call-option.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, D\u0026uuml;sseldorf seat, German law, English language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about a net-equity warranty and tort claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German automotive company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings, Paris seat, Egyptian law, multimillion distributorship dispute re commission payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Swiss Rules arbitration proceedings, Zurich seat, Swiss law, patent-related dispute re ownership dispute workaround technology under consultancy agreement, co-counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Middle Eastern gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multimillion price re-opener dispute, preparation of request for arbitration in ICC arbitration proceedings, Geneva seat, New York law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S agricultural company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings, Frankfurt-seated, Swiss law, dispute re violation of manufacturing agreement for noncompliance with FDA requirements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003evarious German investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICSID cases against Spain (\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eMathias Kruck and others v. Kingdom of Spain,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23 and KS Invest GmbH and TLS Invest GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/25).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and other investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID case against Italy (\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eESPF Beteiligungs GmbH et al. v. The Italian Republic\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German utility company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in investment disputes with several Eastern European states about ownership unbundling, case assessment, representing in amicable settlement discussions under the Energy Charter Treaty and the pertinent German bilateral investment treaties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Eastern European company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in malpractice proceedings against a law firm relating to an arbitration before the district court of Munich.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a German real estate fund in a dispute with a German bank regarding the liquidation of an open-ended fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Hague Convention proceedings before German courts for the taking of witness evidence for U.S. court proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on enforcement in Germany against assets of a Latin American state arising under a commercial arbitration award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation proceedings before the district court in D\u0026uuml;sseldorf, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea managing director\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation proceedings before the district court in Cologne, third-party notice in post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about director\u0026rsquo;s liability.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in recognition and enforcement proceedings of a Luxembourg judgment in Germany under the Brussels Regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e, Stockholm seat, Swedish law, dispute relating to the telecommunications industry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emulti-party ICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e, Vienna seat, Polish law, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Leipzig seat, dispute relating to shareholder information request under corporate law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Dortmund seat, dispute relating to wind energy project and insurance claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePolish and German parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParty-appointed arbitrator in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, D\u0026uuml;sseldorf seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParty-appointed arbitrator in a multi-party NAI arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDutch parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dutch law, English language, Amsterdam seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in an ad hoc arbitration under the arbitration rules of the European Development Funds, Dutch and Dutch Antilles parties, Dutch Antilles law, English language, Curacao seat, dispute about sewage plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in an ICC arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRussian and German parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Swedish law, English language, Stockholm seat, dispute about machine sale.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and Luxembourg parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Frankfurt seat, gas price dispute under take-or-pay contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSole Arbitrator in an ICC arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and Australian parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, industrial plant dispute in food industry.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Schaefer","nick_name":"Jan","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jan","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"K.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Thought Leader for Arbitration and Commercial Litigation ","detail":"Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025"},{"title":"Recognized as \"Leading Individual\" for Dispute Resolution","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025"},{"title":"Arbitration: Leading Names in the Market","detail":"JUVE Handbook/German Commercial Law Firms, 2007-2024/25"},{"title":"Recognized as \"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\" and \"Arbitration Counsel\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017-2025"},{"title":"Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2021,2024"},{"title":"Lawyer of the Year for International Arbitration","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2020/21"},{"title":"Recognized one of Germany's Best International Arbitration Lawyers","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2017-2025"},{"title":"Foreign Expert for Netherlands ","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"\"He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"International experienced arbitrator, very good proceedings management\"","detail":"JUVE, 2022/23, Quoting"},{"title":"\"He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Fun to work with, very solutions-oriented, keeps his focus and does not get distracted.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Jan Schäfer is a top arbitrator.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Very experienced, especially in investment disputes and energy disputes.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Personally very pleasant to deal with. Excellent, empathetic arbitrator.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Dr. Jan Schäfer is an excellent chairman in arbitration hearings.\" ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Competent interlocutor\"","detail":"JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting client"},{"title":"\"He takes a sharp yet balanced approach in dealing with parties in arbitrations.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2020"},{"title":"\"Great Arbitrator\"","detail":"JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Highly Recommended” in Leaders League’s Best Arbitrators in 2019-2020 Germany List","detail":"Leaders League"},{"title":"\"Top-notch counsel\" and a \"go-to arbitrator.\"","detail":"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020, Quoting peers"},{"title":"\"Approachable and very prompt\" ","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2019, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Highly structured referee with a wealth of experience\"","detail":"JUVE, 2024/2025, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Persuasive logical argumentation\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"One of the leading arbitrators\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Fast, precise, professional“ ","detail":"JUVE, 2018/2019, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"[He] is commercial but also has an in-depth knowledge of the law.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017"},{"title":"\"One of the strongest practitioners in Germany.\"","detail":"International Who's Who of Commercial Arbitration, 2015"},{"title":"\"Expansive advocacy skills\" and \"good commercial understanding.”","detail":"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2014, Quoting peers"},{"title":"\"He does not look to escalate situations, but to help us save on legal fees.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2014"},{"title":"\"Clients appreciate [him] for his efficiency and pragmatic approach.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2014"},{"title":"\"[He] is calm, convincing and firm.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2013"},{"title":"\"A great orator who can convince other people.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2012"},{"title":"45 Under 45","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"Gillis Wetter Prize - London Court of International Arbitration, 2001","detail":"London Court of International Arbitration, 2001"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"de":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer ist Partner im Frankfurter B\u0026uuml;ro von King \u0026amp; Spalding und leitet die deutsche Konfliktl\u0026ouml;sungspraxis der Kanzlei. Er vertritt ausl\u0026auml;ndische und deutsche Mandanten in deutschen und grenz\u0026uuml;berschreitenden Post-M\u0026amp;A-, Joint-Venture-, Vertriebs-, Verkaufs- und Lizenzangelegenheiten sowie in Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit Auslandsinvestitionen, mit Anlagenbau und im Energiebereich. Er tritt vor deutschen Gerichten in erster und zweiter Instanz auf, u.a. bei der Beweisaufnahme f\u0026uuml;r ausl\u0026auml;ndische Verfahren, im einstweiligen Rechtsschutz und bei Vollstreckungsantr\u0026auml;gen und ist ein gefragter internationaler Schiedsrichter.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer vertritt Mandanten als Berater und Anwalt in komplexen und anspruchsvollen Schiedsverfahren, die nach verschiedenen Schiedsgerichtsordnungen durchgef\u0026uuml;hrt werden, darunter die der ICC, der DIS (Deutsche Institution f\u0026uuml;r Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit), der SCC (Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce) und der ICSID an verschiedenen Gerichtsstandorten. Er hat auch Erfahrung in Ad-hoc-Verfahren nach der UNCITRAL-Schiedsgerichtsordnung.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEr ber\u0026auml;t seine Mandanten regelm\u0026auml;\u0026szlig;ig in Fragen der Compliance und Korruptionspr\u0026auml;vention. In mehreren Post-M\u0026amp;A F\u0026auml;llen hat er zur Strategieabstimmung eng mit Strafverteidigern zusammengearbeitet.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer war als Vorsitzender, parteibenannter Schiedsrichter, Einzelschiedsrichter oder Eilschiedsrichter in mehr als 70 Schiedsverfahren unter diversen Schiedsordnungen, einschlie\u0026szlig;lich Ad-hoc-Verfahren, t\u0026auml;tig. Er ber\u0026auml;t seine Mandanten auch bei der effektiven und effizienten Beilegung von Streitigkeiten in fr\u0026uuml;hen Verhandlungsphasen, einschlie\u0026szlig;lich des Einsatzes alternativer Streitbeilegungsverfahren.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer wurde von \u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eChambers Europe\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e und anderen f\u0026uuml;hrenden Publikationen als f\u0026uuml;hrender Anwalt im Bereich Konfliktl\u0026ouml;sung und Arbitration anerkannt. Er wurde von \u003cem\u003eHandelsblatt \u003c/em\u003eund \u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e 2021/22 zum Anwalt des Jahres f\u0026uuml;r Schiedsverfahren augezeichnet. \u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e und \u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e f\u0026uuml;hren Jan K Sch\u0026auml;fer seit vielen Jahren als \"F\u0026uuml;hrenden Namen\" f\u0026uuml;r Schiedsgerichtbarkeit. \u003cem\u003eWirtschaftsWoche\u003c/em\u003e hat Jan K. Sch\u0026auml;fer zum Top Anwalt f\u0026uuml;r Arbitration 2023 ausgezeichnet.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eEr ist Vorstandsmitglied der DIS, der SCC und der Dutch Arbitration Association und Mitglied der ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. Er spricht Englisch, Deutsch, Niederl\u0026auml;ndisch und etwas Franz\u0026ouml;sisch.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Top Anwalt für Arbitration 2023","detail":"WirtschaftsWoche"},{"title":"\"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\" und \"Arbitration Counsel\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017-2025"},{"title":"\"Führender Name\" im Bereich Streitbeilegung: Arbitration (einschließlich internationaler Arbitration)","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025"},{"title":"\"Führender Name\": Konfliktlösung: Parteivertreter in Schiedsverfahren und Schiedsrichter","detail":"JUVE Handuch Wirtschaftskanzleien, 2007-2024/25"},{"title":"Anwalt des Jahres für Schiedsverfahren","detail":"Handelsblatt und Best Lawyers, 2021/24"},{"title":"Anwalt des Jahres für Internationale Schiedsverfahren","detail":"Handelsblatt und Best Lawyers, 2020/21"},{"title":"Geführt unter Deutschland's Besten Anwälten für Schiedsverfahren und Konfliktlösung","detail":"Handelsblatt und Best Lawyers, 2017-2025"},{"title":"„Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Mandanten"},{"title":"„He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Mandanten"},{"title":"„He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Mandanten"},{"title":"„He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Mandanten"},{"title":"Foreign Expert for Netherlands","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"„internat. erfahrener Schiedsrichter, sehr gute Verhandlungsführung“","detail":"JUVE 2022/23, Mandant"},{"title":"„Jan Schäfer: Sehr erfahren, vor allem im Bereich Investitionsstreitigkeiten und energierechtlichen Streitigkeiten.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Mandant"},{"title":"„Jan Schäfer ist ein herausragender, sehr erfahrener Anwalt in internationalen Schiedsverfahren. Persönlich sehr angenehm im Umgang. Exzellenter, einfühlsamer Schiedsrichter.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Mandant"},{"title":"45 Under 45","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"Gillis Wetter Prize","detail":"London Court of International Arbitration, 2001"},{"title":"Thought Leader bei Arbitration und Commercial Litigation","detail":"Lexology Index (ehem. Who's Who Legal) 2025"}]},"en":{"bio":"\u003cp style=\"background: white;\"\u003eJan K. Schaefer heads King \u0026amp; Spalding's dispute resolution practice in Germany. He represents foreign and German clients in domestic and international arbitration matters, both commercial and investor-state. He appears before German courts in first- and second-instance matters, including for the taking of evidence for foreign proceedings, interim relief and enforcement applications, and is in high demand as international arbitrator.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith substantial trial and arbitration experience, Jan represents clients in post\u0026ndash;merger and acquisition, joint venture, distribution, sales and license matters, as well as in foreign investment, construction and energy-related disputes, both within Germany and across international borders.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan represents clients as counsel and advocate in complex and high-value domestic and international arbitration proceedings conducted under various arbitration rules, including those of the ICC, DIS (German Institute of Arbitration), SCC (Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce), and ICSID in multiple venues. He also has experience in ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan regularly advises clients on compliance and corruption issues. In several post-M\u0026amp;A matters, he has closely cooperated with criminal defense counsel to align strategies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan has served as chairman, party-appointed, sole or emergency arbitrator in some 70 arbitrations under a variety of rules, including ad hoc proceedings. He also advises clients on effective, efficient resolution of disputes at early stages, including the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan has been recognized as leader in his field by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Global\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers Europe\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand other leading legal guides. He was named\u0026nbsp;Lawyer of the Year\u0026nbsp;for Arbitration\u0026nbsp;by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHandelsblatt\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers\u0026nbsp;2021/22\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eJUVE\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;have been naming\u0026nbsp;Jan a \"Leading Name\" for Arbitration for many years.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJan is a board member of the DIS, the SCC and the Dutch Arbitration Association and a member of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. He is a member of the Litigation Committee\u0026nbsp;of the German Federal Bar Association (BRAK). He speaks English, German, Dutch and some French.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ejet broker\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute with a major European charter airline.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Korean industrial company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against Egyptian and Kuwaiti respondents, Paris seat, Egyptian law, English language, multimillion contract termination claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Eastern European renewable energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, delivery claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. renewable energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, multimillion price-review dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ad hoc arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, German language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute re call-option.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in DIS arbitration proceedings, D\u0026uuml;sseldorf seat, German law, English language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about a net-equity warranty and tort claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German automotive company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings, Paris seat, Egyptian law, multimillion distributorship dispute re commission payment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Swiss Rules arbitration proceedings, Zurich seat, Swiss law, patent-related dispute re ownership dispute workaround technology under consultancy agreement, co-counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Middle Eastern gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multimillion price re-opener dispute, preparation of request for arbitration in ICC arbitration proceedings, Geneva seat, New York law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S agricultural company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration proceedings, Frankfurt-seated, Swiss law, dispute re violation of manufacturing agreement for noncompliance with FDA requirements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003evarious German investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICSID cases against Spain (\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eMathias Kruck and others v. Kingdom of Spain,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23 and KS Invest GmbH and TLS Invest GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/25).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and other investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID case against Italy (\u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eESPF Beteiligungs GmbH et al. v. The Italian Republic\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;(ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea German utility company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in investment disputes with several Eastern European states about ownership unbundling, case assessment, representing in amicable settlement discussions under the Energy Charter Treaty and the pertinent German bilateral investment treaties.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Eastern European company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in malpractice proceedings against a law firm relating to an arbitration before the district court of Munich.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a German real estate fund in a dispute with a German bank regarding the liquidation of an open-ended fund.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in Hague Convention proceedings before German courts for the taking of witness evidence for U.S. court proceedings.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvising\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on enforcement in Germany against assets of a Latin American state arising under a commercial arbitration award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation proceedings before the district court in D\u0026uuml;sseldorf, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea managing director\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation proceedings before the district court in Cologne, third-party notice in post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about director\u0026rsquo;s liability.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in recognition and enforcement proceedings of a Luxembourg judgment in Germany under the Brussels Regulation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Canadian technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e, Stockholm seat, Swedish law, dispute relating to the telecommunications industry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emulti-party ICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e, Vienna seat, Polish law, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Leipzig seat, dispute relating to shareholder information request under corporate law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Dortmund seat, dispute relating to wind energy project and insurance claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ePolish and German parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParty-appointed arbitrator in a multiparty DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, D\u0026uuml;sseldorf seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParty-appointed arbitrator in a multi-party NAI arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDutch parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Dutch law, English language, Amsterdam seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in an ad hoc arbitration under the arbitration rules of the European Development Funds, Dutch and Dutch Antilles parties, Dutch Antilles law, English language, Curacao seat, dispute about sewage plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in an ICC arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRussian and German parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Swedish law, English language, Stockholm seat, dispute about machine sale.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eChairman in a DIS arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and Luxembourg parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, German language, Frankfurt seat, gas price dispute under take-or-pay contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSole Arbitrator in an ICC arbitration,\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eGerman and Australian parties,\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, industrial plant dispute in food industry.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Thought Leader for Arbitration and Commercial Litigation ","detail":"Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025"},{"title":"Recognized as \"Leading Individual\" for Dispute Resolution","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025"},{"title":"Arbitration: Leading Names in the Market","detail":"JUVE Handbook/German Commercial Law Firms, 2007-2024/25"},{"title":"Recognized as \"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\" and \"Arbitration Counsel\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017-2025"},{"title":"Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2021,2024"},{"title":"Lawyer of the Year for International Arbitration","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2020/21"},{"title":"Recognized one of Germany's Best International Arbitration Lawyers","detail":"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2017-2025"},{"title":"Foreign Expert for Netherlands ","detail":"Chambers Global, 2018-2025"},{"title":"\"He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"International experienced arbitrator, very good proceedings management\"","detail":"JUVE, 2022/23, Quoting"},{"title":"\"He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Fun to work with, very solutions-oriented, keeps his focus and does not get distracted.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Jan Schäfer is a top arbitrator.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Very experienced, especially in investment disputes and energy disputes.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Personally very pleasant to deal with. Excellent, empathetic arbitrator.\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Dr. Jan Schäfer is an excellent chairman in arbitration hearings.\" ","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting"},{"title":"\"Competent interlocutor\"","detail":"JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting client"},{"title":"\"He takes a sharp yet balanced approach in dealing with parties in arbitrations.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2020"},{"title":"\"Great Arbitrator\"","detail":"JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Highly Recommended” in Leaders League’s Best Arbitrators in 2019-2020 Germany List","detail":"Leaders League"},{"title":"\"Top-notch counsel\" and a \"go-to arbitrator.\"","detail":"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020, Quoting peers"},{"title":"\"Approachable and very prompt\" ","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2019, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"Highly structured referee with a wealth of experience\"","detail":"JUVE, 2024/2025, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Persuasive logical argumentation\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting clients"},{"title":"\"One of the leading arbitrators\"","detail":"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"Fast, precise, professional“ ","detail":"JUVE, 2018/2019, Quoting competitors"},{"title":"\"[He] is commercial but also has an in-depth knowledge of the law.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2017"},{"title":"\"One of the strongest practitioners in Germany.\"","detail":"International Who's Who of Commercial Arbitration, 2015"},{"title":"\"Expansive advocacy skills\" and \"good commercial understanding.”","detail":"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2014, Quoting peers"},{"title":"\"He does not look to escalate situations, but to help us save on legal fees.\"","detail":"Chambers Global, 2014"},{"title":"\"Clients appreciate [him] for his efficiency and pragmatic approach.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2014"},{"title":"\"[He] is calm, convincing and firm.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2013"},{"title":"\"A great orator who can convince other people.\"","detail":"Chambers Europe, 2012"},{"title":"45 Under 45","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"Gillis Wetter Prize - London Court of International Arbitration, 2001","detail":"London Court of International Arbitration, 2001"}]},"locales":["en","de"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1167}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-10-23T20:34:44.000Z","updated_at":"2025-10-23T20:34:44.000Z","searchable_text":"Schaefer{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Thought Leader for Arbitration and Commercial Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as \\\"Leading Individual\\\" for Dispute Resolution\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Arbitration: Leading Names in the Market\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE Handbook/German Commercial Law Firms, 2007-2024/25\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as \\\"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\\\" and \\\"Arbitration Counsel\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2017-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2021,2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Lawyer of the Year for International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2020/21\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized one of Germany's Best International Arbitration Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2017-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Foreign Expert for Netherlands \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2018-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"International experienced arbitrator, very good proceedings management\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2022/23, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Fun to work with, very solutions-oriented, keeps his focus and does not get distracted.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2022, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Jan Schäfer is a top arbitrator.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Very experienced, especially in investment disputes and energy disputes.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Personally very pleasant to deal with. Excellent, empathetic arbitrator.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Dr. Jan Schäfer is an excellent chairman in arbitration hearings.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Competent interlocutor\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting client\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He takes a sharp yet balanced approach in dealing with parties in arbitrations.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Great Arbitrator\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting competitors\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Highly Recommended” in Leaders League’s Best Arbitrators in 2019-2020 Germany List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leaders League\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Top-notch counsel\\\" and a \\\"go-to arbitrator.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020, Quoting peers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Approachable and very prompt\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2019, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Highly structured referee with a wealth of experience\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2024/2025, Quoting competitors\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Persuasive logical argumentation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting clients\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"One of the leading arbitrators\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting competitors\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Fast, precise, professional“ \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"JUVE, 2018/2019, Quoting competitors\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"[He] is commercial but also has an in-depth knowledge of the law.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"One of the strongest practitioners in Germany.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"International Who's Who of Commercial Arbitration, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Expansive advocacy skills\\\" and \\\"good commercial understanding.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who Legal Germany, 2014, Quoting peers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He does not look to escalate situations, but to help us save on legal fees.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Clients appreciate [him] for his efficiency and pragmatic approach.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2014\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"[He] is calm, convincing and firm.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2013\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"A great orator who can convince other people.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Europe, 2012\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"45 Under 45\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Arbitration Review, 2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Gillis Wetter Prize - London Court of International Arbitration, 2001\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"London Court of International Arbitration, 2001\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing a jet broker in a dispute with a major European charter airline.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Korean industrial company in an ICC arbitration against Egyptian and Kuwaiti respondents, Paris seat, Egyptian law, English language, multimillion contract termination claim.{{ FIELD }}Representing an Eastern European renewable energy company in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, delivery claims.{{ FIELD }}Representing a U.S. renewable energy company in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, multimillion price-review dispute.{{ FIELD }}Representing a German insurance company in ad hoc arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, German language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute re call-option.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Dutch construction company in DIS arbitration proceedings, Düsseldorf seat, German law, English language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about a net-equity warranty and tort claims.{{ FIELD }}Representing a German automotive company in ICC arbitration proceedings, Paris seat, Egyptian law, multimillion distributorship dispute re commission payment.{{ FIELD }}Representing a German technology company in Swiss Rules arbitration proceedings, Zurich seat, Swiss law, patent-related dispute re ownership dispute workaround technology under consultancy agreement, co-counsel.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Middle Eastern gas company in a multimillion price re-opener dispute, preparation of request for arbitration in ICC arbitration proceedings, Geneva seat, New York law.{{ FIELD }}Representing a U.S agricultural company in ICC arbitration proceedings, Frankfurt-seated, Swiss law, dispute re violation of manufacturing agreement for noncompliance with FDA requirements.{{ FIELD }}Representing various German investors in ICSID cases against Spain (Mathias Kruck and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23 and KS Invest GmbH and TLS Invest GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/25).{{ FIELD }}Representing German and other investors in an ICSID case against Italy (ESPF Beteiligungs GmbH et al. v. The Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5).{{ FIELD }}Advising a German utility company in investment disputes with several Eastern European states about ownership unbundling, case assessment, representing in amicable settlement discussions under the Energy Charter Treaty and the pertinent German bilateral investment treaties.{{ FIELD }}Representing an Eastern European company in malpractice proceedings against a law firm relating to an arbitration before the district court of Munich.{{ FIELD }}Representing a German real estate fund in a dispute with a German bank regarding the liquidation of an open-ended fund.{{ FIELD }}Representing a U.S. technology company in Hague Convention proceedings before German courts for the taking of witness evidence for U.S. court proceedings.{{ FIELD }}Advising a U.S. energy company on enforcement in Germany against assets of a Latin American state arising under a commercial arbitration award.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Dutch construction company in litigation proceedings before the district court in Düsseldorf, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Representing a managing director in litigation proceedings before the district court in Cologne, third-party notice in post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about director’s liability.{{ FIELD }}Representing an international bank in recognition and enforcement proceedings of a Luxembourg judgment in Germany under the Brussels Regulation.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a SCC arbitration, Stockholm seat, Swedish law, dispute relating to the telecommunications industry.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a multi-party ICC arbitration, Vienna seat, Polish law, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Leipzig seat, dispute relating to shareholder information request under corporate law.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Dortmund seat, dispute relating to wind energy project and insurance claims.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration, Polish and German parties, German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Party-appointed arbitrator in a multiparty DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Düsseldorf seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Party-appointed arbitrator in a multi-party NAI arbitration, Dutch parties, Dutch law, English language, Amsterdam seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in an ad hoc arbitration under the arbitration rules of the European Development Funds, Dutch and Dutch Antilles parties, Dutch Antilles law, English language, Curacao seat, dispute about sewage plant.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in an ICC arbitration, Russian and German parties, Swedish law, English language, Stockholm seat, dispute about machine sale.{{ FIELD }}Chairman in a DIS arbitration, German and Luxembourg parties, German law, German language, Frankfurt seat, gas price dispute under take-or-pay contract.{{ FIELD }}Sole Arbitrator in an ICC arbitration, German and Australian parties, German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, industrial plant dispute in food industry.{{ FIELD }}Jan K. Schaefer heads King \u0026amp; Spalding's dispute resolution practice in Germany. He represents foreign and German clients in domestic and international arbitration matters, both commercial and investor-state. He appears before German courts in first- and second-instance matters, including for the taking of evidence for foreign proceedings, interim relief and enforcement applications, and is in high demand as international arbitrator. \nWith substantial trial and arbitration experience, Jan represents clients in post–merger and acquisition, joint venture, distribution, sales and license matters, as well as in foreign investment, construction and energy-related disputes, both within Germany and across international borders.\nJan represents clients as counsel and advocate in complex and high-value domestic and international arbitration proceedings conducted under various arbitration rules, including those of the ICC, DIS (German Institute of Arbitration), SCC (Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce), and ICSID in multiple venues. He also has experience in ad hoc proceedings under the UNCITRAL Rules.\nJan regularly advises clients on compliance and corruption issues. In several post-M\u0026amp;A matters, he has closely cooperated with criminal defense counsel to align strategies.\nJan has served as chairman, party-appointed, sole or emergency arbitrator in some 70 arbitrations under a variety of rules, including ad hoc proceedings. He also advises clients on effective, efficient resolution of disputes at early stages, including the use of alternative dispute resolution techniques.\nJan has been recognized as leader in his field by Chambers Global, Chambers Europe, Legal 500, JUVE and other leading legal guides. He was named Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration by Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers 2021/22. JUVE and Legal 500 have been naming Jan a \"Leading Name\" for Arbitration for many years.\nJan is a board member of the DIS, the SCC and the Dutch Arbitration Association and a member of the ICC Commission on Arbitration and ADR. He is a member of the Litigation Committee of the German Federal Bar Association (BRAK). He speaks English, German, Dutch and some French.\n  Partner Thought Leader for Arbitration and Commercial Litigation  Lexology Index (formerly Who's Who Legal) 2025 Recognized as \"Leading Individual\" for Dispute Resolution Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019-2025 Arbitration: Leading Names in the Market JUVE Handbook/German Commercial Law Firms, 2007-2024/25 Recognized as \"Most In-Demand Arbitrator\" and \"Arbitration Counsel\" Chambers Global, 2017-2025 Lawyer of the Year for Arbitration Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2021,2024 Lawyer of the Year for International Arbitration Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2020/21 Recognized one of Germany's Best International Arbitration Lawyers Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers, 2017-2025 Foreign Expert for Netherlands  Chambers Global, 2018-2025 \"He is very intelligent in how he proceeds with issues and also has a friendly disposition.\" Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients \"He is a very insightful strategic adviser with really good [...] instincts for the best way to manage the dispute.\" Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients \"Jan Schaefer conveys the gravitas of an arbitrator really well.\" Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients \"International experienced arbitrator, very good proceedings management\" JUVE, 2022/23, Quoting \"He [...] has long experience and knows how to deal with situations and has international experience.\" Chambers Europe 2023, Quoting clients \"Fun to work with, very solutions-oriented, keeps his focus and does not get distracted.\" Chambers Europe, 2022, Quoting \"Jan Schäfer is a top arbitrator.\" Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting \"Very experienced, especially in investment disputes and energy disputes.\" Legal 500 Deutschland, Quoting \"Personally very pleasant to deal with. Excellent, empathetic arbitrator.\" Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting \"Dr. Jan Schäfer is an excellent chairman in arbitration hearings.\"  Legal 500 Deutschland 2022, Quoting \"Competent interlocutor\" JUVE, 2021/22, Quoting client \"He takes a sharp yet balanced approach in dealing with parties in arbitrations.\" Chambers Europe, 2020 \"Great Arbitrator\" JUVE, 2020/21, Quoting competitors \"Highly Recommended” in Leaders League’s Best Arbitrators in 2019-2020 Germany List Leaders League \"Top-notch counsel\" and a \"go-to arbitrator.\" Who's Who Legal Germany, 2020, Quoting peers \"Approachable and very prompt\"  Chambers Europe, 2019, Quoting clients \"Highly structured referee with a wealth of experience\" JUVE, 2024/2025, Quoting competitors \"Persuasive logical argumentation\" Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting clients \"One of the leading arbitrators\" Legal 500 Deutschland, 2019, Quoting competitors \"Fast, precise, professional“  JUVE, 2018/2019, Quoting competitors \"[He] is commercial but also has an in-depth knowledge of the law.\" Chambers Global, 2017 \"One of the strongest practitioners in Germany.\" International Who's Who of Commercial Arbitration, 2015 \"Expansive advocacy skills\" and \"good commercial understanding.” Who's Who Legal Germany, 2014, Quoting peers \"He does not look to escalate situations, but to help us save on legal fees.\" Chambers Global, 2014 \"Clients appreciate [him] for his efficiency and pragmatic approach.\" Chambers Europe, 2014 \"[He] is calm, convincing and firm.\" Chambers Europe, 2013 \"A great orator who can convince other people.\" Chambers Europe, 2012 45 Under 45 Global Arbitration Review, 2011 Gillis Wetter Prize - London Court of International Arbitration, 2001 London Court of International Arbitration, 2001 Frankfurt Frankfurt Court of Appeals Frankfurt, Germany (#135101) Representing a jet broker in a dispute with a major European charter airline. Representing a Korean industrial company in an ICC arbitration against Egyptian and Kuwaiti respondents, Paris seat, Egyptian law, English language, multimillion contract termination claim. Representing an Eastern European renewable energy company in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, delivery claims. Representing a U.S. renewable energy company in DIS arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, English language, multimillion price-review dispute. Representing a German insurance company in ad hoc arbitration proceedings, German seat, German law, German language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute re call-option. Representing a Dutch construction company in DIS arbitration proceedings, Düsseldorf seat, German law, English language, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about a net-equity warranty and tort claims. Representing a German automotive company in ICC arbitration proceedings, Paris seat, Egyptian law, multimillion distributorship dispute re commission payment. Representing a German technology company in Swiss Rules arbitration proceedings, Zurich seat, Swiss law, patent-related dispute re ownership dispute workaround technology under consultancy agreement, co-counsel. Representing a Middle Eastern gas company in a multimillion price re-opener dispute, preparation of request for arbitration in ICC arbitration proceedings, Geneva seat, New York law. Representing a U.S agricultural company in ICC arbitration proceedings, Frankfurt-seated, Swiss law, dispute re violation of manufacturing agreement for noncompliance with FDA requirements. Representing various German investors in ICSID cases against Spain (Mathias Kruck and others v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/23 and KS Invest GmbH and TLS Invest GmbH v. Kingdom of Spain, ICSID Case No. ARB/15/25). Representing German and other investors in an ICSID case against Italy (ESPF Beteiligungs GmbH et al. v. The Italian Republic (ICSID Case No. ARB/16/5). Advising a German utility company in investment disputes with several Eastern European states about ownership unbundling, case assessment, representing in amicable settlement discussions under the Energy Charter Treaty and the pertinent German bilateral investment treaties. Representing an Eastern European company in malpractice proceedings against a law firm relating to an arbitration before the district court of Munich. Representing a German real estate fund in a dispute with a German bank regarding the liquidation of an open-ended fund. Representing a U.S. technology company in Hague Convention proceedings before German courts for the taking of witness evidence for U.S. court proceedings. Advising a U.S. energy company on enforcement in Germany against assets of a Latin American state arising under a commercial arbitration award. Representing a Dutch construction company in litigation proceedings before the district court in Düsseldorf, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Representing a managing director in litigation proceedings before the district court in Cologne, third-party notice in post-M\u0026amp;A dispute about director’s liability. Representing an international bank in recognition and enforcement proceedings of a Luxembourg judgment in Germany under the Brussels Regulation. Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine. Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine. Representing a Canadian technology company in independent expert proceedings relating to the sale of a glazing machine. Chairman in a SCC arbitration, Stockholm seat, Swedish law, dispute relating to the telecommunications industry. Chairman in a multi-party ICC arbitration, Vienna seat, Polish law, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Chairman in a DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Leipzig seat, dispute relating to shareholder information request under corporate law. Chairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Dortmund seat, dispute relating to wind energy project and insurance claims. Chairman in a multiparty DIS arbitration, Polish and German parties, German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Party-appointed arbitrator in a multiparty DIS arbitration, German parties, German law, German language, Düsseldorf seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Party-appointed arbitrator in a multi-party NAI arbitration, Dutch parties, Dutch law, English language, Amsterdam seat, post-M\u0026amp;A dispute. Chairman in an ad hoc arbitration under the arbitration rules of the European Development Funds, Dutch and Dutch Antilles parties, Dutch Antilles law, English language, Curacao seat, dispute about sewage plant. Chairman in an ICC arbitration, Russian and German parties, Swedish law, English language, Stockholm seat, dispute about machine sale. Chairman in a DIS arbitration, German and Luxembourg parties, German law, German language, Frankfurt seat, gas price dispute under take-or-pay contract. Sole Arbitrator in an ICC arbitration, German and Australian parties, German law, English language, Frankfurt seat, industrial plant dispute in food industry.","searchable_name":"Jan K. Schaefer","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444838,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5012,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJennifer is an experienced mass tort litigator who counsels companies facing high profile product liability litigation.\u0026nbsp; She specializes in the portfolio management of mass litigation and strategic resolution of large-scale matters. Jennifer is a member of King \u0026amp; Spalding's automotive industry and class action litigation teams.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJennifer serves on national counsel teams coordinating the litigation, resolution and trial of thousands of matters for individual clients.\u0026nbsp; She also works with clients to resolve large-scale and high profile class actions brought by individual plaintiffs and state attorneys general.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"xmsonormal\"\u003eJennifer maintains an active involvement with the Deutsch-Amerikanische Juristen-Vereinigung, e.V., a German-American lawyers' bar association and has presented numerous times in Frankfurt, Germany on the pathway for foreign clients to successfully navigate the U.S. tort system. She is a native German speaker and has worked on product liability and financial crisis matters in Germany and Canada in addition to the United States.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"xmsonormal\"\u003eJennifer is not admitted to practice in Germany.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jennifer-schramm","email":"jschramm@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":2,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Schramm","nick_name":"Jennifer","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jennifer","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":722,"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":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJennifer is an experienced mass tort litigator who counsels companies facing high profile product liability litigation.\u0026nbsp; She specializes in the portfolio management of mass litigation and strategic resolution of large-scale matters. Jennifer is a member of King \u0026amp; Spalding's automotive industry and class action litigation teams.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJennifer serves on national counsel teams coordinating the litigation, resolution and trial of thousands of matters for individual clients.\u0026nbsp; She also works with clients to resolve large-scale and high profile class actions brought by individual plaintiffs and state attorneys general.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"xmsonormal\"\u003eJennifer maintains an active involvement with the Deutsch-Amerikanische Juristen-Vereinigung, e.V., a German-American lawyers' bar association and has presented numerous times in Frankfurt, Germany on the pathway for foreign clients to successfully navigate the U.S. tort system. She is a native German speaker and has worked on product liability and financial crisis matters in Germany and Canada in addition to the United States.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp class=\"xmsonormal\"\u003eJennifer is not admitted to practice in Germany.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5676}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-07T04:55:48.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-07T04:55:48.000Z","searchable_text":"Schramm{{ FIELD }}Jennifer is an experienced mass tort litigator who counsels companies facing high profile product liability litigation.  She specializes in the portfolio management of mass litigation and strategic resolution of large-scale matters. Jennifer is a member of King \u0026amp; Spalding's automotive industry and class action litigation teams. \nJennifer serves on national counsel teams coordinating the litigation, resolution and trial of thousands of matters for individual clients.  She also works with clients to resolve large-scale and high profile class actions brought by individual plaintiffs and state attorneys general.  \nJennifer maintains an active involvement with the Deutsch-Amerikanische Juristen-Vereinigung, e.V., a German-American lawyers' bar association and has presented numerous times in Frankfurt, Germany on the pathway for foreign clients to successfully navigate the U.S. tort system. She is a native German speaker and has worked on product liability and financial crisis matters in Germany and Canada in addition to the United States.\nJennifer is not admitted to practice in Germany. Partner New York University New York University School of Law 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 Connecticut New York Fordham Law School Recent Alumni Committee Member of the Deutsch-Amerikanische Juristen-Vereinigung e.V. (German-American Lawyers’ Organization )","searchable_name":"Jennifer Schramm","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426596,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5009,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJacqueline Seidel is a New York-based partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Seidel defends multi-national companies in complex class and mass action litigation pending in both state and federal court. She frequently\u0026nbsp;partners with clients at the outset of a matter to develop\u0026nbsp;and implement all-inclusive\u0026nbsp;exit strategies for large-scale bet-the-company litigation. Often, such strategies include liaising with clients and virtual law firms to plan a long term, systematic exit strategy and/or global resolution, structuring and implementing court-approved comprehensive settlement programs and successfully resolving large groups of cases.\u0026nbsp;She has also successfully managed - as either national coordinating counsel or as strategic counsel - putative class, mass and individual actions alleging false advertising, unfair business practices, unfair and deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, consumer protection, and a wide range of common law personal injury and property damage claims.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn recognition of her work representing Fortune 500 automotive and pharmaceutical and medical device companies in bet-the-company litigation, she has been named a New York \"Rising Star\" in class action and product liability defense by Super Lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile Ms. Seidel has represented clients in a wide range of industries, including the automobile, safety equipment, pharmaceutical, medical device, consumer goods, insurance, reinsurance and media industries, recently her practice has centered on negotiating and executing resolutions of some of the largest and most complex litigations in the automotive industry.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Seidel represented client, Toyota, in its settlements of the \u0026ldquo;unintended acceleration\u0026rdquo; economic loss class actions that involved the consolidation of nearly 200 class actions and required close coordination of efforts with the client\u0026rsquo;s virtual law firm partners handling various aspects of the litigation and governmental/regulatory investigations.\u0026nbsp; At the time this class action litigation was settled, it represented the largest automotive settlement in US history.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Seidel was also involved in the establishment of a court-ordered \u0026ldquo;intensive settlement process\u0026rdquo; for the related personal injury and wrongful death product liability cases.\u0026nbsp; This settlement process effectively resolved the majority of individual product liability cases in the litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Seidel also assisted in the negotiations and drafted relevant documents for resolving another billion-dollar class action settlement on behalf of Toyota resulting from the Takata airbag recall that implicated multiple automobile manufacturers and she continues to manage and coordinate roll-out of the multi-year settlement relief.\u0026nbsp; This settlement was finally approved\u0026nbsp;in 2017 and set the tone for subsequent similar settlements by several other auto manufacturers.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Seidel has also successfully resolved other class actions including the Sienna sliding door and Prius IPM class action settlements (the latter\u0026nbsp;is awaiting final approval).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Ms. Seidel was part of the team that successfully resolved hundreds of matters on behalf of an integrated energy company involving product liability allegations related to a certain herbicide.\u0026nbsp; The cases were brought \u0026nbsp;by the litigation\u0026rsquo;s highest-threat plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; counsel and many were pending in one of the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country (St Clair County, IL) including a four-case consolidated trial setting that was resolved at the eve of trial.\u0026nbsp; Since the resolution of those cases, thousands of lawsuits have been filed by individuals who were exposed to the product at issue and Ms. Seidel continues\u0026nbsp;to serve as co-strategic counsel in these cases.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jacqueline-seidel","email":"jseidel@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eImplemented a strategy to resolve, on behalf of one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest pharmaceutical companies, a prescription drug litigation involving medication to treat Parkinson's Disease.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a medical device manufacturer in one of the largest nationwide product liability litigations. Assisted in the development of a comprehensive resolution strategy that effectively decreased the number of active filed cases from thousands to just over one hundred cases. Negotiated and drafted relevant documents for various firm-specific global settlement agreements and negotiated and mediated individual cases to successful resolution in federal and state court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOversees and executes on innovative strategy to resolve individual automobile product liability cases in federal multi district litigation, state consolidated litigation and other state court cases through court-ordered intensive settlement programs.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Seidel","nick_name":"Jacquie","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jacqueline","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2619,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2003-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as an \"automotive industry expert.\"","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2023"},{"title":"Named a \"Top Attorney Under 40\" - Product Liability","detail":"Law360, 2018"},{"title":"Named a “Rising Star” - Class Action \u0026 Mass Torts","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015 - 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJacqueline Seidel is a New York-based partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Seidel defends multi-national companies in complex class and mass action litigation pending in both state and federal court. She frequently\u0026nbsp;partners with clients at the outset of a matter to develop\u0026nbsp;and implement all-inclusive\u0026nbsp;exit strategies for large-scale bet-the-company litigation. Often, such strategies include liaising with clients and virtual law firms to plan a long term, systematic exit strategy and/or global resolution, structuring and implementing court-approved comprehensive settlement programs and successfully resolving large groups of cases.\u0026nbsp;She has also successfully managed - as either national coordinating counsel or as strategic counsel - putative class, mass and individual actions alleging false advertising, unfair business practices, unfair and deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, consumer protection, and a wide range of common law personal injury and property damage claims.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn recognition of her work representing Fortune 500 automotive and pharmaceutical and medical device companies in bet-the-company litigation, she has been named a New York \"Rising Star\" in class action and product liability defense by Super Lawyers.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile Ms. Seidel has represented clients in a wide range of industries, including the automobile, safety equipment, pharmaceutical, medical device, consumer goods, insurance, reinsurance and media industries, recently her practice has centered on negotiating and executing resolutions of some of the largest and most complex litigations in the automotive industry.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Seidel represented client, Toyota, in its settlements of the \u0026ldquo;unintended acceleration\u0026rdquo; economic loss class actions that involved the consolidation of nearly 200 class actions and required close coordination of efforts with the client\u0026rsquo;s virtual law firm partners handling various aspects of the litigation and governmental/regulatory investigations.\u0026nbsp; At the time this class action litigation was settled, it represented the largest automotive settlement in US history.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Seidel was also involved in the establishment of a court-ordered \u0026ldquo;intensive settlement process\u0026rdquo; for the related personal injury and wrongful death product liability cases.\u0026nbsp; This settlement process effectively resolved the majority of individual product liability cases in the litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMs. Seidel also assisted in the negotiations and drafted relevant documents for resolving another billion-dollar class action settlement on behalf of Toyota resulting from the Takata airbag recall that implicated multiple automobile manufacturers and she continues to manage and coordinate roll-out of the multi-year settlement relief.\u0026nbsp; This settlement was finally approved\u0026nbsp;in 2017 and set the tone for subsequent similar settlements by several other auto manufacturers.\u0026nbsp; Ms. Seidel has also successfully resolved other class actions including the Sienna sliding door and Prius IPM class action settlements (the latter\u0026nbsp;is awaiting final approval).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRecently, Ms. Seidel was part of the team that successfully resolved hundreds of matters on behalf of an integrated energy company involving product liability allegations related to a certain herbicide.\u0026nbsp; The cases were brought \u0026nbsp;by the litigation\u0026rsquo;s highest-threat plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; counsel and many were pending in one of the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country (St Clair County, IL) including a four-case consolidated trial setting that was resolved at the eve of trial.\u0026nbsp; Since the resolution of those cases, thousands of lawsuits have been filed by individuals who were exposed to the product at issue and Ms. Seidel continues\u0026nbsp;to serve as co-strategic counsel in these cases.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eImplemented a strategy to resolve, on behalf of one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest pharmaceutical companies, a prescription drug litigation involving medication to treat Parkinson's Disease.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a medical device manufacturer in one of the largest nationwide product liability litigations. Assisted in the development of a comprehensive resolution strategy that effectively decreased the number of active filed cases from thousands to just over one hundred cases. Negotiated and drafted relevant documents for various firm-specific global settlement agreements and negotiated and mediated individual cases to successful resolution in federal and state court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eOversees and executes on innovative strategy to resolve individual automobile product liability cases in federal multi district litigation, state consolidated litigation and other state court cases through court-ordered intensive settlement programs.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Recognized as an \"automotive industry expert.\"","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2023"},{"title":"Named a \"Top Attorney Under 40\" - Product Liability","detail":"Law360, 2018"},{"title":"Named a “Rising Star” - Class Action \u0026 Mass Torts","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2015 - 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5142}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:55:06.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:55:06.000Z","searchable_text":"Seidel{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as an \\\"automotive industry expert.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a \\\"Top Attorney Under 40\\\" - Product Liability\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a “Rising Star” - Class Action \u0026amp; Mass Torts\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2015 - 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Implemented a strategy to resolve, on behalf of one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, a prescription drug litigation involving medication to treat Parkinson's Disease.{{ FIELD }}Represented a medical device manufacturer in one of the largest nationwide product liability litigations. Assisted in the development of a comprehensive resolution strategy that effectively decreased the number of active filed cases from thousands to just over one hundred cases. Negotiated and drafted relevant documents for various firm-specific global settlement agreements and negotiated and mediated individual cases to successful resolution in federal and state court.{{ FIELD }}Oversees and executes on innovative strategy to resolve individual automobile product liability cases in federal multi district litigation, state consolidated litigation and other state court cases through court-ordered intensive settlement programs.{{ FIELD }}Jacqueline Seidel is a New York-based partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice.  Ms. Seidel defends multi-national companies in complex class and mass action litigation pending in both state and federal court. She frequently partners with clients at the outset of a matter to develop and implement all-inclusive exit strategies for large-scale bet-the-company litigation. Often, such strategies include liaising with clients and virtual law firms to plan a long term, systematic exit strategy and/or global resolution, structuring and implementing court-approved comprehensive settlement programs and successfully resolving large groups of cases. She has also successfully managed - as either national coordinating counsel or as strategic counsel - putative class, mass and individual actions alleging false advertising, unfair business practices, unfair and deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, consumer protection, and a wide range of common law personal injury and property damage claims.\nIn recognition of her work representing Fortune 500 automotive and pharmaceutical and medical device companies in bet-the-company litigation, she has been named a New York \"Rising Star\" in class action and product liability defense by Super Lawyers.\nWhile Ms. Seidel has represented clients in a wide range of industries, including the automobile, safety equipment, pharmaceutical, medical device, consumer goods, insurance, reinsurance and media industries, recently her practice has centered on negotiating and executing resolutions of some of the largest and most complex litigations in the automotive industry. \nMs. Seidel represented client, Toyota, in its settlements of the “unintended acceleration” economic loss class actions that involved the consolidation of nearly 200 class actions and required close coordination of efforts with the client’s virtual law firm partners handling various aspects of the litigation and governmental/regulatory investigations.  At the time this class action litigation was settled, it represented the largest automotive settlement in US history.  Ms. Seidel was also involved in the establishment of a court-ordered “intensive settlement process” for the related personal injury and wrongful death product liability cases.  This settlement process effectively resolved the majority of individual product liability cases in the litigation. \nMs. Seidel also assisted in the negotiations and drafted relevant documents for resolving another billion-dollar class action settlement on behalf of Toyota resulting from the Takata airbag recall that implicated multiple automobile manufacturers and she continues to manage and coordinate roll-out of the multi-year settlement relief.  This settlement was finally approved in 2017 and set the tone for subsequent similar settlements by several other auto manufacturers.  Ms. Seidel has also successfully resolved other class actions including the Sienna sliding door and Prius IPM class action settlements (the latter is awaiting final approval).\nRecently, Ms. Seidel was part of the team that successfully resolved hundreds of matters on behalf of an integrated energy company involving product liability allegations related to a certain herbicide.  The cases were brought  by the litigation’s highest-threat plaintiffs’ counsel and many were pending in one of the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country (St Clair County, IL) including a four-case consolidated trial setting that was resolved at the eve of trial.  Since the resolution of those cases, thousands of lawsuits have been filed by individuals who were exposed to the product at issue and Ms. Seidel continues to serve as co-strategic counsel in these cases. Partner Recognized as an \"automotive industry expert.\" Legal 500 US, 2023 Named a \"Top Attorney Under 40\" - Product Liability Law360, 2018 Named a “Rising Star” - Class Action \u0026amp; Mass Torts Super Lawyers, 2015 - 2018 Columbia University Columbia University School of Law Yeshiva University Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Implemented a strategy to resolve, on behalf of one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, a prescription drug litigation involving medication to treat Parkinson's Disease. Represented a medical device manufacturer in one of the largest nationwide product liability litigations. Assisted in the development of a comprehensive resolution strategy that effectively decreased the number of active filed cases from thousands to just over one hundred cases. Negotiated and drafted relevant documents for various firm-specific global settlement agreements and negotiated and mediated individual cases to successful resolution in federal and state court. Oversees and executes on innovative strategy to resolve individual automobile product liability cases in federal multi district litigation, state consolidated litigation and other state court cases through court-ordered intensive settlement programs.","searchable_name":"Jacqueline Seidel (Jacquie)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442925,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":4147,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMark Sentenac is a Partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Products Liability \u0026amp; Mass Torts group. His practice focuses on defending life sciences, technology, social media, automotive, tobacco, and mining companies in all phases of mass tort, product liability, and cutting-edge \u0026ldquo;tech tort\u0026rdquo; litigation across the country. Mark has extensive experience helping companies navigate increasingly risky and complex discovery issues in mass tort litigation. This includes serving as lead discovery counsel to TikTok in the \u003cem\u003eIn re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, Boehringer Ingelheim in the nationwide\u003cem\u003e Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, and General Motors in its California breach of warranty docket. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark has also been at the forefront of advising companies on the potential product liability risks of implementing AI and routinely engaged by clients and industry groups\u0026mdash;including AdvaMed, the world\u0026rsquo;s largest medical device association\u0026mdash;to share his insights. He is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s AI/ML Tactical Operations team and leads the Product Liability \u0026amp; Mass Tort group\u0026rsquo;s technology and innovation initiatives seeking to achieve better results and drive efficiencies for clients and the firm through implementation of new technologies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark\u0026nbsp;is also widely published on cutting edge litigation issues of significance to\u0026nbsp;the life sciences industry, including\u0026nbsp;M\u003cem\u003eitigating Risks of Developing Drugs and Devices with AI\u003c/em\u003e, Law360 (Jul.\u0026nbsp;2023)\u0026mdash;named\u0026nbsp;by Law360 as\u0026nbsp;a Top Guest Article for 2023\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eMedical Device Makers Must Review Approach After California Case\u003c/em\u003e, Bloomberg Law (Jul. 2024),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFDA\u0026rsquo;s Essure Order Affirms Role of Learned Intermediary\u003c/em\u003e, Law360 (Apr 2018),\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWill The Learned Intermediary Doctrine Survive A New Paradigm?\u003c/em\u003e, Law360 (Jan 2017).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"mark-sentenac","email":"msentenac@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eMember of team serving as national coordinating and trial counsel in nationwide product liability litigation involving a leading pharmaceutical company\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant medication.\u0026nbsp; Mark\u0026rsquo;s experience includes trial preparation and briefing dispositive and pre-trial motions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as national coordinating counsel for a multinational medical device manufacturer in claims related to its orthopedic products, including representing the manufacturer before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of team advising multinational pharmaceutical company on recall of popular consumer health product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of team serving as national trial counsel for medical device manufacturer in multidistrict litigation involving manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s surgical mesh products.\u0026nbsp; Mark\u0026rsquo;s experience included preparing manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s subject matter experts in device design for trial, taking percipient witness depositions throughout the country, briefing dispositive and pre-trial motions, and advising company during investigations by states\u0026rsquo; attorneys general.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of team representing manufacturer in nationwide litigation involving its complex implantable neurological medical devices.\u0026nbsp; Mark\u0026rsquo;s experience includes working with company\u0026rsquo;s subject matter experts on complex scientific fields, briefing complex issues of federal preemption, including successfully defending favorable result before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and coordinating large-scale electronic discovery.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":0,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1202,"guid":"1202.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Sentenac","nick_name":"Mark","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Mark","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2378,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna Cum Laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2012-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"www.linkedin.com/in/marksentenac","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMark Sentenac is a Partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s Products Liability \u0026amp; Mass Torts group. His practice focuses on defending life sciences, technology, social media, automotive, tobacco, and mining companies in all phases of mass tort, product liability, and cutting-edge \u0026ldquo;tech tort\u0026rdquo; litigation across the country. Mark has extensive experience helping companies navigate increasingly risky and complex discovery issues in mass tort litigation. This includes serving as lead discovery counsel to TikTok in the \u003cem\u003eIn re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, Boehringer Ingelheim in the nationwide\u003cem\u003e Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, and General Motors in its California breach of warranty docket. \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark has also been at the forefront of advising companies on the potential product liability risks of implementing AI and routinely engaged by clients and industry groups\u0026mdash;including AdvaMed, the world\u0026rsquo;s largest medical device association\u0026mdash;to share his insights. He is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s AI/ML Tactical Operations team and leads the Product Liability \u0026amp; Mass Tort group\u0026rsquo;s technology and innovation initiatives seeking to achieve better results and drive efficiencies for clients and the firm through implementation of new technologies.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMark\u0026nbsp;is also widely published on cutting edge litigation issues of significance to\u0026nbsp;the life sciences industry, including\u0026nbsp;M\u003cem\u003eitigating Risks of Developing Drugs and Devices with AI\u003c/em\u003e, Law360 (Jul.\u0026nbsp;2023)\u0026mdash;named\u0026nbsp;by Law360 as\u0026nbsp;a Top Guest Article for 2023\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eMedical Device Makers Must Review Approach After California Case\u003c/em\u003e, Bloomberg Law (Jul. 2024),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFDA\u0026rsquo;s Essure Order Affirms Role of Learned Intermediary\u003c/em\u003e, Law360 (Apr 2018),\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWill The Learned Intermediary Doctrine Survive A New Paradigm?\u003c/em\u003e, Law360 (Jan 2017).\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eMember of team serving as national coordinating and trial counsel in nationwide product liability litigation involving a leading pharmaceutical company\u0026rsquo;s antidepressant medication.\u0026nbsp; Mark\u0026rsquo;s experience includes trial preparation and briefing dispositive and pre-trial motions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eActed as national coordinating counsel for a multinational medical device manufacturer in claims related to its orthopedic products, including representing the manufacturer before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of team advising multinational pharmaceutical company on recall of popular consumer health product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of team serving as national trial counsel for medical device manufacturer in multidistrict litigation involving manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s surgical mesh products.\u0026nbsp; Mark\u0026rsquo;s experience included preparing manufacturer\u0026rsquo;s subject matter experts in device design for trial, taking percipient witness depositions throughout the country, briefing dispositive and pre-trial motions, and advising company during investigations by states\u0026rsquo; attorneys general.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eMember of team representing manufacturer in nationwide litigation involving its complex implantable neurological medical devices.\u0026nbsp; Mark\u0026rsquo;s experience includes working with company\u0026rsquo;s subject matter experts on complex scientific fields, briefing complex issues of federal preemption, including successfully defending favorable result before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and coordinating large-scale electronic discovery.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1177}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-17T17:02:33.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-17T17:02:33.000Z","searchable_text":"Sentenac{{ FIELD }}Member of team serving as national coordinating and trial counsel in nationwide product liability litigation involving a leading pharmaceutical company’s antidepressant medication.  Mark’s experience includes trial preparation and briefing dispositive and pre-trial motions. {{ FIELD }}Acted as national coordinating counsel for a multinational medical device manufacturer in claims related to its orthopedic products, including representing the manufacturer before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. {{ FIELD }}Member of team advising multinational pharmaceutical company on recall of popular consumer health product.{{ FIELD }}Member of team serving as national trial counsel for medical device manufacturer in multidistrict litigation involving manufacturer’s surgical mesh products.  Mark’s experience included preparing manufacturer’s subject matter experts in device design for trial, taking percipient witness depositions throughout the country, briefing dispositive and pre-trial motions, and advising company during investigations by states’ attorneys general. {{ FIELD }}Member of team representing manufacturer in nationwide litigation involving its complex implantable neurological medical devices.  Mark’s experience includes working with company’s subject matter experts on complex scientific fields, briefing complex issues of federal preemption, including successfully defending favorable result before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and coordinating large-scale electronic discovery. {{ FIELD }}Mark Sentenac is a Partner in King \u0026amp; Spalding’s Products Liability \u0026amp; Mass Torts group. His practice focuses on defending life sciences, technology, social media, automotive, tobacco, and mining companies in all phases of mass tort, product liability, and cutting-edge “tech tort” litigation across the country. Mark has extensive experience helping companies navigate increasingly risky and complex discovery issues in mass tort litigation. This includes serving as lead discovery counsel to TikTok in the In re Social Media Adolescent Addiction/Personal Injury Litigation, Boehringer Ingelheim in the nationwide Zantac (Ranitidine) Products Liability Litigation, and General Motors in its California breach of warranty docket.  \nMark has also been at the forefront of advising companies on the potential product liability risks of implementing AI and routinely engaged by clients and industry groups—including AdvaMed, the world’s largest medical device association—to share his insights. He is a member of the firm’s AI/ML Tactical Operations team and leads the Product Liability \u0026amp; Mass Tort group’s technology and innovation initiatives seeking to achieve better results and drive efficiencies for clients and the firm through implementation of new technologies.\nMark is also widely published on cutting edge litigation issues of significance to the life sciences industry, including Mitigating Risks of Developing Drugs and Devices with AI, Law360 (Jul. 2023)—named by Law360 as a Top Guest Article for 2023—Medical Device Makers Must Review Approach After California Case, Bloomberg Law (Jul. 2024), FDA’s Essure Order Affirms Role of Learned Intermediary, Law360 (Apr 2018), and Will The Learned Intermediary Doctrine Survive A New Paradigm?, Law360 (Jan 2017).   Partner University of California-Santa Barbara  University of San Francisco University of San Francisco School of Law 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 Georgia Member of team serving as national coordinating and trial counsel in nationwide product liability litigation involving a leading pharmaceutical company’s antidepressant medication.  Mark’s experience includes trial preparation and briefing dispositive and pre-trial motions.  Acted as national coordinating counsel for a multinational medical device manufacturer in claims related to its orthopedic products, including representing the manufacturer before the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.  Member of team advising multinational pharmaceutical company on recall of popular consumer health product. Member of team serving as national trial counsel for medical device manufacturer in multidistrict litigation involving manufacturer’s surgical mesh products.  Mark’s experience included preparing manufacturer’s subject matter experts in device design for trial, taking percipient witness depositions throughout the country, briefing dispositive and pre-trial motions, and advising company during investigations by states’ attorneys general.  Member of team representing manufacturer in nationwide litigation involving its complex implantable neurological medical devices.  Mark’s experience includes working with company’s subject matter experts on complex scientific fields, briefing complex issues of federal preemption, including successfully defending favorable result before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and coordinating large-scale electronic discovery. ","searchable_name":"Mark Sentenac","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":445481,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5013,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJessica Shook is a partner in the Chicago office of King \u0026amp; Spalding who defends multi-national companies in complex class and mass action litigation pending in both state and federal court.\u0026nbsp; With experience in all phases of complex litigation, Jessica represents companies in individual, class action and multi-district proceedings across the country.\u0026nbsp; Her practice concentrates on representing clients in litigations alleging false advertising, unfair business practices, unfair and deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, consumer protection, and a wide range of common law personal injury and property damage claims.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJessica has represented clients in a wide range of industries, including some of the largest automobile manufacturers, consumer product manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and medical device manufacturers.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJessica earned her J.D. at Georgetown University Law Center in 2007.\u0026nbsp; While in law school, she was awarded the International Academy of Trial Lawyers 2007 Student Advocacy Award,\u0026nbsp;coached the 2006 Washington D.C. Street Law Mock Trial Championship Team, and was the Director of Schools\u0026nbsp;of the only student-ran law school mock trial tournament, the William H. Greenhalgh Mock Trial Competition.\u0026nbsp; Prior to law school, she was named the first female member of the University of Iowa Mock Trial Hall of Fame.\u0026nbsp; She\u0026nbsp;is also committed to\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;work, including assisting DACA applicants with their applications.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdmitted in Illinois and New York\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"jessica-shook","email":"jshook@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3309}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Shook","nick_name":"Jessica","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Jessica","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":755,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2007-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"K.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Jessica Shook is a counsel in the New York City office of King \u0026 Spalding. Read more about her.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJessica Shook is a partner in the Chicago office of King \u0026amp; Spalding who defends multi-national companies in complex class and mass action litigation pending in both state and federal court.\u0026nbsp; With experience in all phases of complex litigation, Jessica represents companies in individual, class action and multi-district proceedings across the country.\u0026nbsp; Her practice concentrates on representing clients in litigations alleging false advertising, unfair business practices, unfair and deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, consumer protection, and a wide range of common law personal injury and property damage claims.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJessica has represented clients in a wide range of industries, including some of the largest automobile manufacturers, consumer product manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and medical device manufacturers.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eJessica earned her J.D. at Georgetown University Law Center in 2007.\u0026nbsp; While in law school, she was awarded the International Academy of Trial Lawyers 2007 Student Advocacy Award,\u0026nbsp;coached the 2006 Washington D.C. Street Law Mock Trial Championship Team, and was the Director of Schools\u0026nbsp;of the only student-ran law school mock trial tournament, the William H. Greenhalgh Mock Trial Competition.\u0026nbsp; Prior to law school, she was named the first female member of the University of Iowa Mock Trial Hall of Fame.\u0026nbsp; She\u0026nbsp;is also committed to\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;work, including assisting DACA applicants with their applications.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdmitted in Illinois and New York\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5674}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-02T20:00:48.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-02T20:00:48.000Z","searchable_text":"Shook{{ FIELD }}Jessica Shook is a partner in the Chicago office of King \u0026amp; Spalding who defends multi-national companies in complex class and mass action litigation pending in both state and federal court.  With experience in all phases of complex litigation, Jessica represents companies in individual, class action and multi-district proceedings across the country.  Her practice concentrates on representing clients in litigations alleging false advertising, unfair business practices, unfair and deceptive trade practices, consumer fraud, consumer protection, and a wide range of common law personal injury and property damage claims. \nJessica has represented clients in a wide range of industries, including some of the largest automobile manufacturers, consumer product manufacturers, pharmaceutical manufacturers, and medical device manufacturers. \nJessica earned her J.D. at Georgetown University Law Center in 2007.  While in law school, she was awarded the International Academy of Trial Lawyers 2007 Student Advocacy Award, coached the 2006 Washington D.C. Street Law Mock Trial Championship Team, and was the Director of Schools of the only student-ran law school mock trial tournament, the William H. Greenhalgh Mock Trial Competition.  Prior to law school, she was named the first female member of the University of Iowa Mock Trial Hall of Fame.  She is also committed to pro bono work, including assisting DACA applicants with their applications. \nAdmitted in Illinois and New York Jessica Shook lawyer Partner Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Illinois New York","searchable_name":"Jessica K. Shook","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442418,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1470,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDarren focuses his practice on the defense of\u0026nbsp;high-stakes\u0026nbsp;ERISA litigation matters.\u0026nbsp; He defends leading companies\u0026nbsp;in a variety of ERISA class actions involving retirement\u0026nbsp;plan investments, breach of fiduciary duty claims, and other complex employee benefits disputes.\u0026nbsp;Darren also counsels clients in connection with governmental investigations involving employee benefit plans and assists clients with disputes and investigations involving executive compensation arrangements.\u0026nbsp; Darren has been recognized\u0026nbsp;as a Next Generation Lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for ERISA Litigation in each of the last five years.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDarren's representative clients include The Coca-Cola Company, The Home Depot, Bank of America, SunTrust Banks, Waste Management, and Aon Corporation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe graduated, \u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e, from The University of Tennessee College of Law, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"darren-shuler","email":"dshuler@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":502,"guid":"502.smart_tags","index":1,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":121,"guid":"121.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":15,"guid":"15.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Shuler","nick_name":"Darren","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Darren","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a Next Generation Lawyer for ERISA Litigation","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDarren focuses his practice on the defense of\u0026nbsp;high-stakes\u0026nbsp;ERISA litigation matters.\u0026nbsp; He defends leading companies\u0026nbsp;in a variety of ERISA class actions involving retirement\u0026nbsp;plan investments, breach of fiduciary duty claims, and other complex employee benefits disputes.\u0026nbsp;Darren also counsels clients in connection with governmental investigations involving employee benefit plans and assists clients with disputes and investigations involving executive compensation arrangements.\u0026nbsp; Darren has been recognized\u0026nbsp;as a Next Generation Lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;for ERISA Litigation in each of the last five years.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDarren's representative clients include The Coca-Cola Company, The Home Depot, Bank of America, SunTrust Banks, Waste Management, and Aon Corporation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe graduated, \u003cem\u003emagna cum laude\u003c/em\u003e, from The University of Tennessee College of Law, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Named a Next Generation Lawyer for ERISA Litigation","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11829}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:54.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:54.000Z","searchable_text":"Shuler{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a Next Generation Lawyer for ERISA Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Darren focuses his practice on the defense of high-stakes ERISA litigation matters.  He defends leading companies in a variety of ERISA class actions involving retirement plan investments, breach of fiduciary duty claims, and other complex employee benefits disputes. Darren also counsels clients in connection with governmental investigations involving employee benefit plans and assists clients with disputes and investigations involving executive compensation arrangements.  Darren has been recognized as a Next Generation Lawyer by The Legal 500 for ERISA Litigation in each of the last five years. \nDarren's representative clients include The Coca-Cola Company, The Home Depot, Bank of America, SunTrust Banks, Waste Management, and Aon Corporation. \nHe graduated, magna cum laude, from The University of Tennessee College of Law, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif.  Partner Named a Next Generation Lawyer for ERISA Litigation Legal 500 US, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 Maryville College  The University of Tennessee University of Tennessee College of Law University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law Florida Georgia State Bar of Georgia State Bar of Florida","searchable_name":"Darren A. Shuler","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444020,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2024,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eElizabeth is the Co-Head of the firm's International Disputes Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; With particular knowledge of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;energy, tech, and pharma industries, Elizabeth represents clients in high-profile disputes involving major\u0026nbsp;projects and long-term foreign investments.\u0026nbsp; Her cases are regularly at the cutting edge of international arbitration practice, and several exceed USD 1 billion in dispute.\u0026nbsp; Elizabeth is licensed to practice in New York, Georgia, and Texas, and has repeated experience in disputes involving the governing laws of the U.S., England, and various jurisdictions in Europe and Asia.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth solves cross-border problems for her clients, having represented\u0026nbsp;clients in dozens of investor-State and commercial arbitrations and disputes.\u0026nbsp; She specializes in complex cases involving multiple parties,\u0026nbsp;government\u0026nbsp;entities, and cross-jurisdictional aspects.\u0026nbsp; Her counsel experience includes arbitrations convened under the AAA/ICDR, CPR, ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SIAC, and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and practice in U.S. federal courts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth is particularly familiar with the legal and technical aspects of disputes in the energy, tech, and pharma industries.\u0026nbsp; She has handled numerous cases arising from long-term contracts (sale and purchase, supply, production sharing, concession,\u0026nbsp;EPC, licensing, etc.), deepening her knowledge not only of the contractual frameworks but also the practical and logistical\u0026nbsp;aspects of long-term investment projects.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe has experience coordinating parallel proceedings in \"viral\" disputes, including cross-border litigations, Section 1782 discovery, commercial and treaty arbitrations, and injunction and enforcement proceedings.\u0026nbsp; She also has significant experience representing major investors in treaty-based claims against States, and she regularly provides pre-dispute advice on foreign investment protection\u0026nbsp;and treaty analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlong with other accolades for her advocacy and client service, Global Arbitration Review selected Elizabeth for their\u0026nbsp;\"45 under 45\" global survey, and\u0026nbsp;Legal 500 named her a\u0026nbsp;\"Leading Lawyer\" in 2025.\u0026nbsp; In addition to her practice and frequent contributions as a speaker and author, Elizabeth acts as an Adjunct Law Professor at Emory University School of Law.\u0026nbsp; She is also committed to youth development in her community, and currently\u0026nbsp;serves\u0026nbsp;on the Board of Directors for the Boys \u0026amp; Girls Club of Metro Atlanta.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"elizabeth-silbert","email":"esilbert@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Coca-Cola Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Europe-based commercial arbitration under a long-term sponsorship agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron Thailand Exploration \u0026amp; Production Co\u003c/strong\u003e. in an ad hoc arbitration against the Kingdom of Thailand and the Ministry of Energy of Thailand, concerning a dispute in excess of US$ 2 billion regarding the decommissioning of offshore assets in the Gulf of Thailand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a declaratory award worth more than US$1 billion for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor Asia-based power consortium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a SIAC arbitration seated in Singapore, concerning a contractual dispute in the power transmission industry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean trading company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration seated in New York, concerning US$ 500 million breach of contract claims under various corporate and shareholders' agreements in a South American joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a declaratory award worth more than US$ 600 million on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor U.S. LNG company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a AAA arbitration seated in Houston, concerning various breach-of-contract claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a treaty arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague, concerning the US$9 billion \"Lago Agrio\" environmental judgment issued by the Ecuadorian courts, resulting in precedent-setting awards in favor of Chevron, including a finding of denial of justice and treaty breaches by Ecuador's courts, as well as numerous interim measures awards ordering Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the court judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon an award for declaratory relief worth over $4 billion in an ICC arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etwo international oil majors\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eagainst a Southeast Asian government, arising out of a revenue-allocation dispute under a gas service contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a denial of Section 1782 discovery in aid of a foreign commercial arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHalliburton Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003efrom the U.S. District Court of a Delaware, including affirmance on appeal before the Third Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a US$ 158 million award on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against a national power company seated in Taiwan, involving contractual and technical claims related to the construction of a nuclear power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a US$ 85 million award on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in London, concerning breach-of-contract claims related to a gas pipeline project in Indonesia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a declaratory award (with costs) worth approximately US$ 1.5 billion on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea U.S. LNG company,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an ICDR arbitration seated in New York concerning the terms of a long-term tolling agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a US$ 96 million final award on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague related to undue delays by Ecuadorian courts, including assistance in successful defense against set-aside proceedings in The Netherlands through all levels of appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShell Philippines Exploration B.V\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multi-billion-dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell\u0026rsquo;s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea European technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICDR arbitration seated in London, concerning a software licensing dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3534}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":35,"guid":"35.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":132,"guid":"132.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1472,"guid":"1472.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":131,"guid":"131.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1237,"guid":"1237.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Silbert","nick_name":"Elizabeth","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Elizabeth","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Leading Lawyer","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2025"},{"title":"Named as a Top 500 Leading Global Litigator Worldwide","detail":"LawDragon, 2023 - 2025"},{"title":"Listed in GAR’s 45 Under 45 Worldwide Survey for Leaders in International Arbitration","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2023"},{"title":"Recommended as a “talented” Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Recommended","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2020"},{"title":"Rising Star in International Arbitration","detail":"Law360, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/elizabeth-silbert-b668a637/","seodescription":"Elizabeth is the Co-Head of the firm's International Disputes Practice Group. Read more about her.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eElizabeth is the Co-Head of the firm's International Disputes Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; With particular knowledge of\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;energy, tech, and pharma industries, Elizabeth represents clients in high-profile disputes involving major\u0026nbsp;projects and long-term foreign investments.\u0026nbsp; Her cases are regularly at the cutting edge of international arbitration practice, and several exceed USD 1 billion in dispute.\u0026nbsp; Elizabeth is licensed to practice in New York, Georgia, and Texas, and has repeated experience in disputes involving the governing laws of the U.S., England, and various jurisdictions in Europe and Asia.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth solves cross-border problems for her clients, having represented\u0026nbsp;clients in dozens of investor-State and commercial arbitrations and disputes.\u0026nbsp; She specializes in complex cases involving multiple parties,\u0026nbsp;government\u0026nbsp;entities, and cross-jurisdictional aspects.\u0026nbsp; Her counsel experience includes arbitrations convened under the AAA/ICDR, CPR, ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SIAC, and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and practice in U.S. federal courts.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eElizabeth is particularly familiar with the legal and technical aspects of disputes in the energy, tech, and pharma industries.\u0026nbsp; She has handled numerous cases arising from long-term contracts (sale and purchase, supply, production sharing, concession,\u0026nbsp;EPC, licensing, etc.), deepening her knowledge not only of the contractual frameworks but also the practical and logistical\u0026nbsp;aspects of long-term investment projects.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe has experience coordinating parallel proceedings in \"viral\" disputes, including cross-border litigations, Section 1782 discovery, commercial and treaty arbitrations, and injunction and enforcement proceedings.\u0026nbsp; She also has significant experience representing major investors in treaty-based claims against States, and she regularly provides pre-dispute advice on foreign investment protection\u0026nbsp;and treaty analysis.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAlong with other accolades for her advocacy and client service, Global Arbitration Review selected Elizabeth for their\u0026nbsp;\"45 under 45\" global survey, and\u0026nbsp;Legal 500 named her a\u0026nbsp;\"Leading Lawyer\" in 2025.\u0026nbsp; In addition to her practice and frequent contributions as a speaker and author, Elizabeth acts as an Adjunct Law Professor at Emory University School of Law.\u0026nbsp; She is also committed to youth development in her community, and currently\u0026nbsp;serves\u0026nbsp;on the Board of Directors for the Boys \u0026amp; Girls Club of Metro Atlanta.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eThe Coca-Cola Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Europe-based commercial arbitration under a long-term sponsorship agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron Thailand Exploration \u0026amp; Production Co\u003c/strong\u003e. in an ad hoc arbitration against the Kingdom of Thailand and the Ministry of Energy of Thailand, concerning a dispute in excess of US$ 2 billion regarding the decommissioning of offshore assets in the Gulf of Thailand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a declaratory award worth more than US$1 billion for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor Asia-based power consortium\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a SIAC arbitration seated in Singapore, concerning a contractual dispute in the power transmission industry.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean trading company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration seated in New York, concerning US$ 500 million breach of contract claims under various corporate and shareholders' agreements in a South American joint venture.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a declaratory award worth more than US$ 600 million on behalf of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003emajor U.S. LNG company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a AAA arbitration seated in Houston, concerning various breach-of-contract claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a treaty arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague, concerning the US$9 billion \"Lago Agrio\" environmental judgment issued by the Ecuadorian courts, resulting in precedent-setting awards in favor of Chevron, including a finding of denial of justice and treaty breaches by Ecuador's courts, as well as numerous interim measures awards ordering Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the court judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon an award for declaratory relief worth over $4 billion in an ICC arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etwo international oil majors\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eagainst a Southeast Asian government, arising out of a revenue-allocation dispute under a gas service contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a denial of Section 1782 discovery in aid of a foreign commercial arbitration on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHalliburton Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003efrom the U.S. District Court of a Delaware, including affirmance on appeal before the Third Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a US$ 158 million award on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against a national power company seated in Taiwan, involving contractual and technical claims related to the construction of a nuclear power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a US$ 85 million award on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea major U.S. energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in London, concerning breach-of-contract claims related to a gas pipeline project in Indonesia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a declaratory award (with costs) worth approximately US$ 1.5 billion on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea U.S. LNG company,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an ICDR arbitration seated in New York concerning the terms of a long-term tolling agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a US$ 96 million final award on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague related to undue delays by Ecuadorian courts, including assistance in successful defense against set-aside proceedings in The Netherlands through all levels of appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShell Philippines Exploration B.V\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multi-billion-dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell\u0026rsquo;s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea European technology company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICDR arbitration seated in London, concerning a software licensing dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Leading Lawyer","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2025"},{"title":"Named as a Top 500 Leading Global Litigator Worldwide","detail":"LawDragon, 2023 - 2025"},{"title":"Listed in GAR’s 45 Under 45 Worldwide Survey for Leaders in International Arbitration","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2023"},{"title":"Recommended as a “talented” Next Generation Partner","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2022-2023"},{"title":"Recommended","detail":"Legal 500 US, 2020"},{"title":"Rising Star in International Arbitration","detail":"Law360, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5815}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-05T20:00:26.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T20:00:26.000Z","searchable_text":"Silbert{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as a Top 500 Leading Global Litigator Worldwide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LawDragon, 2023 - 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed in GAR’s 45 Under 45 Worldwide Survey for Leaders in International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Arbitration Review, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended as a “talented” Next Generation Partner\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2022-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Rising Star in International Arbitration\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing The Coca-Cola Company in a Europe-based commercial arbitration under a long-term sponsorship agreement.{{ FIELD }}Represented Chevron Thailand Exploration \u0026amp; Production Co. in an ad hoc arbitration against the Kingdom of Thailand and the Ministry of Energy of Thailand, concerning a dispute in excess of US$ 2 billion regarding the decommissioning of offshore assets in the Gulf of Thailand.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a declaratory award worth more than US$1 billion for a major Asia-based power consortium in a SIAC arbitration seated in Singapore, concerning a contractual dispute in the power transmission industry.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European trading company in a commercial arbitration seated in New York, concerning US$ 500 million breach of contract claims under various corporate and shareholders' agreements in a South American joint venture.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a declaratory award worth more than US$ 600 million on behalf of a major U.S. LNG company in a AAA arbitration seated in Houston, concerning various breach-of-contract claims.{{ FIELD }}Representing Chevron Corporation in a treaty arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague, concerning the US$9 billion \"Lago Agrio\" environmental judgment issued by the Ecuadorian courts, resulting in precedent-setting awards in favor of Chevron, including a finding of denial of justice and treaty breaches by Ecuador's courts, as well as numerous interim measures awards ordering Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the court judgment.{{ FIELD }}Won an award for declaratory relief worth over $4 billion in an ICC arbitration on behalf of two international oil majors against a Southeast Asian government, arising out of a revenue-allocation dispute under a gas service contract.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a denial of Section 1782 discovery in aid of a foreign commercial arbitration on behalf of Halliburton Company from the U.S. District Court of a Delaware, including affirmance on appeal before the Third Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Won a US$ 158 million award on behalf of GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC in an ICC arbitration against a national power company seated in Taiwan, involving contractual and technical claims related to the construction of a nuclear power plant.{{ FIELD }}Won a US$ 85 million award on behalf of a major U.S. energy company in an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in London, concerning breach-of-contract claims related to a gas pipeline project in Indonesia.{{ FIELD }}Won a declaratory award (with costs) worth approximately US$ 1.5 billion on behalf of a U.S. LNG company, in an ICDR arbitration seated in New York concerning the terms of a long-term tolling agreement.{{ FIELD }}Won a US$ 96 million final award on behalf of Chevron Corporation in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague related to undue delays by Ecuadorian courts, including assistance in successful defense against set-aside proceedings in The Netherlands through all levels of appeals.{{ FIELD }}Represented Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. in a multi-billion-dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell’s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project.{{ FIELD }}Obtained favorable settlement on behalf of a European technology company in an ICDR arbitration seated in London, concerning a software licensing dispute.{{ FIELD }}Elizabeth is the Co-Head of the firm's International Disputes Practice Group.  With particular knowledge of the energy, tech, and pharma industries, Elizabeth represents clients in high-profile disputes involving major projects and long-term foreign investments.  Her cases are regularly at the cutting edge of international arbitration practice, and several exceed USD 1 billion in dispute.  Elizabeth is licensed to practice in New York, Georgia, and Texas, and has repeated experience in disputes involving the governing laws of the U.S., England, and various jurisdictions in Europe and Asia. \nElizabeth solves cross-border problems for her clients, having represented clients in dozens of investor-State and commercial arbitrations and disputes.  She specializes in complex cases involving multiple parties, government entities, and cross-jurisdictional aspects.  Her counsel experience includes arbitrations convened under the AAA/ICDR, CPR, ICC, ICSID, LCIA, SIAC, and UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules, and practice in U.S. federal courts. \nElizabeth is particularly familiar with the legal and technical aspects of disputes in the energy, tech, and pharma industries.  She has handled numerous cases arising from long-term contracts (sale and purchase, supply, production sharing, concession, EPC, licensing, etc.), deepening her knowledge not only of the contractual frameworks but also the practical and logistical aspects of long-term investment projects. \nShe has experience coordinating parallel proceedings in \"viral\" disputes, including cross-border litigations, Section 1782 discovery, commercial and treaty arbitrations, and injunction and enforcement proceedings.  She also has significant experience representing major investors in treaty-based claims against States, and she regularly provides pre-dispute advice on foreign investment protection and treaty analysis.\nAlong with other accolades for her advocacy and client service, Global Arbitration Review selected Elizabeth for their \"45 under 45\" global survey, and Legal 500 named her a \"Leading Lawyer\" in 2025.  In addition to her practice and frequent contributions as a speaker and author, Elizabeth acts as an Adjunct Law Professor at Emory University School of Law.  She is also committed to youth development in her community, and currently serves on the Board of Directors for the Boys \u0026amp; Girls Club of Metro Atlanta.\n  Elizabeth Silbert lawyer Partner Leading Lawyer Legal 500 US, 2025 Named as a Top 500 Leading Global Litigator Worldwide LawDragon, 2023 - 2025 Listed in GAR’s 45 Under 45 Worldwide Survey for Leaders in International Arbitration Global Arbitration Review, 2023 Recommended as a “talented” Next Generation Partner Legal 500 US, 2022-2023 Recommended Legal 500 US, 2020 Rising Star in International Arbitration Law360, 2018 Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Northwestern University Northwestern Pritzker School of Law U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia New York Texas Representing The Coca-Cola Company in a Europe-based commercial arbitration under a long-term sponsorship agreement. Represented Chevron Thailand Exploration \u0026amp; Production Co. in an ad hoc arbitration against the Kingdom of Thailand and the Ministry of Energy of Thailand, concerning a dispute in excess of US$ 2 billion regarding the decommissioning of offshore assets in the Gulf of Thailand. Obtained a declaratory award worth more than US$1 billion for a major Asia-based power consortium in a SIAC arbitration seated in Singapore, concerning a contractual dispute in the power transmission industry. Representing a European trading company in a commercial arbitration seated in New York, concerning US$ 500 million breach of contract claims under various corporate and shareholders' agreements in a South American joint venture. Obtained a declaratory award worth more than US$ 600 million on behalf of a major U.S. LNG company in a AAA arbitration seated in Houston, concerning various breach-of-contract claims. Representing Chevron Corporation in a treaty arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague, concerning the US$9 billion \"Lago Agrio\" environmental judgment issued by the Ecuadorian courts, resulting in precedent-setting awards in favor of Chevron, including a finding of denial of justice and treaty breaches by Ecuador's courts, as well as numerous interim measures awards ordering Ecuador to prevent enforcement of the court judgment. Won an award for declaratory relief worth over $4 billion in an ICC arbitration on behalf of two international oil majors against a Southeast Asian government, arising out of a revenue-allocation dispute under a gas service contract. Obtained a denial of Section 1782 discovery in aid of a foreign commercial arbitration on behalf of Halliburton Company from the U.S. District Court of a Delaware, including affirmance on appeal before the Third Circuit. Won a US$ 158 million award on behalf of GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energy Americas LLC in an ICC arbitration against a national power company seated in Taiwan, involving contractual and technical claims related to the construction of a nuclear power plant. Won a US$ 85 million award on behalf of a major U.S. energy company in an UNCITRAL arbitration seated in London, concerning breach-of-contract claims related to a gas pipeline project in Indonesia. Won a declaratory award (with costs) worth approximately US$ 1.5 billion on behalf of a U.S. LNG company, in an ICDR arbitration seated in New York concerning the terms of a long-term tolling agreement. Won a US$ 96 million final award on behalf of Chevron Corporation in an UNCITRAL arbitration against the Republic of Ecuador seated in The Hague related to undue delays by Ecuadorian courts, including assistance in successful defense against set-aside proceedings in The Netherlands through all levels of appeals. Represented Shell Philippines Exploration B.V. in a multi-billion-dollar ICSID arbitration against the Republic of the Philippines under the Netherlands-Philippines bilateral investment treaty concerning the mistreatment of Shell’s investment in the Malampaya gas-to-power project. Obtained favorable settlement on behalf of a European technology company in an ICDR arbitration seated in London, concerning a software licensing dispute.","searchable_name":"Elizabeth Silbert","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":446393,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7345,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLeElle Slifer is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience in a wide range of disputes, including breach of contract, oil and gas, breach of fiduciary duty, patent and copyright infringement, non-competes, theft of trade secrets, class actions, antitrust, securities, RICO, and even the seizure of cargo barges and private jets, to name just a few. LeElle\u0026rsquo;s clients describe her as their \u0026ldquo;go-to\u0026rdquo; lawyer who can handle any problem, \u0026ldquo;providing time-critical business and strategic counsel that can make all the difference in high stakes litigation.\u0026rdquo; She understands that getting the best result means more than just the legal outcome, it means focusing on the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals at every juncture.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle has litigated in federal and state courts nationwide, trying matters before both judges and juries. She has participated in numerous domestic and foreign arbitrations, including before the International Chamber of Commerce in London. One of her trials\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings v. Hotels.com\u003c/em\u003e, in which her team won a jury verdict of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas\u0026mdash;was the first case to survive a Section 101 challenge at the Federal Circuit after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e and was the only case to do so for almost two years. She has also briefed and argued many federal and state appeals throughout the country, including to the Supreme Court in \u003cem\u003eComcast Corp. v. Behrend\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle knows that litigation forms just one aspect of her clients\u0026rsquo; businesses. She thinks tactically, keeping her clients\u0026rsquo; objectives and concerns top-of-mind as she counsels them through litigation. And her clients can attest to the success of LeElle\u0026rsquo;s results-oriented approach:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;ve had the privilege of working with many of the country\u0026rsquo;s top lawyers, and LeElle stands at the very top of that tier. A brilliant strategist and master negotiator, LeElle assesses the moment instantly, calibrates her approach, and then effectively executes with surgical precision and absolute integrity. She moves effortlessly between Wall Street boardrooms and small-town courtrooms\u0026mdash;, bringing the same commanding presence and relatable authenticity to both. Put simply, if you\u0026rsquo;re looking for strong, smart, efficient, business-first advocacy\u0026mdash;whether for a bet-the-company case or a simple dispute\u0026mdash;I couldn\u0026rsquo;t recommend her more highly.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ndash; Jason Schwartz, General Counsel for Stonebriar Commercial Finance.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"leelle-slifer","email":"lslifer@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKosmos\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSao\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTome\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrincipe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eERHC\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e(BVI)\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLimited\u003c/em\u003e (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003eKosmos\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of S\u0026atilde;o Tom\u0026eacute; and Pr\u0026iacute;ncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTorreya Partners LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. [Confidential] \u003c/em\u003e(American Arbitration Association) \u0026ndash; Represented a \u003cstrong\u003epharmaceutical marketing firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client\u0026rsquo;s desired result.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePizza Hut Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. v. Accenture LLP \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePizza Hut\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMegan Thee Stallion v.\u003cstrong\u003e 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Harris County District Court, Texas) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003erecord label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford\u003c/strong\u003e and his \u003cstrong\u003erecord label\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. \u003c/em\u003e(E.D.T.X.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003einventors and patent holders\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a \u0026sect; 101 challenge\u0026mdash;the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommercial\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eZetta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eJet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar Commercial Finance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Griffin Barges \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) \u0026ndash; Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack Stone Minerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. \u003c/em\u003e(DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMinerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eChesapeake,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTotal\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eE\u0026amp;P,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDilworth\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake \u003c/em\u003e(McMullen County District Court, Texas 343\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTextron\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eInc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eScott\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDrennan\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHyundai\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMotor\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerica\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of \u003cstrong\u003eDrennan, Hyundai\u003c/strong\u003e, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGriffith\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Waters \u003c/em\u003e(Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1233,"guid":"1233.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Slifer","nick_name":"LeElle","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","years_held":"2010 - 2011"}],"first_name":"LeElle","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[{"id":824,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2010-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"B.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023"},{"title":"Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise” ","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2024"},{"title":"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023–2025"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Under 40”","detail":"D Magazine, 2020"},{"title":"“Rising Star” ","detail":"Texas Super Lawyers, 2020"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/leelleslifer/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLeElle Slifer is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience in a wide range of disputes, including breach of contract, oil and gas, breach of fiduciary duty, patent and copyright infringement, non-competes, theft of trade secrets, class actions, antitrust, securities, RICO, and even the seizure of cargo barges and private jets, to name just a few. LeElle\u0026rsquo;s clients describe her as their \u0026ldquo;go-to\u0026rdquo; lawyer who can handle any problem, \u0026ldquo;providing time-critical business and strategic counsel that can make all the difference in high stakes litigation.\u0026rdquo; She understands that getting the best result means more than just the legal outcome, it means focusing on the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals at every juncture.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle has litigated in federal and state courts nationwide, trying matters before both judges and juries. She has participated in numerous domestic and foreign arbitrations, including before the International Chamber of Commerce in London. One of her trials\u0026mdash;\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings v. Hotels.com\u003c/em\u003e, in which her team won a jury verdict of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas\u0026mdash;was the first case to survive a Section 101 challenge at the Federal Circuit after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e and was the only case to do so for almost two years. She has also briefed and argued many federal and state appeals throughout the country, including to the Supreme Court in \u003cem\u003eComcast Corp. v. Behrend\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeElle knows that litigation forms just one aspect of her clients\u0026rsquo; businesses. She thinks tactically, keeping her clients\u0026rsquo; objectives and concerns top-of-mind as she counsels them through litigation. And her clients can attest to the success of LeElle\u0026rsquo;s results-oriented approach:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026ldquo;I\u0026rsquo;ve had the privilege of working with many of the country\u0026rsquo;s top lawyers, and LeElle stands at the very top of that tier. A brilliant strategist and master negotiator, LeElle assesses the moment instantly, calibrates her approach, and then effectively executes with surgical precision and absolute integrity. She moves effortlessly between Wall Street boardrooms and small-town courtrooms\u0026mdash;, bringing the same commanding presence and relatable authenticity to both. Put simply, if you\u0026rsquo;re looking for strong, smart, efficient, business-first advocacy\u0026mdash;whether for a bet-the-company case or a simple dispute\u0026mdash;I couldn\u0026rsquo;t recommend her more highly.\u0026rdquo; \u0026ndash; Jason Schwartz, General Counsel for Stonebriar Commercial Finance.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eKosmos\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eSao\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTome\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePrincipe\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eERHC\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eEnergy\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003e(BVI)\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eLimited\u003c/em\u003e (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003eKosmos\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of S\u0026atilde;o Tom\u0026eacute; and Pr\u0026iacute;ncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eTorreya Partners LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. [Confidential] \u003c/em\u003e(American Arbitration Association) \u0026ndash; Represented a \u003cstrong\u003epharmaceutical marketing firm\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client\u0026rsquo;s desired result.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003ePizza Hut Inc\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e. v. Accenture LLP \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePizza Hut\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMegan Thee Stallion v.\u003cstrong\u003e 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford \u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e(Harris County District Court, Texas) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003erecord label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford\u003c/strong\u003e and his \u003cstrong\u003erecord label\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDDR Holdings, LLC\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. \u003c/em\u003e(E.D.T.X.) \u0026ndash; Represented \u003cstrong\u003einventors and patent holders\u003c/strong\u003e in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a \u0026sect; 101 challenge\u0026mdash;the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued \u003cem\u003eAlice \u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003eCorp. v. CLS Bank Int\u0026rsquo;l\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eCommercial\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFinance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eZetta\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eJet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStonebriar Commercial Finance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Griffin Barges \u003c/em\u003e(S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) \u0026ndash; Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack Stone Minerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. \u003c/em\u003e(DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBlack\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eStone\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMinerals\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eChesapeake,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTotal\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eE\u0026amp;P,\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eet\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eal.\u003c/em\u003e (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDilworth\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Chesapeake \u003c/em\u003e(McMullen County District Court, Texas 343\u003csup\u003erd\u003c/sup\u003e Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eTextron\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003eInc.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cem\u003ev.\u003c/em\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eScott\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDrennan\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eand\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eHyundai\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eMotor\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAmerica\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th\u0026nbsp;Judicial District) \u0026ndash; Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of \u003cstrong\u003eDrennan, Hyundai\u003c/strong\u003e, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eGriffith\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e \u003cem\u003ev. Waters \u003c/em\u003e(Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) \u0026ndash; After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026"},{"title":"Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023"},{"title":"Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise” ","detail":"Texas Lawyer, 2024"},{"title":"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” ","detail":"Lawdragon, 2023–2025"},{"title":"“Best Lawyers Under 40”","detail":"D Magazine, 2020"},{"title":"“Rising Star” ","detail":"Texas Super Lawyers, 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13385}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-03T18:39:07.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-03T18:39:07.000Z","searchable_text":"Slifer{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“500 Leading Energy Lawyers” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2023–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Best Lawyers Under 40”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D Magazine, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Rising Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Super Lawyers, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Kosmos Energy Sao Tome and Principe v. ERHC Energy (BVI) Limited (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) – Represented Kosmos in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of São Tomé and Príncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Torreya Partners LLC v. [Confidential] (American Arbitration Association) – Represented a pharmaceutical marketing firm in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client’s desired result.{{ FIELD }}Pizza Hut Inc. v. Accenture LLP (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented Pizza Hut in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint.{{ FIELD }}Megan Thee Stallion v. 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford (Harris County District Court, Texas) – Represented record label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford and his record label in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation.{{ FIELD }}DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (E.D.T.X.) – Represented inventors and patent holders in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a § 101 challenge—the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l.{{ FIELD }}Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Zetta Jet et al. (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th Judicial District) – Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys’ fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement.{{ FIELD }}Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Griffin Barges (S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) – Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys’ fees.{{ FIELD }}Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. (DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial.{{ FIELD }}Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, Total E\u0026amp;P, et al. (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants.{{ FIELD }}Dilworth v. Chesapeake (McMullen County District Court, Texas 343rd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family.{{ FIELD }}Bell Textron Inc. v. Scott Drennan and Hyundai Motor America (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th Judicial District) – Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of Drennan, Hyundai, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement.{{ FIELD }}Griffith v. Waters (Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) – After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.{{ FIELD }}LeElle Slifer is a seasoned trial lawyer with experience in a wide range of disputes, including breach of contract, oil and gas, breach of fiduciary duty, patent and copyright infringement, non-competes, theft of trade secrets, class actions, antitrust, securities, RICO, and even the seizure of cargo barges and private jets, to name just a few. LeElle’s clients describe her as their “go-to” lawyer who can handle any problem, “providing time-critical business and strategic counsel that can make all the difference in high stakes litigation.” She understands that getting the best result means more than just the legal outcome, it means focusing on the client’s business goals at every juncture.\nLeElle has litigated in federal and state courts nationwide, trying matters before both judges and juries. She has participated in numerous domestic and foreign arbitrations, including before the International Chamber of Commerce in London. One of her trials—DDR Holdings v. Hotels.com, in which her team won a jury verdict of patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas—was the first case to survive a Section 101 challenge at the Federal Circuit after the Supreme Court issued Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l and was the only case to do so for almost two years. She has also briefed and argued many federal and state appeals throughout the country, including to the Supreme Court in Comcast Corp. v. Behrend.\nLeElle knows that litigation forms just one aspect of her clients’ businesses. She thinks tactically, keeping her clients’ objectives and concerns top-of-mind as she counsels them through litigation. And her clients can attest to the success of LeElle’s results-oriented approach:\n“I’ve had the privilege of working with many of the country’s top lawyers, and LeElle stands at the very top of that tier. A brilliant strategist and master negotiator, LeElle assesses the moment instantly, calibrates her approach, and then effectively executes with surgical precision and absolute integrity. She moves effortlessly between Wall Street boardrooms and small-town courtrooms—, bringing the same commanding presence and relatable authenticity to both. Put simply, if you’re looking for strong, smart, efficient, business-first advocacy—whether for a bet-the-company case or a simple dispute—I couldn’t recommend her more highly.” – Jason Schwartz, General Counsel for Stonebriar Commercial Finance. Partner Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America ®, 2024–2026 Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America ®: Ones to Watch, 2021–2023 Texas Legal Awards – “On the Rise”  Texas Lawyer, 2024 “500 Leading Energy Lawyers”  Lawdragon, 2023–2025 “Best Lawyers Under 40” D Magazine, 2020 “Rising Star”  Texas Super Lawyers, 2020 Duke University Duke University School of Law Harvard University Harvard Law School Texas Board, Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School Board, Teneo Network Law Clerk, Hon. Jerry E. Smith, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Kosmos Energy Sao Tome and Principe v. ERHC Energy (BVI) Limited (International Chamber of Commerce (London); Harris County District Court, Texas 157 th Judicial District) – Represented Kosmos in a dispute over rights to conduct oil and gas exploration in the Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of São Tomé and Príncipe. Oversaw dual-track litigation in the ICC and Harris County. Secured preliminary injunctions in both jurisdictions, summary judgment on liability in Harris County, and a complete victory at the ICC, including attorneys’ fees. Torreya Partners LLC v. [Confidential] (American Arbitration Association) – Represented a pharmaceutical marketing firm in a dispute with a pharmaceutical manufacturing company over fees owed under a marketing agreement. After taking over for prior counsel within six months of arbitration, finalized a settlement two days before trial that far exceeded the client’s desired result. Pizza Hut Inc. v. Accenture LLP (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented Pizza Hut in a breach of contract action against Accenture for failure to provide a software product. Filed suit immediately after pre-suit mediations ended at an impasse. The very next day, Accenture acceded to settlement demands and the parties executed a final agreement within four months. Obtained a settlement of the entire dispute with nothing more than filing a complaint. Megan Thee Stallion v. 1501 Certified Entertainment \u0026amp; Carl Crawford (Harris County District Court, Texas) – Represented record label owner and former MLB player Carl Crawford and his record label in a dispute against music artist Megan Thee Stallion regarding breach of contract and unpaid royalties. Replaced prior counsel after years of contentious litigation and negotiated a complex settlement after several successes in litigation. DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (E.D.T.X.) – Represented inventors and patent holders in a patent infringement suit against seven defendants involving third-party website design features. After a jury trial, won verdicts of infringement against the only two defendants who had not settled. Successfully defended the verdict on appeal to the Federal Circuit on a § 101 challenge—the first case to do so after the Supreme Court issued Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l. Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Zetta Jet et al. (Collin County District Court, Texas 380th Judicial District) – Won complete judgements (including award of attorneys’ fees) against defendants and then pursued enforcement actions in five different states including managing several related actions in Colorado state court and bankruptcy court. Negotiated the exchange of a private aircraft as part of the settlement agreement. Stonebriar Commercial Finance v. Griffin Barges (S.D.T.X. and E.D.L.A.) – Seized four multimillion-dollar cargo barges (two in the Houston Ship Channel, two docked in New Orleans) used as collateral to secure a loan. Facilitated the subsequent sale of the barges, the proceeds of which fully covered the entire outstanding debt, and all attorneys’ fees. Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, PXP Louisiana, et al. (DeSoto Parish, Louisiana 42nd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and PXP Louisiana (now Freeport-McMoRan) for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Haynesville Shale. Reached a favorable settlement with PXP within months of filing suit and with Chesapeake days before trial. Black Stone Minerals v. Chesapeake, Total E\u0026amp;P, et al. (part of MDL in Tarrant County District Court, Texas 348th Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake and Total for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Barnett Shale as part of the leadership in multidistrict litigation in Texas involving similar claims made by other royalty owners. Briefed, argued, and defeated multiple case-specific and MDL-wide summary judgment motions which resulted in settlements with all defendants. Dilworth v. Chesapeake (McMullen County District Court, Texas 343rd Judicial District) – Sued Chesapeake for underpaying royalties on minerals produced in the Eagle Ford Shale. Secured favorable settlement for the Dilworth family. Bell Textron Inc. v. Scott Drennan and Hyundai Motor America (Tarrant County District Court, Texas 96 th Judicial District) – Part of a team that obtained a swift settlement on behalf of Drennan, Hyundai, and all potential defendants in connection with allegations of theft of trade secrets and violations of a non-compete agreement. Griffith v. Waters (Dallas County District Court, Texas 134th Judicial District) – After parachuting in as trial counsel on the day of trial, obtained verdict for client through post-judgment briefing and oral argument in a real estate dispute.","searchable_name":"LeElle B. Slifer","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":427550,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":633,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLarry Slovensky represents companies and individuals in complex business tort and breach of contract litigation, corporate governance disputes, and legal malpractice/law firm defense matters in Georgia and across the country. He has substantial experience in trying cases before judges and\u0026nbsp;juries, and he has represented clients in business litigation matters for more than 30 years.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry's clients range\u0026nbsp;in size from\u0026nbsp;large publicly traded corporations, to smaller privately-held funds and portfolio companies, to individuals.\u0026nbsp; He has represented clients\u0026nbsp;in a variety of industries, including banking and financial services, construction,\u0026nbsp;consumer retail sales, healthcare, real estate, technology, and telecommunications. Larry has successfully handled corporate governance disputes between\u0026nbsp;LLC members,\u0026nbsp;post-acquisition purchase price adjustment proceedings, and independent board investigations.\u0026nbsp; In addition, he handles a wide range of other business tort, breach of contract, class action and legal malpractice lawsuits in state and federal court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry spent five years earlier in his career as in-house counsel with a national Internet service provider, where he managed all of the company\u0026rsquo;s litigation, including consumer class actions, patent infringement litigation, intellectual property disputes, anti-spam litigation, consumer disputes and general commercial litigation. He also served as ethics and loss prevention counsel for his prior law firm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry is the author of a chapter on Business Torts in the annually updated\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Business Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;treatise.\u0026nbsp; He represents veterans on a pro bono basis through the Emory Law Volunteer Clinic for Veterans and the National Veterans Legal Services Program, and he oversees the firm's veterans pro bono efforts.\u0026nbsp; Larry also actively supports civic and charitable organizations in Atlanta.\u0026nbsp; He is Vice Chair of the board of directors of the Georgia Justice Project and manages our firm's participation in the Cristo Rey High School internship program.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lawrence-slovensky","email":"lslovensky@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBusiness Litigation and Corporate Governance Disputes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a portfolio company of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOaktree Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with federal litigation filed against the City of Austin, Texas in W.D. Tex. relating to municipal efforts to use condemnation powers to terminate the company\u0026rsquo;s long-term contract for operation of the South Terminal at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and related state proceedings ultimately resulting in a $88 million settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented multi-family real estate company\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eResia\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein asserting multi-million dollar tortious interference and breach of contract claims in the Superior of Fulton County, Georgia\u0026rsquo;s Business Court arising from a failed commercial real estate purchase transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented an affiliate of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTruist Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in asserting multi-million dollar tort and contract-based claims in M.D. Fla. arising out of an equipment sale and lease-back transaction involving mobile solar generators.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a successful appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals overturning a $135 million jury verdict rendered in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon declaratory judgment and an attorney's fee award for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecommercial real estate private equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Delaware Chancery Court expedited proceeding in an intra-LLC dispute over management of a major hotel and convention center renovation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon final summary judgment for private equity infrastructure fund\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Highstar Capital IV, LP\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand its officers in a long-running lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County\u0026rsquo;s Business Court in which the plaintiff sought a multi-million dollar punitive damages award arising from the fund's $470 million acquisition of a portfolio company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a jury trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of a portfolio company of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;sued by a developer over a property line dispute in connection with the acquisition of a multimillion-dollar student housing development; affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a bench trial in a case filed by\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia municipality\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation relating to a long-term $40 million water supply agreement; obtained an order affirming the validity of the underlying agreement, affirmance by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and denial of petition for\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the Georgia Supreme Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a purchase price escrow dispute with former shareholders of an acquired telecommunications company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSunTrust Bank\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand an individual broker in defense of a $100 million claim before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel arising from sale of preferred securities to state chartered banks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrepared an independent counsel report for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003especial litigation committee\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of a corporate board\u0026nbsp;on responding to shareholder demands for institution of breach of fiduciary duty litigation against directors relating to prior corporate acquisitions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an independent investigation for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eboard of a publicly traded pharmaceutical corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in response to demands from two board members for review of prior corporate transactions; issued a substantial report to the board, which was unanimously accepted by the board, including by the dissenting board members.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esoftware purchaser\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation against a software development company in the Superior Court of DeKalb County and obtained a jury verdict awarding all damages sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLegal Malpractice and Professional Liability Defense\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon final summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM Law 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a N.D. Ga. lawsuit brought by a receiver alleging malpractice arising from a Georgia regional bank failure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM Law 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and an individually-named lawyer\u0026nbsp;in defense of RICO and business tort claims in E.D. Pa. asserted against the law firm by a third party relating to a client's activities and obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice litigation in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia arising from the firm\u0026rsquo;s prior representation of a closely-held corporation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational law firm and individually named lawyers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of legal malpractice claims asserted by receiver on behalf of creditors of former regional bank client.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eregional law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with favorable resolution of legal malpractice claims asserted by a bankruptcy trustee on behalf of the estate of the firm\u0026rsquo;s former real estate developer client.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;an\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Atlanta-based law firm\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein connection with favorable resolution of contribution and malpractice claims arising from damages awarded against a former client for fraud in a prior lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eindividual Georgia lawyers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in fee arbitration matters and responses to bar grievances before the State Bar of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eClass Action Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational court reporting company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of multiple statewide consumer class actions relating to billing practices, resulting in two orders denying class certification under California and Florida consumer protection statutes and voluntary dismissals of all related cases. See\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re: Motions to Certify Classes Against Court Reporting Firms\u003c/em\u003e, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (aff\u0026rsquo;d by 11th Cir.);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eColapinto v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 2011 WL 913251 (C.D. Cal. 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etelecommunications company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of a class action lawsuit under California\u0026rsquo;s call-recording statue and obtained less-than-cost-of-defense settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational Internet service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of consumer class action relating to billing practices and related false advertising claims; obtained order compelling arbitration and subsequent favorable settlement and dismissal of claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational Internet service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of nationwide class action relating to early termination fees; obtained order dismissing damages claims based on voluntary payment doctrine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of multiple consumer and public interest class actions challenging company\u0026rsquo;s conversion from nonprofit to for-profit status.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":178}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":33,"guid":"33.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1231,"guid":"1231.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":11,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Slovensky","nick_name":"Larry","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Lawrence","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"A.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Author of “Georgia Business Torts” chapter in Georgia Business Litigation 2024 treatise","detail":"ALM/Law.com"},{"title":"2023 Georgia Best Lawyer’s list for Legal Malpractice Law","detail":"Georgia's Best Lawyers"},{"title":"Peer Rated AV® Preeminent™","detail":"Martindale-Hubbell"},{"title":"2015 Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing","detail":"\"Interlocutory Appeal of Class Certification Decisions Under Rule 23(f)”"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/larryslovensky/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLarry Slovensky represents companies and individuals in complex business tort and breach of contract litigation, corporate governance disputes, and legal malpractice/law firm defense matters in Georgia and across the country. He has substantial experience in trying cases before judges and\u0026nbsp;juries, and he has represented clients in business litigation matters for more than 30 years.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry's clients range\u0026nbsp;in size from\u0026nbsp;large publicly traded corporations, to smaller privately-held funds and portfolio companies, to individuals.\u0026nbsp; He has represented clients\u0026nbsp;in a variety of industries, including banking and financial services, construction,\u0026nbsp;consumer retail sales, healthcare, real estate, technology, and telecommunications. Larry has successfully handled corporate governance disputes between\u0026nbsp;LLC members,\u0026nbsp;post-acquisition purchase price adjustment proceedings, and independent board investigations.\u0026nbsp; In addition, he handles a wide range of other business tort, breach of contract, class action and legal malpractice lawsuits in state and federal court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry spent five years earlier in his career as in-house counsel with a national Internet service provider, where he managed all of the company\u0026rsquo;s litigation, including consumer class actions, patent infringement litigation, intellectual property disputes, anti-spam litigation, consumer disputes and general commercial litigation. He also served as ethics and loss prevention counsel for his prior law firm.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLarry is the author of a chapter on Business Torts in the annually updated\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGeorgia Business Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;treatise.\u0026nbsp; He represents veterans on a pro bono basis through the Emory Law Volunteer Clinic for Veterans and the National Veterans Legal Services Program, and he oversees the firm's veterans pro bono efforts.\u0026nbsp; Larry also actively supports civic and charitable organizations in Atlanta.\u0026nbsp; He is Vice Chair of the board of directors of the Georgia Justice Project and manages our firm's participation in the Cristo Rey High School internship program.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBusiness Litigation and Corporate Governance Disputes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a portfolio company of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eOaktree Capital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with federal litigation filed against the City of Austin, Texas in W.D. Tex. relating to municipal efforts to use condemnation powers to terminate the company\u0026rsquo;s long-term contract for operation of the South Terminal at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and related state proceedings ultimately resulting in a $88 million settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented multi-family real estate company\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eResia\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein asserting multi-million dollar tortious interference and breach of contract claims in the Superior of Fulton County, Georgia\u0026rsquo;s Business Court arising from a failed commercial real estate purchase transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully represented an affiliate of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTruist Bank\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in asserting multi-million dollar tort and contract-based claims in M.D. Fla. arising out of an equipment sale and lease-back transaction involving mobile solar generators.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a successful appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals overturning a $135 million jury verdict rendered in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon declaratory judgment and an attorney's fee award for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ecommercial real estate private equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a Delaware Chancery Court expedited proceeding in an intra-LLC dispute over management of a major hotel and convention center renovation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon final summary judgment for private equity infrastructure fund\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Highstar Capital IV, LP\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand its officers in a long-running lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County\u0026rsquo;s Business Court in which the plaintiff sought a multi-million dollar punitive damages award arising from the fund's $470 million acquisition of a portfolio company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a jury trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of a portfolio company of a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eprivate equity fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;sued by a developer over a property line dispute in connection with the acquisition of a multimillion-dollar student housing development; affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon a bench trial in a case filed by\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia municipality\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation relating to a long-term $40 million water supply agreement; obtained an order affirming the validity of the underlying agreement, affirmance by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and denial of petition for\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ecertiorari\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the Georgia Supreme Court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained a multimillion-dollar award for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a purchase price escrow dispute with former shareholders of an acquired telecommunications company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSunTrust Bank\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eand an individual broker in defense of a $100 million claim before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel arising from sale of preferred securities to state chartered banks.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrepared an independent counsel report for\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003especial litigation committee\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;of a corporate board\u0026nbsp;on responding to shareholder demands for institution of breach of fiduciary duty litigation against directors relating to prior corporate acquisitions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an independent investigation for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eboard of a publicly traded pharmaceutical corporation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in response to demands from two board members for review of prior corporate transactions; issued a substantial report to the board, which was unanimously accepted by the board, including by the dissenting board members.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003esoftware purchaser\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation against a software development company in the Superior Court of DeKalb County and obtained a jury verdict awarding all damages sought.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eLegal Malpractice and Professional Liability Defense\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWon final summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM Law 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a N.D. Ga. lawsuit brought by a receiver alleging malpractice arising from a Georgia regional bank failure.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM Law 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and an individually-named lawyer\u0026nbsp;in defense of RICO and business tort claims in E.D. Pa. asserted against the law firm by a third party relating to a client's activities and obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAM 100 law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice litigation in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia arising from the firm\u0026rsquo;s prior representation of a closely-held corporation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational law firm and individually named lawyers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of legal malpractice claims asserted by receiver on behalf of creditors of former regional bank client.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eregional law firm\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with favorable resolution of legal malpractice claims asserted by a bankruptcy trustee on behalf of the estate of the firm\u0026rsquo;s former real estate developer client.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;an\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Atlanta-based law firm\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein connection with favorable resolution of contribution and malpractice claims arising from damages awarded against a former client for fraud in a prior lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eindividual Georgia lawyers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in fee arbitration matters and responses to bar grievances before the State Bar of Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eClass Action Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational court reporting company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of multiple statewide consumer class actions relating to billing practices, resulting in two orders denying class certification under California and Florida consumer protection statutes and voluntary dismissals of all related cases. See\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn Re: Motions to Certify Classes Against Court Reporting Firms\u003c/em\u003e, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (aff\u0026rsquo;d by 11th Cir.);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eColapinto v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC\u003c/em\u003e, 2011 WL 913251 (C.D. Cal. 2011).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etelecommunications company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of a class action lawsuit under California\u0026rsquo;s call-recording statue and obtained less-than-cost-of-defense settlement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational Internet service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of consumer class action relating to billing practices and related false advertising claims; obtained order compelling arbitration and subsequent favorable settlement and dismissal of claims.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003enational Internet service provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of nationwide class action relating to early termination fees; obtained order dismissing damages claims based on voluntary payment doctrine.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehealthcare insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defense of multiple consumer and public interest class actions challenging company\u0026rsquo;s conversion from nonprofit to for-profit status.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Author of “Georgia Business Torts” chapter in Georgia Business Litigation 2024 treatise","detail":"ALM/Law.com"},{"title":"2023 Georgia Best Lawyer’s list for Legal Malpractice Law","detail":"Georgia's Best Lawyers"},{"title":"Peer Rated AV® Preeminent™","detail":"Martindale-Hubbell"},{"title":"2015 Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing","detail":"\"Interlocutory Appeal of Class Certification Decisions Under Rule 23(f)”"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10517}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:00.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T05:02:00.000Z","searchable_text":"Slovensky{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Author of “Georgia Business Torts” chapter in Georgia Business Litigation 2024 treatise\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"ALM/Law.com\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2023 Georgia Best Lawyer’s list for Legal Malpractice Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgia's Best Lawyers\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Peer Rated AV® Preeminent™\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Martindale-Hubbell\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2015 Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Interlocutory Appeal of Class Certification Decisions Under Rule 23(f)”\"}{{ FIELD }}Business Litigation and Corporate Governance Disputes\nRepresented a portfolio company of Oaktree Capital in connection with federal litigation filed against the City of Austin, Texas in W.D. Tex. relating to municipal efforts to use condemnation powers to terminate the company’s long-term contract for operation of the South Terminal at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and related state proceedings ultimately resulting in a $88 million settlement.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented multi-family real estate company Resia in asserting multi-million dollar tortious interference and breach of contract claims in the Superior of Fulton County, Georgia’s Business Court arising from a failed commercial real estate purchase transaction.{{ FIELD }}Successfully represented an affiliate of Truist Bank in asserting multi-million dollar tort and contract-based claims in M.D. Fla. arising out of an equipment sale and lease-back transaction involving mobile solar generators.{{ FIELD }}Represented Global Payments Direct, Inc. in a successful appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals overturning a $135 million jury verdict rendered in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia.{{ FIELD }}Won declaratory judgment and an attorney's fee award for a commercial real estate private equity fund in a Delaware Chancery Court expedited proceeding in an intra-LLC dispute over management of a major hotel and convention center renovation.{{ FIELD }}Won final summary judgment for private equity infrastructure fund Highstar Capital IV, LP and its officers in a long-running lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County’s Business Court in which the plaintiff sought a multi-million dollar punitive damages award arising from the fund's $470 million acquisition of a portfolio company.{{ FIELD }}Won a jury trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of a portfolio company of a private equity fund sued by a developer over a property line dispute in connection with the acquisition of a multimillion-dollar student housing development; affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals.{{ FIELD }}Won a bench trial in a case filed by a Georgia municipality in litigation relating to a long-term $40 million water supply agreement; obtained an order affirming the validity of the underlying agreement, affirmance by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and denial of petition for certiorari by the Georgia Supreme Court.{{ FIELD }}Obtained a multimillion-dollar award for a publicly traded corporation in a purchase price escrow dispute with former shareholders of an acquired telecommunications company.{{ FIELD }}Represented SunTrust Bank and an individual broker in defense of a $100 million claim before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel arising from sale of preferred securities to state chartered banks.{{ FIELD }}Prepared an independent counsel report for a special litigation committee of a corporate board on responding to shareholder demands for institution of breach of fiduciary duty litigation against directors relating to prior corporate acquisitions.{{ FIELD }}Conducted an independent investigation for the board of a publicly traded pharmaceutical corporation in response to demands from two board members for review of prior corporate transactions; issued a substantial report to the board, which was unanimously accepted by the board, including by the dissenting board members.{{ FIELD }}Represented a software purchaser in litigation against a software development company in the Superior Court of DeKalb County and obtained a jury verdict awarding all damages sought.{{ FIELD }}Legal Malpractice and Professional Liability Defense\nWon final summary judgment for an AM Law 100 law firm in a N.D. Ga. lawsuit brought by a receiver alleging malpractice arising from a Georgia regional bank failure.\nRepresented an AM Law 100 law firm and an individually-named lawyer in defense of RICO and business tort claims in E.D. Pa. asserted against the law firm by a third party relating to a client's activities and obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims.\nRepresented an AM 100 law firm in breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice litigation in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia arising from the firm’s prior representation of a closely-held corporation.\nRepresented a national law firm and individually named lawyers in defense of legal malpractice claims asserted by receiver on behalf of creditors of former regional bank client.\nRepresented a regional law firm in connection with favorable resolution of legal malpractice claims asserted by a bankruptcy trustee on behalf of the estate of the firm’s former real estate developer client.\nRepresented an Atlanta-based law firm in connection with favorable resolution of contribution and malpractice claims arising from damages awarded against a former client for fraud in a prior lawsuit.\nRepresented individual Georgia lawyers in fee arbitration matters and responses to bar grievances before the State Bar of Georgia.{{ FIELD }}Class Action Litigation\nRepresented a national court reporting company in defense of multiple statewide consumer class actions relating to billing practices, resulting in two orders denying class certification under California and Florida consumer protection statutes and voluntary dismissals of all related cases. See In Re: Motions to Certify Classes Against Court Reporting Firms, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (aff’d by 11th Cir.); Colapinto v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC, 2011 WL 913251 (C.D. Cal. 2011).\nRepresented a telecommunications company in defense of a class action lawsuit under California’s call-recording statue and obtained less-than-cost-of-defense settlement.\nRepresented a national Internet service provider in defense of consumer class action relating to billing practices and related false advertising claims; obtained order compelling arbitration and subsequent favorable settlement and dismissal of claims.\nRepresented a national Internet service provider in defense of nationwide class action relating to early termination fees; obtained order dismissing damages claims based on voluntary payment doctrine.\nRepresented a healthcare insurance company in defense of multiple consumer and public interest class actions challenging company’s conversion from nonprofit to for-profit status.{{ FIELD }}Larry Slovensky represents companies and individuals in complex business tort and breach of contract litigation, corporate governance disputes, and legal malpractice/law firm defense matters in Georgia and across the country. He has substantial experience in trying cases before judges and juries, and he has represented clients in business litigation matters for more than 30 years.\nLarry's clients range in size from large publicly traded corporations, to smaller privately-held funds and portfolio companies, to individuals.  He has represented clients in a variety of industries, including banking and financial services, construction, consumer retail sales, healthcare, real estate, technology, and telecommunications. Larry has successfully handled corporate governance disputes between LLC members, post-acquisition purchase price adjustment proceedings, and independent board investigations.  In addition, he handles a wide range of other business tort, breach of contract, class action and legal malpractice lawsuits in state and federal court.\nLarry spent five years earlier in his career as in-house counsel with a national Internet service provider, where he managed all of the company’s litigation, including consumer class actions, patent infringement litigation, intellectual property disputes, anti-spam litigation, consumer disputes and general commercial litigation. He also served as ethics and loss prevention counsel for his prior law firm.\nLarry is the author of a chapter on Business Torts in the annually updated Georgia Business Litigation treatise.  He represents veterans on a pro bono basis through the Emory Law Volunteer Clinic for Veterans and the National Veterans Legal Services Program, and he oversees the firm's veterans pro bono efforts.  Larry also actively supports civic and charitable organizations in Atlanta.  He is Vice Chair of the board of directors of the Georgia Justice Project and manages our firm's participation in the Cristo Rey High School internship program. Lawrence A. Slovensky Partner Author of “Georgia Business Torts” chapter in Georgia Business Litigation 2024 treatise ALM/Law.com 2023 Georgia Best Lawyer’s list for Legal Malpractice Law Georgia's Best Lawyers Peer Rated AV® Preeminent™ Martindale-Hubbell 2015 Burton Award for Distinguished Legal Writing \"Interlocutory Appeal of Class Certification Decisions Under Rule 23(f)” University of South Carolina  University of Chicago University of Chicago Law School U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Georgia Court of Appeals of Georgia Supreme Court of Georgia Business Litigation and Corporate Governance Disputes\nRepresented a portfolio company of Oaktree Capital in connection with federal litigation filed against the City of Austin, Texas in W.D. Tex. relating to municipal efforts to use condemnation powers to terminate the company’s long-term contract for operation of the South Terminal at the Austin-Bergstrom International Airport and related state proceedings ultimately resulting in a $88 million settlement. Successfully represented multi-family real estate company Resia in asserting multi-million dollar tortious interference and breach of contract claims in the Superior of Fulton County, Georgia’s Business Court arising from a failed commercial real estate purchase transaction. Successfully represented an affiliate of Truist Bank in asserting multi-million dollar tort and contract-based claims in M.D. Fla. arising out of an equipment sale and lease-back transaction involving mobile solar generators. Represented Global Payments Direct, Inc. in a successful appeal to the Georgia Court of Appeals overturning a $135 million jury verdict rendered in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia. Won declaratory judgment and an attorney's fee award for a commercial real estate private equity fund in a Delaware Chancery Court expedited proceeding in an intra-LLC dispute over management of a major hotel and convention center renovation. Won final summary judgment for private equity infrastructure fund Highstar Capital IV, LP and its officers in a long-running lawsuit in the Superior Court of Fulton County’s Business Court in which the plaintiff sought a multi-million dollar punitive damages award arising from the fund's $470 million acquisition of a portfolio company. Won a jury trial in the Superior Court of Fulton County on behalf of a portfolio company of a private equity fund sued by a developer over a property line dispute in connection with the acquisition of a multimillion-dollar student housing development; affirmed on appeal by the Georgia Court of Appeals. Won a bench trial in a case filed by a Georgia municipality in litigation relating to a long-term $40 million water supply agreement; obtained an order affirming the validity of the underlying agreement, affirmance by the Georgia Court of Appeals, and denial of petition for certiorari by the Georgia Supreme Court. Obtained a multimillion-dollar award for a publicly traded corporation in a purchase price escrow dispute with former shareholders of an acquired telecommunications company. Represented SunTrust Bank and an individual broker in defense of a $100 million claim before a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority arbitration panel arising from sale of preferred securities to state chartered banks. Prepared an independent counsel report for a special litigation committee of a corporate board on responding to shareholder demands for institution of breach of fiduciary duty litigation against directors relating to prior corporate acquisitions. Conducted an independent investigation for the board of a publicly traded pharmaceutical corporation in response to demands from two board members for review of prior corporate transactions; issued a substantial report to the board, which was unanimously accepted by the board, including by the dissenting board members. Represented a software purchaser in litigation against a software development company in the Superior Court of DeKalb County and obtained a jury verdict awarding all damages sought. Legal Malpractice and Professional Liability Defense\nWon final summary judgment for an AM Law 100 law firm in a N.D. Ga. lawsuit brought by a receiver alleging malpractice arising from a Georgia regional bank failure.\nRepresented an AM Law 100 law firm and an individually-named lawyer in defense of RICO and business tort claims in E.D. Pa. asserted against the law firm by a third party relating to a client's activities and obtained dismissal with prejudice of all claims.\nRepresented an AM 100 law firm in breach of fiduciary duty and malpractice litigation in the Superior Court of DeKalb County, Georgia arising from the firm’s prior representation of a closely-held corporation.\nRepresented a national law firm and individually named lawyers in defense of legal malpractice claims asserted by receiver on behalf of creditors of former regional bank client.\nRepresented a regional law firm in connection with favorable resolution of legal malpractice claims asserted by a bankruptcy trustee on behalf of the estate of the firm’s former real estate developer client.\nRepresented an Atlanta-based law firm in connection with favorable resolution of contribution and malpractice claims arising from damages awarded against a former client for fraud in a prior lawsuit.\nRepresented individual Georgia lawyers in fee arbitration matters and responses to bar grievances before the State Bar of Georgia. Class Action Litigation\nRepresented a national court reporting company in defense of multiple statewide consumer class actions relating to billing practices, resulting in two orders denying class certification under California and Florida consumer protection statutes and voluntary dismissals of all related cases. See In Re: Motions to Certify Classes Against Court Reporting Firms, 715 F. Supp. 2d 1265 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (aff’d by 11th Cir.); Colapinto v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC, 2011 WL 913251 (C.D. Cal. 2011).\nRepresented a telecommunications company in defense of a class action lawsuit under California’s call-recording statue and obtained less-than-cost-of-defense settlement.\nRepresented a national Internet service provider in defense of consumer class action relating to billing practices and related false advertising claims; obtained order compelling arbitration and subsequent favorable settlement and dismissal of claims.\nRepresented a national Internet service provider in defense of nationwide class action relating to early termination fees; obtained order dismissing damages claims based on voluntary payment doctrine.\nRepresented a healthcare insurance company in defense of multiple consumer and public interest class actions challenging company’s conversion from nonprofit to for-profit status.","searchable_name":"Lawrence A. Slovensky (Larry)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442426,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":171,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eReggie Smith's practice focus is international arbitration and cross-border litigation, with a particular specialty in handling commercial disputes in the energy sector as well as representing investors in disputes with sovereigns that have taken actions to either destroy or impair investments through conduct ranging from outright expropriations to the revocation or modification of investment incentive programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRelying on years of experience in representing companies and individuals in significant business litigation disputes in U.S. courts, Reggie brings advocacy skills to his international arbitration and cross-border litigation practice that have yielded some of the largest investment arbitration awards and court judgments on record. For example, Reggie served as co-lead counsel in a suit against Argentina in federal court in New York that resulted in the largest judgment ever rendered against a sovereign by a U.S. court. As lead counsel in an arbitration for a European oil and gas company against the Government of Kazakhstan, Reggie secured the largest award on record at the time under the Energy Charter Treaty. Reggie similarly took the lead in representing an investor against the Government of Egypt relating to the expropriation of a real estate project that resulted in the largest award on record for an individual claimant. Reggie also served as lead counsel in obtaining the largest moral damages award on record for an investor in an investment dispute against Vietnam. Reggie has prosecuted over 40 cases for investors against sovereigns under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing experience developed as a seasoned oil and gas litigator in the U.S. courts, Reggie also has deep expertise in representing energy companies in international and domestic commercial arbitration disputes. Whether the disputes involve the oil and gas sector or renewable energy projects, Reggie has taken the lead in representing some of the world's largest energy companies in high-stakes arbitrations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile clients routinely entrust Reggie to serve as their advocate in high stakes arbitrations and litigations, they also look to him as a trusted strategic advisor in helping them manage their disputes to reach a commercial solution that serves their long-term best interests. Reggie well understands that clients are not in the business of litigating their disputes, and litigation is simply a tool to be used in reaching a commercial resolution that furthers the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"reginald-smith","email":"rsmith@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Commercial Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etwo steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDubai-based iron ore mining companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Investment Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor\u0026rsquo;s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a number of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean renewable energy company investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Kuwaiti investor group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish and Irish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government\u0026rsquo;s role in facilitating an illegal \u0026ldquo;tunneling\u0026rdquo; of the investors\u0026rsquo; investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eItalian\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003einvestors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea group of\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government\u0026rsquo;s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors\u0026rsquo; commercial real estate holdings in Baku.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Swedish investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Italian investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor\u0026rsquo;s resort development property.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation Relating to International Arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Canadian mining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European resort developer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean infrastructure construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethree of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest manufacturing companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSpanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ein litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest retailers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":229}]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Smith","nick_name":"Reggie","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Reginald","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"AmLaw"},{"title":"Energy MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation ","detail":"Legal 500, repeated listings"},{"title":"Litigation Star ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eReggie Smith's practice focus is international arbitration and cross-border litigation, with a particular specialty in handling commercial disputes in the energy sector as well as representing investors in disputes with sovereigns that have taken actions to either destroy or impair investments through conduct ranging from outright expropriations to the revocation or modification of investment incentive programs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRelying on years of experience in representing companies and individuals in significant business litigation disputes in U.S. courts, Reggie brings advocacy skills to his international arbitration and cross-border litigation practice that have yielded some of the largest investment arbitration awards and court judgments on record. For example, Reggie served as co-lead counsel in a suit against Argentina in federal court in New York that resulted in the largest judgment ever rendered against a sovereign by a U.S. court. As lead counsel in an arbitration for a European oil and gas company against the Government of Kazakhstan, Reggie secured the largest award on record at the time under the Energy Charter Treaty. Reggie similarly took the lead in representing an investor against the Government of Egypt relating to the expropriation of a real estate project that resulted in the largest award on record for an individual claimant. Reggie also served as lead counsel in obtaining the largest moral damages award on record for an investor in an investment dispute against Vietnam. Reggie has prosecuted over 40 cases for investors against sovereigns under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eUsing experience developed as a seasoned oil and gas litigator in the U.S. courts, Reggie also has deep expertise in representing energy companies in international and domestic commercial arbitration disputes. Whether the disputes involve the oil and gas sector or renewable energy projects, Reggie has taken the lead in representing some of the world's largest energy companies in high-stakes arbitrations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhile clients routinely entrust Reggie to serve as their advocate in high stakes arbitrations and litigations, they also look to him as a trusted strategic advisor in helping them manage their disputes to reach a commercial solution that serves their long-term best interests. Reggie well understands that clients are not in the business of litigating their disputes, and litigation is simply a tool to be used in reaching a commercial resolution that furthers the client\u0026rsquo;s business goals.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Commercial Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003etwo steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eDubai-based iron ore mining companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean independent oil and gas company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eInternational Investment Arbitration Disputes\u003cbr /\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European oil and gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor\u0026rsquo;s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a number of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEuropean renewable energy company investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Kuwaiti investor group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish and Irish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government\u0026rsquo;s role in facilitating an illegal \u0026ldquo;tunneling\u0026rdquo; of the investors\u0026rsquo; investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eItalian\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003einvestors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea group of\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEnglish investors\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government\u0026rsquo;s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors\u0026rsquo; commercial real estate holdings in Baku.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Dutch investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea Swedish investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean Italian investor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor\u0026rsquo;s resort development property.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation Relating to International Arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Canadian mining company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European resort developer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean infrastructure construction company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. \u0026sect; 1782.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea European energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ethree of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest manufacturing companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSpanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003ein litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eone of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest retailers\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigator of the Week","detail":"AmLaw"},{"title":"Energy MVP","detail":"Law360"},{"title":"Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation ","detail":"Legal 500, repeated listings"},{"title":"Litigation Star ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1188}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:05:18.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:05:18.000Z","searchable_text":"Smith{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigator of the Week\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"AmLaw\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Energy MVP\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, repeated listings\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Star \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016\"}{{ FIELD }}International Commercial Arbitration DisputesRepresenting an oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources.{{ FIELD }}Representing two steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies in a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine.{{ FIELD }}Representing Dubai-based iron ore mining companies in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company.{{ FIELD }}Representing an independent oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract.{{ FIELD }}Representing an independent oil and gas company in a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European oil and gas company in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm.{{ FIELD }}Representing an international petrochemical company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility.{{ FIELD }}International Investment Arbitration DisputesRepresenting a European oil and gas company in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor’s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets.{{ FIELD }}Representing a number of European renewable energy company investors in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Kuwaiti investor group in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project.{{ FIELD }}Representing English and Irish investors in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government’s role in facilitating an illegal “tunneling” of the investors’ investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters.{{ FIELD }}Representing Italian investors in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession.{{ FIELD }}Representing a group of English investors in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government’s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors’ commercial real estate holdings in Baku.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Dutch investor in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises.{{ FIELD }}Representing a Swedish investor in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union.{{ FIELD }}Representing an Italian investor in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor’s resort development property.{{ FIELD }}U.S. Litigation Relating to International ArbitrationRepresenting a Canadian mining company in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European resort developer in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement.{{ FIELD }}Representing an infrastructure construction company in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European energy company in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European energy company in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major energy company in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European energy company in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration.{{ FIELD }}U.S. LitigationRepresenting three of the world’s largest manufacturing companies in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market.{{ FIELD }}Representing Spanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund in litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012.{{ FIELD }}Representing a major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing.{{ FIELD }}Representing one of the world’s largest retailers in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.{{ FIELD }}Reggie Smith's practice focus is international arbitration and cross-border litigation, with a particular specialty in handling commercial disputes in the energy sector as well as representing investors in disputes with sovereigns that have taken actions to either destroy or impair investments through conduct ranging from outright expropriations to the revocation or modification of investment incentive programs.\nRelying on years of experience in representing companies and individuals in significant business litigation disputes in U.S. courts, Reggie brings advocacy skills to his international arbitration and cross-border litigation practice that have yielded some of the largest investment arbitration awards and court judgments on record. For example, Reggie served as co-lead counsel in a suit against Argentina in federal court in New York that resulted in the largest judgment ever rendered against a sovereign by a U.S. court. As lead counsel in an arbitration for a European oil and gas company against the Government of Kazakhstan, Reggie secured the largest award on record at the time under the Energy Charter Treaty. Reggie similarly took the lead in representing an investor against the Government of Egypt relating to the expropriation of a real estate project that resulted in the largest award on record for an individual claimant. Reggie also served as lead counsel in obtaining the largest moral damages award on record for an investor in an investment dispute against Vietnam. Reggie has prosecuted over 40 cases for investors against sovereigns under bilateral and multilateral investment treaties.\nUsing experience developed as a seasoned oil and gas litigator in the U.S. courts, Reggie also has deep expertise in representing energy companies in international and domestic commercial arbitration disputes. Whether the disputes involve the oil and gas sector or renewable energy projects, Reggie has taken the lead in representing some of the world's largest energy companies in high-stakes arbitrations.\nWhile clients routinely entrust Reggie to serve as their advocate in high stakes arbitrations and litigations, they also look to him as a trusted strategic advisor in helping them manage their disputes to reach a commercial solution that serves their long-term best interests. Reggie well understands that clients are not in the business of litigating their disputes, and litigation is simply a tool to be used in reaching a commercial resolution that furthers the client’s business goals. Reginald R Smith Partner Litigator of the Week AmLaw Energy MVP Law360 Tier 1: International Arbitration and Energy Litigation  Legal 500, repeated listings Litigation Star  Benchmark Litigation, 2015–2016 Emory University Emory University School of Law University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law Emory University Emory University School of Law Georgia Texas American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia State Bar of Texas Houston County Bar Association International Commercial Arbitration DisputesRepresenting an oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with a sovereign over claims exceeding $1.5 billion relating to the alleged drainage of oil and gas resources. Representing two steel manufacturing and iron ore mining companies in a breach of contact arbitration (ICC) against Nigeria relating to the breach of concession and shareholder agreements relating to steel plants and an iron ore mine. Representing Dubai-based iron ore mining companies in a breach of contract arbitration (ad hoc) with a Middle Eastern state-owned mining company. Representing an independent oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (ICC) with a state-owned oil and gas company over claims relating to a penalty provision contained in a Production Sharing Contract. Representing an independent oil and gas company in a Joint Operating Agreement dispute (ICC) regarding whether preference rights were observed in connection with a share sale. Representing a European oil and gas company in a commercial arbitration (LCIA) with the Kurdistan Regional Government over unitization rights under a Production Sharing Contract. Representing a European oil and gas company in multiple commercial arbitrations (ad hoc) with an international oil trading firm. Representing an international petrochemical company in a commercial arbitration (ad hoc) with joint venture partners over the dissolution of a limited liability corporation that operates a chemical manufacturing facility. International Investment Arbitration DisputesRepresenting a European oil and gas company in an Energy Charter Treaty dispute (Stockholm Chamber) with Kazakhstan over the wrongful expropriation and other improper interference with the investor’s oil and gas development rights and associated production assets. Representing a number of European renewable energy company investors in 16 Energy Charter Treaty cases (ICSID) with Spain, Italy, Romania, and Bulgaria, over the wrongful withdrawal of renewable energy incentive programs. Representing a Kuwaiti investor group in an investment dispute with Egypt over wrongful interference with a real estate development project. Representing English and Irish investors in an investment dispute with the Czech Republic (UNCITRAL) over the government’s role in facilitating an illegal “tunneling” of the investors’ investments in an aerospace and telecommunications business by local fraudsters. Representing Italian investors in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with North Macedonia over the illegal expropriation of a waste management concession. Representing a group of English investors in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Azerbaijan over the government’s expropriation and other unlawful interference with the investors’ commercial real estate holdings in Baku. Representing a Dutch investor in an international arbitration dispute (UNCITRAL) with Vietnam over the wrongful expropriation of investments in real estate and business enterprises. Representing a Swedish investor in a large food and beverage manufacturing company in an investment dispute (ICSID) with Romania over the withdrawal of customs tax and other investment incentives upon accession to the European Union. Representing an Italian investor in an international arbitration dispute (ICSID) with Egypt over the wrongful expropriation of the investor’s resort development property. U.S. Litigation Relating to International ArbitrationRepresenting a Canadian mining company in seeking multi-jurisdictional recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award in excess of $1.2 billion against Venezuela. Representing a European resort developer in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an ICSID award against Egypt in the courts of the U.S., the UK, France and Switzerland. Activities included obtaining court recognition of the award in multiple jurisdictions, and overseeing subsequent attachment actions against Egyptian assets in different countries, leading to an ultimate settlement. Representing an infrastructure construction company in seeking recognition and enforcement of an ICC award against Equatorial Guinea in the courts of the U.S. Representing a European energy company in obtaining the recognition and enforcement of an award under the Energy Charter Treaty against Kazakhstan in the U.S. and the UK. Representing a European energy company in an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Representing a major energy company in defending an action filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas seeking discovery in aid of an LCIA arbitration under 28 U.S.C. § 1782. Representing a European energy company in proceedings filed in the Texas state courts seeking pre-suit discovery relating, in part, to an LCIA arbitration. U.S. LitigationRepresenting three of the world’s largest manufacturing companies in an antitrust and RICO multi-district litigation proceeding against a Japanese trading company and other defendants relating to manipulation of the world's copper market. Representing Spanish companies and a New York-based hedge fund in litigation in the Southern District of New York against Argentina for the breach of the mandatory tender offer provisions in the corporate by-laws of YPF when the government nationalized YPF in 2012. Representing a major energy company shareholder in a joint venture pipeline company in a shareholder derivative suit against the majority shareholder and operator of the pipeline company for breach of fiduciary duty and self-dealing. Representing one of the world’s largest retailers in a multimillion-dollar antitrust suit against credit and debit card companies for price fixing and improperly tying their credit and debit card products.","searchable_name":"Reginald R. Smith (Reggie)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":202,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null}]}}