{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono","value":"Partner / Head of Pro Bono"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Operating Officer"},{"name":"Partner / General Counsel","value":"Partner / General Counsel"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice","value":"Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice"},{"name":"K\u0026S Talent Partner","value":"K\u0026S Talent Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer","value":"Partner / Chief Human Resources Officer"},{"name":"Chairman","value":"Chairman"},{"name":"Senior Counsel","value":"Senior Counsel"},{"name":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations","value":"Associate Director, E-Discovery Operations"},{"name":"Counsel","value":"Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Associate","value":"Senior Associate"},{"name":"Associate","value":"Associate"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Chief Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Revenue Officer","value":"Chief Revenue Officer"},{"name":"Chief Recruiting Officer","value":"Chief Recruiting Officer"},{"name":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer","value":"Chief Lawyer Talent Development Officer"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Community Affairs","value":"Director of Community Affairs"},{"name":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations","value":"Director of Facilities \u0026 Admin Operations"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Law Clerk","value":"Law Clerk"},{"name":"Deputy General Counsel","value":"Deputy General Counsel"}],"schools":[{"name":"(Commercial Law), in front of Monash University, Australia","value":3045},{"name":"Aberystwyth University","value":3004},{"name":"Albany Law School","value":2118},{"name":"American University Washington College of Law","value":3042},{"name":"American University, Washington College of Law","value":3024},{"name":"Appalachian School of Law","value":2891},{"name":"Ateneo de Manila University","value":2914},{"name":"Ave Maria School of Law","value":2892},{"name":"Baylor University School of Law","value":181},{"name":"Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law","value":2619},{"name":"Binghamton University","value":3002},{"name":"Boston College Law School","value":245},{"name":"Boston University School of Law","value":247},{"name":"BPP Law School Leeds","value":2642},{"name":"BPP Law School London","value":2782},{"name":"BPP University","value":2984},{"name":"Brooklyn Law School","value":2705},{"name":"Cairo University, Law School","value":2962},{"name":"California Western School of Law","value":315},{"name":"Capital University Law School","value":327},{"name":"Case Western Reserve University School of Law","value":345},{"name":"Cecil C. Humphreys School of Law","value":2235},{"name":"Chapman University School of Law","value":377},{"name":"Charleston School of Law","value":2910},{"name":"City Law School, London","value":2998},{"name":"City Law School","value":2857},{"name":"Clark University","value":3006},{"name":"Cleveland-Marshall College of Law","value":426},{"name":"Columbia University School of International and Public Affairs","value":3008},{"name":"Columbia University School of Law","value":485},{"name":"Columbia University","value":3126},{"name":"Columbus School of Law, Catholic University of America","value":3010},{"name":"Columbus School of Law","value":350},{"name":"Concord Law School of Kaplan University","value":1026},{"name":"Cornell Law School","value":512},{"name":"Creighton University School of Law","value":518},{"name":"Creighton University","value":3025},{"name":"Cumberland School of Law","value":1759},{"name":"CUNY School of Law","value":2893},{"name":"David A. Clarke School of Law","value":2399},{"name":"Deakin University School of Law","value":2907},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":3060},{"name":"Dickinson School of Law","value":2719},{"name":"Drake University Law School","value":609},{"name":"Duke University School of Law","value":613},{"name":"Duquesne University School of Law","value":614},{"name":"Dwayne O. Andreas School of Law","value":173},{"name":"Edinburgh Law School","value":3160},{"name":"Emory University School of Law","value":659},{"name":"ESADE Business and Law School – Universidad Ramon Llull","value":3215},{"name":"Fachseminare von Fürstenberg","value":2918},{"name":"Faculté Libre de Droit, Université Catholique de Lille","value":3055},{"name":"Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb","value":2983},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":2944},{"name":"Faculty of Law","value":3039},{"name":"Federal University of Rio de Janeiro","value":3022},{"name":"Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul School of Law (Brazil)","value":3062},{"name":"Florida A\u0026M University College of Law","value":699},{"name":"Florida Coastal School of Law","value":2894},{"name":"Florida International College of Law","value":707},{"name":"Florida State University College of Law","value":720},{"name":"Fordham University School of Law","value":722},{"name":"Franklin Pierce Law Center","value":734},{"name":"Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena","value":3015},{"name":"George Mason University School of Law","value":752},{"name":"George Washington University Law School","value":753},{"name":"Georgetown University Law Center","value":755},{"name":"Georgia State University College of Law","value":761},{"name":"Ghent Law School","value":2793},{"name":"Golden Gate University School of Law","value":770},{"name":"Gonzaga University School of Law","value":772},{"name":"Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva","value":2997},{"name":"Hamline University School of Law","value":811},{"name":"Harvard Law School","value":824},{"name":"Hebrew University of Jerusalem Faculty of Law","value":2994},{"name":"Hofstra University School of Law","value":858},{"name":"Howard University School of Law","value":872},{"name":"Huazhong University of Science and Technology","value":3016},{"name":"Humboldt University of Berlin","value":3012},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":2711},{"name":"Indiana University School of Law","value":890},{"name":"International Association of Privacy Professionals","value":3009},{"name":"J. Reuben Clark Law School","value":262},{"name":"Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Center","value":2084},{"name":"James Cook University of North Queensland","value":3034},{"name":"Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, France","value":2938},{"name":"Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health","value":2992},{"name":"Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen Rechtswissenschaft (Germany)","value":3063},{"name":"Kansas City School of Law","value":2247},{"name":"Keio University","value":2968},{"name":"Kent College of Law","value":883},{"name":"Kline School of Law","value":611},{"name":"KU Leuven","value":3007},{"name":"Levin College of Law","value":2189},{"name":"Lewis and Clark Law School","value":1089},{"name":"Liberty University School of Law","value":1094},{"name":"Lincoln College of Law","value":2253},{"name":"LL.M. in International Crime and Justice UNICRI","value":2937},{"name":"Loyola Law School","value":2895},{"name":"Loyola University Chicago School of Law","value":1135},{"name":"Loyola University New Orleans College of Law","value":1136},{"name":"Marquette University Law School","value":1176},{"name":"McGeorge School of Law","value":2402},{"name":"McGill University","value":2659},{"name":"Melbourne Law School","value":2899},{"name":"Mercer University Walter F. George School of Law","value":1221},{"name":"Mexico Autonomous Institute of Technology","value":2996},{"name":"Michael E. Moritz College of Law","value":2728},{"name":"Michigan State University College of Law","value":1245},{"name":"Mississippi College School of Law","value":1285},{"name":"Moscow State University","value":2815},{"name":"National and Kapodistrian University of Athens","value":3032},{"name":"National Law University Jodhpur","value":3020},{"name":"National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law","value":2662},{"name":"New England School of Law","value":2886},{"name":"New York Law School","value":1403},{"name":"New York University School of Law","value":1406},{"name":"Norman Adrian Wiggins School of Law","value":323},{"name":"North Carolina Central University School of Law","value":1417},{"name":"Northeastern University School of Law","value":1430},{"name":"Northern Illinois University College of Law","value":1432},{"name":"Northwestern Pritzker School of Law","value":1451},{"name":"Notre Dame Law School","value":2278},{"name":"Ohio Northern University Law School","value":3036},{"name":"Oklahoma City University School of Law","value":1487},{"name":"Osgoode Hall Law School","value":3124},{"name":"Pace University School of Law","value":1516},{"name":"Panteion University","value":3033},{"name":"Paul M. Hebert Law Center","value":2713},{"name":"Pennsylvania State University, Dickinson School of Law","value":1562},{"name":"Pepperdine University School of Law","value":1570},{"name":"Pettit College of Law","value":1473},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica de Chile","value":3203},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru","value":3011},{"name":"Pontificia Universidad Javeriana","value":3013},{"name":"Pontificia Universidade Catolica de Sao Paulo","value":3095},{"name":"Prince Sultan University College of Law","value":3167},{"name":"Queens College, Cambridge","value":3003},{"name":"Quinnipiac University School of Law","value":1626},{"name":"Ralph R. Papitto School of Law","value":1686},{"name":"Regent University School of Law","value":1649},{"name":"Rice University","value":3043},{"name":"Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg","value":3049},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law-Newark","value":1699},{"name":"Rutgers University School of Law","value":1697},{"name":"S.J. Quinney College of Law","value":2408},{"name":"Saint Louis University School of Law","value":1732},{"name":"Salmon P. Chase College of Law","value":1433},{"name":"Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law","value":103},{"name":"Santa Clara University School of Law","value":1771},{"name":"Seattle University School of Law","value":1787},{"name":"Seton Hall University School of Law","value":1790},{"name":"Shepard Broad Law Center","value":1460},{"name":"South Texas College of Law","value":2721},{"name":"Southern Illinois University School of Law","value":1849},{"name":"Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law","value":1852},{"name":"Southern University Law Center","value":1857},{"name":"Southwestern Law School","value":1876},{"name":"St. John's University School of Law","value":2724},{"name":"St. Mary's University School of Law","value":1896},{"name":"St. Thomas University School of Law","value":1746},{"name":"Stanford Law School","value":1904},{"name":"Stetson University College of Law","value":1910},{"name":"Sturm College of Law","value":2184},{"name":"Suffolk University Law School","value":1921},{"name":"Syracuse University College of Law","value":1956},{"name":"Temple University Beasley School of Law","value":1974},{"name":"Texas A\u0026M School of Law","value":1980},{"name":"Texas Tech University School of Law","value":1994},{"name":"Texas Wesleyan University School of Law","value":1996},{"name":"The College of Law Australia","value":3091},{"name":"The College of Law, London","value":2935},{"name":"The John Marshall Law School","value":2034},{"name":"The Judge Advocate General's Legal Center and School","value":2896},{"name":"The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law","value":2990},{"name":"The University of Akron School of Law","value":2143},{"name":"The University of Alabama School of Law","value":2045},{"name":"The University of Birmingham, U.K.","value":2796},{"name":"The University of Iowa College of Law","value":2206},{"name":"The University of Texas School of Law","value":2055},{"name":"The University of Tulsa College of Law","value":2407},{"name":"Thomas Jefferson School of Law","value":685},{"name":"Thomas M. Cooley Law School","value":2729},{"name":"Thurgood Marshall School of Law","value":1992},{"name":"Tianjin University of Commerce","value":2995},{"name":"Tulane University Law School","value":2113},{"name":"UC Davis School of Law","value":2160},{"name":"UCLA School of Law","value":2162},{"name":"Universidad Católica de Honduras","value":2916},{"name":"Universidad Francisco Marroquin","value":3090},{"name":"Universidad Panamericana","value":2904},{"name":"Universidad Torcuato di Tella","value":3035},{"name":"Universidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Direito","value":3028},{"name":"Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie","value":2977},{"name":"Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi","value":3135},{"name":"University at Buffalo Law School","value":1928},{"name":"University College Dublin Law School","value":2900},{"name":"University of Alberta Faculty of Law","value":3088},{"name":"University of Amsterdam","value":2980},{"name":"University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law","value":2149},{"name":"University of Arkansas School of Law","value":2154},{"name":"University of Baltimore School of Law","value":2156},{"name":"University of California College of the Law","value":3196},{"name":"University of California Hastings College of Law","value":2158},{"name":"University of California Irvine School of Law","value":2161},{"name":"University of California, Berkeley, School of Law","value":2159},{"name":"University of California, Davis","value":3019},{"name":"University of Cambridge, U.K","value":2991},{"name":"University of Canterbury","value":2981},{"name":"University of Central Florida","value":3027},{"name":"University of Chester Law School","value":3005},{"name":"University of Chicago Law School","value":2174},{"name":"University of Chicago","value":3038},{"name":"University of Cincinnati College of Law","value":2175},{"name":"University of Colorado School of Law","value":2177},{"name":"University of Connecticut School of Law","value":2180},{"name":"University of Dayton School of Law","value":2182},{"name":"University of Detroit Mercy School of Law","value":2185},{"name":"University of East Anglia","value":3000},{"name":"University of Florida, Levin College of Law","value":3188},{"name":"University of Georgia School of Law","value":2190},{"name":"University of Houston Law Center","value":2197},{"name":"University of Hull","value":3040},{"name":"University of Idaho College of Law","value":2201},{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law","value":2204},{"name":"University of Kansas School of Law","value":2208},{"name":"University of Kentucky College of Law","value":2210},{"name":"University of La Verne College of Law","value":2211},{"name":"University of Law, London","value":2999},{"name":"University of Lethbridge","value":3030},{"name":"University of Louisville Brandeis School of Law","value":2214},{"name":"University of Maine School of Law","value":2391},{"name":"University of Maryland School of Law","value":2224},{"name":"University of Miami School of Law","value":2236},{"name":"University of Michigan Law School","value":2237},{"name":"University of Minnesota Law School","value":2243},{"name":"University of Mississippi School of Law","value":2244},{"name":"University of Missouri School of Law","value":2246},{"name":"University of Montana School of Law","value":2048},{"name":"University of Nebraska College of Law","value":2744},{"name":"University of New Mexico School of Law","value":2262},{"name":"University of North Carolina School of Law","value":2266},{"name":"University of North Dakota School of Law","value":2271},{"name":"University of Oklahoma Law Center","value":2747},{"name":"University of Oregon School of Law","value":2281},{"name":"University of Pennsylvania Law School","value":2282},{"name":"University of Pittsburgh School of Law","value":2354},{"name":"University of Richmond School of Law","value":2370},{"name":"University of San Diego School of Law","value":2377},{"name":"University of San Francisco School of Law","value":2378},{"name":"University of South Carolina School of Law","value":2750},{"name":"University of South Dakota School of Law","value":2387},{"name":"University of Southern California Gould School of Law","value":3051},{"name":"University of St. Thomas School of Law","value":2751},{"name":"University of Sydney Law School","value":3031},{"name":"University of Tennessee College of Law","value":2051},{"name":"University of the West of England, Bristol","value":3001},{"name":"University of Toledo College of Law","value":2406},{"name":"University of Toronto","value":2912},{"name":"University of Utah","value":3026},{"name":"University of Virginia School of Law","value":2410},{"name":"University of Washington School of Law","value":2412},{"name":"University of Wisconsin Law School","value":2419},{"name":"University of Wyoming College of Law","value":2429},{"name":"University of Zürich","value":3037},{"name":"University Paris Dauphine","value":2976},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":3052},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":null,"value":72},{"name":null,"value":26},{"name":null,"value":40},{"name":null,"value":27},{"name":null,"value":80},{"name":null,"value":28},{"name":null,"value":35},{"name":null,"value":10},{"name":null,"value":134},{"name":null,"value":121},{"name":null,"value":78},{"name":null,"value":29},{"name":null,"value":32},{"name":null,"value":31},{"name":null,"value":33},{"name":null,"value":126},{"name":null,"value":36},{"name":null,"value":82},{"name":null,"value":37},{"name":null,"value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":null,"value":1},{"name":null,"value":6},{"name":null,"value":71},{"name":null,"value":21},{"name":null,"value":23},{"name":null,"value":116},{"name":null,"value":24},{"name":null,"value":135},{"name":null,"value":25},{"name":null,"value":110},{"name":null,"value":20},{"name":null,"value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":null,"value":129},{"name":null,"value":2},{"name":null,"value":38},{"name":null,"value":3},{"name":null,"value":5},{"name":null,"value":19},{"name":null,"value":7},{"name":null,"value":4},{"name":null,"value":136},{"name":null,"value":13},{"name":null,"value":14},{"name":null,"value":15},{"name":null,"value":17},{"name":null,"value":18},{"name":null,"value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":null,"value":133},{"name":null,"value":106},{"name":null,"value":124},{"name":null,"value":111},{"name":null,"value":132},{"name":null,"value":131},{"name":null,"value":102},{"name":null,"value":125},{"name":null,"value":127},{"name":null,"value":107},{"name":null,"value":112},{"name":null,"value":105},{"name":null,"value":109},{"name":null,"value":103},{"name":null,"value":128},{"name":null,"value":123},{"name":null,"value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":null,"capability_id":"cg-3","extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"id":442405,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":1250,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRoberto Aguirre Luzi specializes in counseling multinational corporations on complex arbitration. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Roberto is experienced in administrative and civil law, government contracts, oil and gas contracts, public utilities, and power and infrastructure projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003eForeign Legal Consultant, Authorized to Practice law in Argentina (not licensed in Texas)\u003c/h5\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoberto represents clients in complex arbitrations before the World Bank Group\u0026rsquo;s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and UN Commission on International Trade Law, as well as in arbitration under the International Centre for Dispute Resolution and International Chamber of Commerce rules. Roberto also has extensive experience in civil and administrative law, government contracts, oil and gas contracts, public utilities, and power and infrastructure projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eListed as a leading member of the international arbitration bar in the 2011 \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eGlobal Arbitration Review\u003c/em\u003e 45 Under 45 rankings, Roberto has also been individually recognized by \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eChambers Latin America\u003c/em\u003e and featured in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who in International Arbitration.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoberto worked for five years as an associate for Marval, O\u0026rsquo;Farrell \u0026amp; Mairal before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2003. He was born in San Juan, Argentina. Roberto is fluent in Spanish and English, and reads French, Italian and Portuguese.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"roberto-aguirreluzi","email":"raguirreluzi@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 832 814 5375","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLinea Amarilla S.A\u003c/strong\u003e.C. (owned by VINCI Highways) against the City of Lima in a toll road project regarding the nullity of the concession agreement. Lima is claiming the nullity of the concession based on the alleged imbalance of the economic terms of several agreements entered into during the contract execution. The case also involves construction claims against the City of Lima. It is a high-profile case, involving criminal proceedings against former mayors and government officials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea French company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute under the France-Peru Bilateral Investment Treaty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSociedad Aeroportuaria Kuntur Wasi S.A.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporaci\u0026oacute;n Am\u0026eacute;rica S.A\u003c/strong\u003e. in an ICSID arbitration under the Peru-Argentina bilateral investment treaty, a concession contract for the construction and operation of the new airport in Cuzco, and a guaranty contract (Contrato Ley), involving the unlawful termination and unfair treatment provided to both investors. The Peruvian government has initiated criminal proceedings regarding the concession and its addenda.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGente Oil Ecuador Pte.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLtd\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a UNCITRAL arbitration administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration arising out of a dispute involving a risk service oil contract with Ecuador. The matter also includes allegations of corruption and fraud, including proceedings before criminal courts and the Comptroller Office (Contralor\u0026iacute;a).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eReficar\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against CB\u0026amp;I, an EPC contractor. The dispute concerns costs and delays in connection with the construction of a refinery in Colombia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTeinver S.A.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina involving the nationalization of the two largest airlines in that country.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSalini Impregilo SpA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in three international arbitrations against Argentina involving its investments in a water management concession, a roadway concession and a bridge.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMurphy Oil\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEuropean company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a potential arbitration against a state and a state-owned energy company. The dispute concerns the nationalization of the energy company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSempra Energy International\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses and in a potential arbitration against another South American country involving its investment in a power distribution company, and advised it in two ICC arbitrations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003etwo American oil and gas companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two ICSID arbitrations against Argentina, one of which involved claimant\u0026rsquo;s investment in two power plants and a natural gas field.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor American oil company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multibillion-dollar U.S. claim against a South American state concerning the breach of a bilateral investment treaty, an oil concession agreement and an environmental claim initiated against the oil company in the courts of the South American state.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCity Oriente Limited\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID contract arbitration against Ecuador and Petroecuador concerning the violation of an Oil Production Sharing Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eglobal supplier of power plants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its arbitration claim involving an engineering, procurement and construction contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNoble Energy, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eand MachalaPower Cia. Ltda.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in their arbitration claim against a South American country concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty, an investment agreement and a concession contract for the construction and operation of a power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003etelecommunications company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina concerning the violation of a treaty and the nationalization of its concession contract with the Argentine Government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCamuzzi Internacional\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge international water company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its ICSID arbitration against Argentina.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor American energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in preparing an ICSID arbitration against a Central American state concerning the breach of different contracts with distribution companies for the purchase of electricity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor independent company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a potential LCIA arbitration under a Joint Operating Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNorthrop Grumman\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its US$200 million bidding to, and contract work for, the Argentine government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;initiated by P\u0026eacute;rez Companc against Enersys.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":121}]},"expertise":[{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":116,"guid":"116.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":132,"guid":"132.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":108,"guid":"108.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Aguirre Luzi","nick_name":"Roberto","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Roberto","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for Latin America-wide arbitration, he is \"very skillful presenting arguments and cross-examining witnesses.” ","detail":"Chambers Global 2017"},{"title":"“Knowledgeable, highly proactive attitude”; a “high-level bilingual lawyer.” ","detail":"Chambers Latin America"},{"title":"45 Under 45 ","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"","detail":"Who’s Who in International Arbitration"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/aguirre-luzi-roberto-7120852b/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRoberto Aguirre Luzi specializes in counseling multinational corporations on complex arbitration. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Roberto is experienced in administrative and civil law, government contracts, oil and gas contracts, public utilities, and power and infrastructure projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003eForeign Legal Consultant, Authorized to Practice law in Argentina (not licensed in Texas)\u003c/h5\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoberto represents clients in complex arbitrations before the World Bank Group\u0026rsquo;s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and UN Commission on International Trade Law, as well as in arbitration under the International Centre for Dispute Resolution and International Chamber of Commerce rules. Roberto also has extensive experience in civil and administrative law, government contracts, oil and gas contracts, public utilities, and power and infrastructure projects.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eListed as a leading member of the international arbitration bar in the 2011 \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eGlobal Arbitration Review\u003c/em\u003e 45 Under 45 rankings, Roberto has also been individually recognized by \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eChambers Latin America\u003c/em\u003e and featured in \u003cem data-redactor-tag=\"em\"\u003eWho\u0026rsquo;s Who in International Arbitration.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRoberto worked for five years as an associate for Marval, O\u0026rsquo;Farrell \u0026amp; Mairal before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2003. He was born in San Juan, Argentina. Roberto is fluent in Spanish and English, and reads French, Italian and Portuguese.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLinea Amarilla S.A\u003c/strong\u003e.C. (owned by VINCI Highways) against the City of Lima in a toll road project regarding the nullity of the concession agreement. Lima is claiming the nullity of the concession based on the alleged imbalance of the economic terms of several agreements entered into during the contract execution. The case also involves construction claims against the City of Lima. It is a high-profile case, involving criminal proceedings against former mayors and government officials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea French company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute under the France-Peru Bilateral Investment Treaty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSociedad Aeroportuaria Kuntur Wasi S.A.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCorporaci\u0026oacute;n Am\u0026eacute;rica S.A\u003c/strong\u003e. in an ICSID arbitration under the Peru-Argentina bilateral investment treaty, a concession contract for the construction and operation of the new airport in Cuzco, and a guaranty contract (Contrato Ley), involving the unlawful termination and unfair treatment provided to both investors. The Peruvian government has initiated criminal proceedings regarding the concession and its addenda.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGente Oil Ecuador Pte.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eLtd\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a UNCITRAL arbitration administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration arising out of a dispute involving a risk service oil contract with Ecuador. The matter also includes allegations of corruption and fraud, including proceedings before criminal courts and the Comptroller Office (Contralor\u0026iacute;a).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eReficar\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration against CB\u0026amp;I, an EPC contractor. The dispute concerns costs and delays in connection with the construction of a refinery in Colombia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTeinver S.A.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina involving the nationalization of the two largest airlines in that country.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSalini Impregilo SpA\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in three international arbitrations against Argentina involving its investments in a water management concession, a roadway concession and a bridge.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eMurphy Oil\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eEuropean company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a potential arbitration against a state and a state-owned energy company. The dispute concerns the nationalization of the energy company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eSempra Energy International\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses and in a potential arbitration against another South American country involving its investment in a power distribution company, and advised it in two ICC arbitrations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003etwo American oil and gas companies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two ICSID arbitrations against Argentina, one of which involved claimant\u0026rsquo;s investment in two power plants and a natural gas field.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor American oil company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multibillion-dollar U.S. claim against a South American state concerning the breach of a bilateral investment treaty, an oil concession agreement and an environmental claim initiated against the oil company in the courts of the South American state.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCity Oriente Limited\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID contract arbitration against Ecuador and Petroecuador concerning the violation of an Oil Production Sharing Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eglobal supplier of power plants\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its arbitration claim involving an engineering, procurement and construction contract.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNoble Energy, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eand MachalaPower Cia. Ltda.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in their arbitration claim against a South American country concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty, an investment agreement and a concession contract for the construction and operation of a power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003etelecommunications company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina concerning the violation of a treaty and the nationalization of its concession contract with the Argentine Government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCamuzzi Internacional\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003elarge international water company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its ICSID arbitration against Argentina.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor American energy company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in preparing an ICSID arbitration against a Central American state concerning the breach of different contracts with distribution companies for the purchase of electricity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor independent company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a potential LCIA arbitration under a Joint Operating Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eNorthrop Grumman\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its US$200 million bidding to, and contract work for, the Argentine government.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipated in\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eICC arbitration\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;initiated by P\u0026eacute;rez Companc against Enersys.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Ranked for Latin America-wide arbitration, he is \"very skillful presenting arguments and cross-examining witnesses.” ","detail":"Chambers Global 2017"},{"title":"“Knowledgeable, highly proactive attitude”; a “high-level bilingual lawyer.” ","detail":"Chambers Latin America"},{"title":"45 Under 45 ","detail":"Global Arbitration Review, 2011"},{"title":"","detail":"Who’s Who in International Arbitration"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4503}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:26.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:04:26.000Z","searchable_text":"Aguirre Luzi{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Ranked for Latin America-wide arbitration, he is \\\"very skillful presenting arguments and cross-examining witnesses.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Knowledgeable, highly proactive attitude”; a “high-level bilingual lawyer.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Latin America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"45 Under 45 \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Arbitration Review, 2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Who’s Who in International Arbitration\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing a Linea Amarilla S.A.C. (owned by VINCI Highways) against the City of Lima in a toll road project regarding the nullity of the concession agreement. Lima is claiming the nullity of the concession based on the alleged imbalance of the economic terms of several agreements entered into during the contract execution. The case also involves construction claims against the City of Lima. It is a high-profile case, involving criminal proceedings against former mayors and government officials.{{ FIELD }}Representing a French company in a dispute under the France-Peru Bilateral Investment Treaty.{{ FIELD }}Representing Sociedad Aeroportuaria Kuntur Wasi S.A. and Corporación América S.A. in an ICSID arbitration under the Peru-Argentina bilateral investment treaty, a concession contract for the construction and operation of the new airport in Cuzco, and a guaranty contract (Contrato Ley), involving the unlawful termination and unfair treatment provided to both investors. The Peruvian government has initiated criminal proceedings regarding the concession and its addenda.{{ FIELD }}Representing Gente Oil Ecuador Pte. Ltd in a UNCITRAL arbitration administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration arising out of a dispute involving a risk service oil contract with Ecuador. The matter also includes allegations of corruption and fraud, including proceedings before criminal courts and the Comptroller Office (Contraloría).{{ FIELD }}Representing Reficar in an ICC arbitration against CB\u0026amp;I, an EPC contractor. The dispute concerns costs and delays in connection with the construction of a refinery in Colombia.{{ FIELD }}Representing Teinver S.A. in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina involving the nationalization of the two largest airlines in that country.{{ FIELD }}Representing Salini Impregilo SpA in three international arbitrations against Argentina involving its investments in a water management concession, a roadway concession and a bridge.{{ FIELD }}Representing Murphy Oil in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty.{{ FIELD }}Representing a European company in a potential arbitration against a state and a state-owned energy company. The dispute concerns the nationalization of the energy company.{{ FIELD }}Represented Sempra Energy International in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses and in a potential arbitration against another South American country involving its investment in a power distribution company, and advised it in two ICC arbitrations.{{ FIELD }}Represented two American oil and gas companies in two ICSID arbitrations against Argentina, one of which involved claimant’s investment in two power plants and a natural gas field.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major American oil company in a multibillion-dollar U.S. claim against a South American state concerning the breach of a bilateral investment treaty, an oil concession agreement and an environmental claim initiated against the oil company in the courts of the South American state.{{ FIELD }}Represented City Oriente Limited in an ICSID contract arbitration against Ecuador and Petroecuador concerning the violation of an Oil Production Sharing Agreement.{{ FIELD }}Represented a global supplier of power plants in its arbitration claim involving an engineering, procurement and construction contract.{{ FIELD }}Represented Noble Energy, Inc. and MachalaPower Cia. Ltda. in their arbitration claim against a South American country concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty, an investment agreement and a concession contract for the construction and operation of a power plant.{{ FIELD }}Represented a telecommunications company in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina concerning the violation of a treaty and the nationalization of its concession contract with the Argentine Government.{{ FIELD }}Represented Camuzzi Internacional in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses.{{ FIELD }}Represented a large international water company in its ICSID arbitration against Argentina.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major American energy company in preparing an ICSID arbitration against a Central American state concerning the breach of different contracts with distribution companies for the purchase of electricity.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major independent company in a potential LCIA arbitration under a Joint Operating Agreement.{{ FIELD }}Advised Northrop Grumman in its US$200 million bidding to, and contract work for, the Argentine government.{{ FIELD }}Participated in an ICC arbitration initiated by Pérez Companc against Enersys.{{ FIELD }}Roberto Aguirre Luzi specializes in counseling multinational corporations on complex arbitration. A partner in our International Arbitration practice, Roberto is experienced in administrative and civil law, government contracts, oil and gas contracts, public utilities, and power and infrastructure projects.\nForeign Legal Consultant, Authorized to Practice law in Argentina (not licensed in Texas)\n\nRoberto represents clients in complex arbitrations before the World Bank Group’s International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes and UN Commission on International Trade Law, as well as in arbitration under the International Centre for Dispute Resolution and International Chamber of Commerce rules. Roberto also has extensive experience in civil and administrative law, government contracts, oil and gas contracts, public utilities, and power and infrastructure projects.\nListed as a leading member of the international arbitration bar in the 2011 Global Arbitration Review 45 Under 45 rankings, Roberto has also been individually recognized by Chambers Latin America and featured in Who’s Who in International Arbitration.\nRoberto worked for five years as an associate for Marval, O’Farrell \u0026amp; Mairal before joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2003. He was born in San Juan, Argentina. Roberto is fluent in Spanish and English, and reads French, Italian and Portuguese. Roberto J Aguirre Luzi Partner Ranked for Latin America-wide arbitration, he is \"very skillful presenting arguments and cross-examining witnesses.”  Chambers Global 2017 “Knowledgeable, highly proactive attitude”; a “high-level bilingual lawyer.”  Chambers Latin America 45 Under 45  Global Arbitration Review, 2011  Who’s Who in International Arbitration University of Buenos Aires, Argentina  The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Foreign Legal Consultant, Texas Bar of the City of Buenos Aires, Argentina Representing a Linea Amarilla S.A.C. (owned by VINCI Highways) against the City of Lima in a toll road project regarding the nullity of the concession agreement. Lima is claiming the nullity of the concession based on the alleged imbalance of the economic terms of several agreements entered into during the contract execution. The case also involves construction claims against the City of Lima. It is a high-profile case, involving criminal proceedings against former mayors and government officials. Representing a French company in a dispute under the France-Peru Bilateral Investment Treaty. Representing Sociedad Aeroportuaria Kuntur Wasi S.A. and Corporación América S.A. in an ICSID arbitration under the Peru-Argentina bilateral investment treaty, a concession contract for the construction and operation of the new airport in Cuzco, and a guaranty contract (Contrato Ley), involving the unlawful termination and unfair treatment provided to both investors. The Peruvian government has initiated criminal proceedings regarding the concession and its addenda. Representing Gente Oil Ecuador Pte. Ltd in a UNCITRAL arbitration administered by the Permanent Court of Arbitration arising out of a dispute involving a risk service oil contract with Ecuador. The matter also includes allegations of corruption and fraud, including proceedings before criminal courts and the Comptroller Office (Contraloría). Representing Reficar in an ICC arbitration against CB\u0026amp;I, an EPC contractor. The dispute concerns costs and delays in connection with the construction of a refinery in Colombia. Representing Teinver S.A. in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina involving the nationalization of the two largest airlines in that country. Representing Salini Impregilo SpA in three international arbitrations against Argentina involving its investments in a water management concession, a roadway concession and a bridge. Representing Murphy Oil in an ICSID arbitration against Ecuador concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty. Representing a European company in a potential arbitration against a state and a state-owned energy company. The dispute concerns the nationalization of the energy company. Represented Sempra Energy International in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses and in a potential arbitration against another South American country involving its investment in a power distribution company, and advised it in two ICC arbitrations. Represented two American oil and gas companies in two ICSID arbitrations against Argentina, one of which involved claimant’s investment in two power plants and a natural gas field. Represented a major American oil company in a multibillion-dollar U.S. claim against a South American state concerning the breach of a bilateral investment treaty, an oil concession agreement and an environmental claim initiated against the oil company in the courts of the South American state. Represented City Oriente Limited in an ICSID contract arbitration against Ecuador and Petroecuador concerning the violation of an Oil Production Sharing Agreement. Represented a global supplier of power plants in its arbitration claim involving an engineering, procurement and construction contract. Represented Noble Energy, Inc. and MachalaPower Cia. Ltda. in their arbitration claim against a South American country concerning the violation of a bilateral investment treaty, an investment agreement and a concession contract for the construction and operation of a power plant. Represented a telecommunications company in an ICSID arbitration against Argentina concerning the violation of a treaty and the nationalization of its concession contract with the Argentine Government. Represented Camuzzi Internacional in its arbitration claim against Argentina involving its investment in two natural gas distribution licenses. Represented a large international water company in its ICSID arbitration against Argentina. Represented a major American energy company in preparing an ICSID arbitration against a Central American state concerning the breach of different contracts with distribution companies for the purchase of electricity. Represented a major independent company in a potential LCIA arbitration under a Joint Operating Agreement. Advised Northrop Grumman in its US$200 million bidding to, and contract work for, the Argentine government. Participated in an ICC arbitration initiated by Pérez Companc against Enersys.","searchable_name":"Roberto J. Aguirre Luzi","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":436413,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3400,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSajid Ahmed is a Partner in the London office of King \u0026amp; Spalding.\u0026nbsp; He specialises in international arbitration and trade matters.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSajid\u0026rsquo;s cases are typically high-value complex disputes, often dealing with political, commercial and/or social issues involving State owned entities and governments. \u0026nbsp;Sajid represents both claimants and respondents in arbitral proceedings under all the major arbitral rules and institutions including the ICC, LCIA, ICSID and UNCITRAL. While sector agnostic, Sajid is particularly well-known for handling disputes in energy, mining, life sciences, financial services, and media where he is listed as a \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ename to note\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp; Although experienced across various geographies, Sajid is prominently known for his disputes work in India, Turkey and Central Asia. Correspondingly, Sajid's global clientele include multi-nationals and State/State entities in those regions.\u0026nbsp; As a recipient of a number of recognitions from legal directories and industry commentators over the years, \u0026nbsp;Sajid is described as having \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eindispensable leadership\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(IBLJ (2022)) and as being \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ean excellent lawyer with good business acumen and understands client\u0026rsquo;s perspective and overall business context and comes out with pragmatic solutions\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Legal 500 UK, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSajid also has notable experience in international trade matters including export controls and sanctions. He assists clients prepare disclosures of export control and economic sanctions laws violations and represents them in regulatory investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"sajid-ahmed","email":"sahmed@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent Representations \u0026ndash; Arbitration Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAn Asian\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eExploration \u0026amp; Production company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an ad hoc UNCITRAL\u0026nbsp;arbitration against the Government of India with respect to cross-boundary gas migration issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eIndian pharmaceuticals company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a LCIA arbitration in London against a major Canadian generics producer with respect to a breach of exclusivity provisions in a licence agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA significant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil \u0026amp; gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitrations against an Asian sovereign state, one relating to the company\u0026rsquo;s right to cost recovery under a PSC and the other relating to gas pricing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRepublic of Turkey\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTurkish state-owned\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eentity BOTAS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Paris against the Republic of Iraq in relation to a dispute concerning an intergovernmental pipeline agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA significant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTurkish E\u0026amp;P company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against the Republic of Kazakhstan in an ICSID arbitration brought under the Turkey\u0026ndash;Kazakhstan bilateral investment treaty relating to a tax stabilization clause.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eIndian electrical engineering company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in London against a UK company involving claims of defective products provided pursuant to a Supply Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultinational life sciences company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a US company in an ICC arbitration in London concerning a breach of a licence agreement with respect to the marketing of a biopharmaceutical product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant Asian company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration in London against a U.S. investment bank relating to breaches of a services agreement in connection with an M\u0026amp;A deal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration proceeding in New York against a German company relating to breaches of a manufacturing and supply agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRecent Representations \u0026ndash; Export Controls and Sanctions Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on EU-Russia sanctions concerning the provision of loans, capital market instruments and other types of financial instruments to Russia-related persons.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor Middle East petrochemicals company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on EU sanctions with respect to Iran and Syria and potential exposure based on business transactions with Iranian and Syrian entities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant Middle East sovereign wealth fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the successful de-listing of one its associated companies from the EU sanctions list.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA major Asian oil and gas company in connection with the EU relaxation of sanctions on investments in the Iranian hydrocarbons sector and on Iranian oil exports under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant aircraft manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on export sales of aircraft and aircraft parts from certain EU countries to the Middle East region and South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eaerospace client\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its UK voluntary self-disclosures due to potential violation of UK/EU export control rules. The representation included review of customer due-diligence policies and procedures as well as sales contracts for the purposes of export controls and sanctions compliance.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":12}]},"expertise":[{"id":25,"guid":"25.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":23,"guid":"23.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1142,"guid":"1142.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":128,"guid":"128.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":108,"guid":"108.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1327,"guid":"1327.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Ahmed","nick_name":"Sajid","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Sajid","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":174,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“Indispensable Leadership” ","detail":"India Business Law Journal (2022)"},{"title":"Recognized as “an excellent lawyer with good business acumen\"","detail":"LEGAL 500, 2021"},{"title":"\"Understands client’s perspective and overall business context and comes out with pragmatic solutions\" ","detail":"Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"Recognized as “a name to note”","detail":"LEGAL 500, 2021"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eSajid Ahmed is a Partner in the London office of King \u0026amp; Spalding.\u0026nbsp; He specialises in international arbitration and trade matters.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSajid\u0026rsquo;s cases are typically high-value complex disputes, often dealing with political, commercial and/or social issues involving State owned entities and governments. \u0026nbsp;Sajid represents both claimants and respondents in arbitral proceedings under all the major arbitral rules and institutions including the ICC, LCIA, ICSID and UNCITRAL. While sector agnostic, Sajid is particularly well-known for handling disputes in energy, mining, life sciences, financial services, and media where he is listed as a \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ename to note\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;.\u0026nbsp; Although experienced across various geographies, Sajid is prominently known for his disputes work in India, Turkey and Central Asia. Correspondingly, Sajid's global clientele include multi-nationals and State/State entities in those regions.\u0026nbsp; As a recipient of a number of recognitions from legal directories and industry commentators over the years, \u0026nbsp;Sajid is described as having \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eindispensable leadership\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp;(IBLJ (2022)) and as being \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003ean excellent lawyer with good business acumen and understands client\u0026rsquo;s perspective and overall business context and comes out with pragmatic solutions\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; (Legal 500 UK, 2021).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSajid also has notable experience in international trade matters including export controls and sanctions. He assists clients prepare disclosures of export control and economic sanctions laws violations and represents them in regulatory investigations.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRecent Representations \u0026ndash; Arbitration Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAn Asian\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eExploration \u0026amp; Production company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an ad hoc UNCITRAL\u0026nbsp;arbitration against the Government of India with respect to cross-boundary gas migration issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eIndian pharmaceuticals company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a LCIA arbitration in London against a major Canadian generics producer with respect to a breach of exclusivity provisions in a licence agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA significant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eoil \u0026amp; gas company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in two ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitrations against an Asian sovereign state, one relating to the company\u0026rsquo;s right to cost recovery under a PSC and the other relating to gas pricing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRepublic of Turkey\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTurkish state-owned\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eentity BOTAS\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in Paris against the Republic of Iraq in relation to a dispute concerning an intergovernmental pipeline agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA significant\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eTurkish E\u0026amp;P company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against the Republic of Kazakhstan in an ICSID arbitration brought under the Turkey\u0026ndash;Kazakhstan bilateral investment treaty relating to a tax stabilization clause.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eIndian electrical engineering company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration in London against a UK company involving claims of defective products provided pursuant to a Supply Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emultinational life sciences company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against a US company in an ICC arbitration in London concerning a breach of a licence agreement with respect to the marketing of a biopharmaceutical product.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant Asian company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an LCIA arbitration in London against a U.S. investment bank relating to breaches of a services agreement in connection with an M\u0026amp;A deal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant pharmaceutical company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an ICC arbitration proceeding in New York against a German company relating to breaches of a manufacturing and supply agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eRecent Representations \u0026ndash; Export Controls and Sanctions Matters\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on EU-Russia sanctions concerning the provision of loans, capital market instruments and other types of financial instruments to Russia-related persons.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003emajor Middle East petrochemicals company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on EU sanctions with respect to Iran and Syria and potential exposure based on business transactions with Iranian and Syrian entities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant Middle East sovereign wealth fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on the successful de-listing of one its associated companies from the EU sanctions list.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA major Asian oil and gas company in connection with the EU relaxation of sanctions on investments in the Iranian hydrocarbons sector and on Iranian oil exports under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003esignificant aircraft manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on export sales of aircraft and aircraft parts from certain EU countries to the Middle East region and South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAn\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eaerospace client\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in its UK voluntary self-disclosures due to potential violation of UK/EU export control rules. The representation included review of customer due-diligence policies and procedures as well as sales contracts for the purposes of export controls and sanctions compliance.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“Indispensable Leadership” ","detail":"India Business Law Journal (2022)"},{"title":"Recognized as “an excellent lawyer with good business acumen\"","detail":"LEGAL 500, 2021"},{"title":"\"Understands client’s perspective and overall business context and comes out with pragmatic solutions\" ","detail":"Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"Recognized as “a name to note”","detail":"LEGAL 500, 2021"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6066}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:52:36.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:52:36.000Z","searchable_text":"Ahmed{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Indispensable Leadership” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"India Business Law Journal (2022)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as “an excellent lawyer with good business acumen\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LEGAL 500, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Understands client’s perspective and overall business context and comes out with pragmatic solutions\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as “a name to note”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LEGAL 500, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}Recent Representations – Arbitration MattersAn Asian Exploration \u0026amp; Production company in an ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration against the Government of India with respect to cross-boundary gas migration issues.{{ FIELD }}An Indian pharmaceuticals company in a LCIA arbitration in London against a major Canadian generics producer with respect to a breach of exclusivity provisions in a licence agreement.{{ FIELD }}A significant oil \u0026amp; gas company in two ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitrations against an Asian sovereign state, one relating to the company’s right to cost recovery under a PSC and the other relating to gas pricing.{{ FIELD }}The Republic of Turkey and Turkish state-owned entity BOTAS in an ICC arbitration in Paris against the Republic of Iraq in relation to a dispute concerning an intergovernmental pipeline agreement.{{ FIELD }}A significant Turkish E\u0026amp;P company against the Republic of Kazakhstan in an ICSID arbitration brought under the Turkey–Kazakhstan bilateral investment treaty relating to a tax stabilization clause.{{ FIELD }}An Indian electrical engineering company in an ICC arbitration in London against a UK company involving claims of defective products provided pursuant to a Supply Agreement.{{ FIELD }}A multinational life sciences company against a US company in an ICC arbitration in London concerning a breach of a licence agreement with respect to the marketing of a biopharmaceutical product.{{ FIELD }}A significant Asian company in an LCIA arbitration in London against a U.S. investment bank relating to breaches of a services agreement in connection with an M\u0026amp;A deal.{{ FIELD }}A significant pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration proceeding in New York against a German company relating to breaches of a manufacturing and supply agreement.{{ FIELD }}Recent Representations – Export Controls and Sanctions MattersA major financial institution on EU-Russia sanctions concerning the provision of loans, capital market instruments and other types of financial instruments to Russia-related persons.{{ FIELD }}A major Middle East petrochemicals company on EU sanctions with respect to Iran and Syria and potential exposure based on business transactions with Iranian and Syrian entities.{{ FIELD }}A significant Middle East sovereign wealth fund on the successful de-listing of one its associated companies from the EU sanctions list.{{ FIELD }}A major Asian oil and gas company in connection with the EU relaxation of sanctions on investments in the Iranian hydrocarbons sector and on Iranian oil exports under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action.{{ FIELD }}A significant aircraft manufacturer on export sales of aircraft and aircraft parts from certain EU countries to the Middle East region and South America.{{ FIELD }}An aerospace client in its UK voluntary self-disclosures due to potential violation of UK/EU export control rules. The representation included review of customer due-diligence policies and procedures as well as sales contracts for the purposes of export controls and sanctions compliance.{{ FIELD }}Sajid Ahmed is a Partner in the London office of King \u0026amp; Spalding.  He specialises in international arbitration and trade matters. \nSajid’s cases are typically high-value complex disputes, often dealing with political, commercial and/or social issues involving State owned entities and governments.  Sajid represents both claimants and respondents in arbitral proceedings under all the major arbitral rules and institutions including the ICC, LCIA, ICSID and UNCITRAL. While sector agnostic, Sajid is particularly well-known for handling disputes in energy, mining, life sciences, financial services, and media where he is listed as a “name to note”.  Although experienced across various geographies, Sajid is prominently known for his disputes work in India, Turkey and Central Asia. Correspondingly, Sajid's global clientele include multi-nationals and State/State entities in those regions.  As a recipient of a number of recognitions from legal directories and industry commentators over the years,  Sajid is described as having “indispensable leadership” (IBLJ (2022)) and as being “an excellent lawyer with good business acumen and understands client’s perspective and overall business context and comes out with pragmatic solutions” (Legal 500 UK, 2021).\nSajid also has notable experience in international trade matters including export controls and sanctions. He assists clients prepare disclosures of export control and economic sanctions laws violations and represents them in regulatory investigations. Sajid Ahmed Partner “Indispensable Leadership”  India Business Law Journal (2022) Recognized as “an excellent lawyer with good business acumen\" LEGAL 500, 2021 \"Understands client’s perspective and overall business context and comes out with pragmatic solutions\"  Legal 500, 2021 Recognized as “a name to note” LEGAL 500, 2021 Law Society of England and Wales Recent Representations – Arbitration MattersAn Asian Exploration \u0026amp; Production company in an ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitration against the Government of India with respect to cross-boundary gas migration issues. An Indian pharmaceuticals company in a LCIA arbitration in London against a major Canadian generics producer with respect to a breach of exclusivity provisions in a licence agreement. A significant oil \u0026amp; gas company in two ad hoc UNCITRAL arbitrations against an Asian sovereign state, one relating to the company’s right to cost recovery under a PSC and the other relating to gas pricing. The Republic of Turkey and Turkish state-owned entity BOTAS in an ICC arbitration in Paris against the Republic of Iraq in relation to a dispute concerning an intergovernmental pipeline agreement. A significant Turkish E\u0026amp;P company against the Republic of Kazakhstan in an ICSID arbitration brought under the Turkey–Kazakhstan bilateral investment treaty relating to a tax stabilization clause. An Indian electrical engineering company in an ICC arbitration in London against a UK company involving claims of defective products provided pursuant to a Supply Agreement. A multinational life sciences company against a US company in an ICC arbitration in London concerning a breach of a licence agreement with respect to the marketing of a biopharmaceutical product. A significant Asian company in an LCIA arbitration in London against a U.S. investment bank relating to breaches of a services agreement in connection with an M\u0026amp;A deal. A significant pharmaceutical company in an ICC arbitration proceeding in New York against a German company relating to breaches of a manufacturing and supply agreement. Recent Representations – Export Controls and Sanctions MattersA major financial institution on EU-Russia sanctions concerning the provision of loans, capital market instruments and other types of financial instruments to Russia-related persons. A major Middle East petrochemicals company on EU sanctions with respect to Iran and Syria and potential exposure based on business transactions with Iranian and Syrian entities. A significant Middle East sovereign wealth fund on the successful de-listing of one its associated companies from the EU sanctions list. A major Asian oil and gas company in connection with the EU relaxation of sanctions on investments in the Iranian hydrocarbons sector and on Iranian oil exports under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. A significant aircraft manufacturer on export sales of aircraft and aircraft parts from certain EU countries to the Middle East region and South America. An aerospace client in its UK voluntary self-disclosures due to potential violation of UK/EU export control rules. The representation included review of customer due-diligence policies and procedures as well as sales contracts for the purposes of export controls and sanctions compliance.","searchable_name":"Sajid Ahmed","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":174,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444169,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":4211,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJoe Akrotirianakis is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He is an accomplished trial lawyer who has first-chaired or co-chaired 35\u0026nbsp;trials and arbitrations.\u0026nbsp; He has never lost a jury trial or bench trial.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad spectrum of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, and international shipping, transportation and logistics, among others.\u0026nbsp; A seasoned commercial litigator, and a decorated former federal prosecutor, Mr. Akrotirianakis has litigated matters of the most complex and difficult caliber throughout his more than 25-year career.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout California and nationally in matters involving complex commercial litigation, unfair competition, business torts, intellectual property, and federal and state regulatory investigations and defense. His work prosecuting and defending matters involving cutting-edge legal theories in high-profile matters brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Lanham Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and similar laws in other states has been repeatedly recognized in the legal press and mainstream media.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis is individually recommended by Chambers in the category of Litigation: General Commercial (California).\u0026nbsp; He has been named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" (\u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" nationally (\u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e), \"Recommended\" in the category of General Commercial Disputes (\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), a \"Litigation Star\" in California and nationally (\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, 2023), an \"Innovative Practitioner\" (\u003cem\u003eFinancial Times\u003c/em\u003e, 2022), and an legal \"MVP\" in the transportation industry (\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e), in addition to other honors received from\u0026nbsp;the \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe Recorder\u003c/em\u003e, and other publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, investigating and prosecuting complex fraud and financial crimes, political and law enforcement corruption, civil rights matters, racketeering, and various other violations of federal law, including the CFAA.\u0026nbsp; Following law school, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as a Law Clerk to the late Judge Harry Pregerson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis was elected to the firm's Policy Committee in December 2021.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"joseph-akrotirianakis","email":"jakro@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s decision \u0026ldquo;would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute\u0026rsquo;s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients\u0026rsquo; favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company\u0026rsquo;s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing \u0026ldquo;compounded\u0026rdquo; drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of North America\u0026rsquo;s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business \u0026ldquo;divorce\u0026rdquo; from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents the U.S. West Coast\u0026rsquo;s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the \u0026ldquo;West Coast Port Slowdown.\u0026rdquo; After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be \u0026ldquo;constructively\u0026rdquo; closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company\u0026rsquo;s former employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented California\u0026rsquo;s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the world\u0026rsquo;s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":125,"guid":"125.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1205,"guid":"1205.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":13,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Akrotirianakis","nick_name":"Joe","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Harry Pregerson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit","years_held":"1998 - 1999"}],"first_name":"Joseph","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2895,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude \u0026 Order of the Coif","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1998-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"“He is very thorough and very well experienced.”","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California"},{"title":"“Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential issues or outcomes.”","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California"},{"title":"Named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\"","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024"},{"title":"Named among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" (nationally)","detail":"Daily Journal, 2024"},{"title":"The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present"},{"title":"Listed as \"Recommended\" in category of General Commercial Disputes","detail":"Legal 500 U.S., 2022-2025"},{"title":"Litigation Star (National)","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"California Litigation Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"Shortlisted as an \"Innovative Practitioner\"","detail":"Financial Times, 2022"},{"title":"Named as the only \"Plaintiff Trailblazer\" at a large law firm","detail":"National Law Journal, 2022"},{"title":"Named a \"Trailblazer: West\"","detail":"The American Lawyer, 2021"},{"title":"Named a \"California Trailblazer\"","detail":"The Recorder, 2020"},{"title":"Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Lawyers","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020"},{"title":"Named among \"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\" across all practice areas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017"},{"title":"Law360 \"MVP,\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry","detail":"Law360, 2016"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/joseph-akrotirianakis-78bb3269/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eJoe Akrotirianakis is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice Group.\u0026nbsp; He is an accomplished trial lawyer who has first-chaired or co-chaired 35\u0026nbsp;trials and arbitrations.\u0026nbsp; He has never lost a jury trial or bench trial.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad spectrum of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, and international shipping, transportation and logistics, among others.\u0026nbsp; A seasoned commercial litigator, and a decorated former federal prosecutor, Mr. Akrotirianakis has litigated matters of the most complex and difficult caliber throughout his more than 25-year career.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout California and nationally in matters involving complex commercial litigation, unfair competition, business torts, intellectual property, and federal and state regulatory investigations and defense. His work prosecuting and defending matters involving cutting-edge legal theories in high-profile matters brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Lanham Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and similar laws in other states has been repeatedly recognized in the legal press and mainstream media.\u0026nbsp; Mr. Akrotirianakis is individually recommended by Chambers in the category of Litigation: General Commercial (California).\u0026nbsp; He has been named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" (\u003cem\u003eLos Angeles Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" nationally (\u003cem\u003eDaily Journal\u003c/em\u003e), \"Recommended\" in the category of General Commercial Disputes (\u003cem\u003eLegal 500 U.S.\u003c/em\u003e, 2024), a \"Litigation Star\" in California and nationally (\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, 2023), an \"Innovative Practitioner\" (\u003cem\u003eFinancial Times\u003c/em\u003e, 2022), and an legal \"MVP\" in the transportation industry (\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e), in addition to other honors received from\u0026nbsp;the \u003cem\u003eNational Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe American Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eThe Recorder\u003c/em\u003e, and other publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, investigating and prosecuting complex fraud and financial crimes, political and law enforcement corruption, civil rights matters, racketeering, and various other violations of federal law, including the CFAA.\u0026nbsp; Following law school, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as a Law Clerk to the late Judge Harry Pregerson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMr. Akrotirianakis was elected to the firm's Policy Committee in December 2021.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s decision \u0026ldquo;would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute\u0026rsquo;s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients\u0026rsquo; favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney\u0026rsquo;s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company\u0026rsquo;s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing \u0026ldquo;compounded\u0026rdquo; drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eThe action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of North America\u0026rsquo;s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty\u0026rsquo;s unlawful business practices.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business \u0026ldquo;divorce\u0026rdquo; from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresents the U.S. West Coast\u0026rsquo;s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the \u0026ldquo;West Coast Port Slowdown.\u0026rdquo; After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be \u0026ldquo;constructively\u0026rdquo; closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB\u0026rsquo;s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company\u0026rsquo;s former employees.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation\u0026rsquo;s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented California\u0026rsquo;s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresented the world\u0026rsquo;s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"“He is very thorough and very well experienced.”","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California"},{"title":"“Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential issues or outcomes.”","detail":"Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California"},{"title":"Named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\"","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024"},{"title":"Named among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" (nationally)","detail":"Daily Journal, 2024"},{"title":"The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present"},{"title":"Listed as \"Recommended\" in category of General Commercial Disputes","detail":"Legal 500 U.S., 2022-2025"},{"title":"Litigation Star (National)","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"California Litigation Star","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present"},{"title":"Shortlisted as an \"Innovative Practitioner\"","detail":"Financial Times, 2022"},{"title":"Named as the only \"Plaintiff Trailblazer\" at a large law firm","detail":"National Law Journal, 2022"},{"title":"Named a \"Trailblazer: West\"","detail":"The American Lawyer, 2021"},{"title":"Named a \"California Trailblazer\"","detail":"The Recorder, 2020"},{"title":"Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026 Trial Lawyers","detail":"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020"},{"title":"Named among \"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\" across all practice areas","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017"},{"title":"Law360 \"MVP,\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry","detail":"Law360, 2016"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11424}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-11T16:50:45.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-11T16:50:45.000Z","searchable_text":"Akrotirianakis{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is very thorough and very well experienced.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential issues or outcomes.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named among Los Angeles' \\\"Top 100 Lawyers\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named among 50 \\\"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\\\" (nationally)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Daily Journal, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed as \\\"Recommended\\\" in category of General Commercial Disputes\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 U.S., 2022-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Star (National)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"California Litigation Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Shortlisted as an \\\"Innovative Practitioner\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Financial Times, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named as the only \\\"Plaintiff Trailblazer\\\" at a large law firm\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"National Law Journal, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a \\\"Trailblazer: West\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The American Lawyer, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a \\\"California Trailblazer\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Recorder, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Lawyers\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named among \\\"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\\\" across all practice areas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 \\\"MVP,\\\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law360, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}As lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California’s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial.{{ FIELD }}As trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia.{{ FIELD }}As lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB’s decision “would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.”{{ FIELD }}As co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute’s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients’ favor.{{ FIELD }}As lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney’s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut.{{ FIELD }}As lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation’s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney’s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest.{{ FIELD }}Represent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company’s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity.{{ FIELD }}Represented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing “compounded” drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law.{{ FIELD }}The action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\nRepresented one of North America’s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s unlawful business practices.\nAs lead counsel, represented one of the world’s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business “divorce” from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world’s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\nRepresents the U.S. West Coast’s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\nAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\nDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the “West Coast Port Slowdown.” After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be “constructively” closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\nPersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\nPersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client’s favor.{{ FIELD }}Persuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\nRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\nServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\nRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\nRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company’s former employees.\nRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\nRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\nRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented California’s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented the world’s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.{{ FIELD }}Joe Akrotirianakis is a partner in the Business Litigation Practice Group.  He is an accomplished trial lawyer who has first-chaired or co-chaired 35 trials and arbitrations.  He has never lost a jury trial or bench trial.  Mr. Akrotirianakis represents both plaintiffs and defendants across a broad spectrum of industries, including technology, pharmaceuticals and life sciences, and international shipping, transportation and logistics, among others.  A seasoned commercial litigator, and a decorated former federal prosecutor, Mr. Akrotirianakis has litigated matters of the most complex and difficult caliber throughout his more than 25-year career. \nMr. Akrotirianakis regularly practices before federal and state courts throughout California and nationally in matters involving complex commercial litigation, unfair competition, business torts, intellectual property, and federal and state regulatory investigations and defense. His work prosecuting and defending matters involving cutting-edge legal theories in high-profile matters brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, the Lanham Act, the California Unfair Competition Law and similar laws in other states has been repeatedly recognized in the legal press and mainstream media.  Mr. Akrotirianakis is individually recommended by Chambers in the category of Litigation: General Commercial (California).  He has been named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" (Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024), among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" nationally (Daily Journal), \"Recommended\" in the category of General Commercial Disputes (Legal 500 U.S., 2024), a \"Litigation Star\" in California and nationally (Benchmark Litigation, 2023), an \"Innovative Practitioner\" (Financial Times, 2022), and an legal \"MVP\" in the transportation industry (Law360), in addition to other honors received from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, The Recorder, and other publications.\nBefore joining King \u0026amp; Spalding, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as an Assistant United States Attorney in the Central District of California, investigating and prosecuting complex fraud and financial crimes, political and law enforcement corruption, civil rights matters, racketeering, and various other violations of federal law, including the CFAA.  Following law school, Mr. Akrotirianakis served as a Law Clerk to the late Judge Harry Pregerson, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nMr. Akrotirianakis was elected to the firm's Policy Committee in December 2021.  \n  Partner “He is very thorough and very well experienced.” Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California “Joe's most valuable attribute is his ability to anticipate potential issues or outcomes.” Chambers Guide to the USA, 2025, Litigation: General Commercial - California Named among Los Angeles' \"Top 100 Lawyers\" Los Angeles Business Journal, 2024 Named among 50 \"2024 Leading Commercial Litigators\" (nationally) Daily Journal, 2024 The Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation  The Best Lawyers in America, 2024-present Listed as \"Recommended\" in category of General Commercial Disputes Legal 500 U.S., 2022-2025 Litigation Star (National) Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present California Litigation Star Benchmark Litigation, 2023 - present Shortlisted as an \"Innovative Practitioner\" Financial Times, 2022 Named as the only \"Plaintiff Trailblazer\" at a large law firm National Law Journal, 2022 Named a \"Trailblazer: West\" The American Lawyer, 2021 Named a \"California Trailblazer\" The Recorder, 2020 Leaders of Influence: Litigators \u0026amp; Trial Lawyers Los Angeles Business Journal, 2020 Named among \"Top 100 attorneys in Southern California,\" across all practice areas Super Lawyers, 2017 Law360 \"MVP,\" Transportation - Among nation’s top five attorneys serving clients in the transportation industry Law360, 2016 Whittier College Whittier Law School Loyola Law School Loyola Law School Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida California Law Clerk, Harry Pregerson, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit As lead counsel, represented global biopharmaceutical company Amgen Inc. against Lanham Act and California’s false advertising and unfair competition claims in a federal court lawsuit by generic drugs giant Sandoz Inc. The litigation addressed cutting edge issues relating to the use of RWE in pharmaceutical advertising. The matter resolved two days before trial. As trial counsel, leading defense of an Israeli cyber-intelligence company against novel claims brought under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and analogous state law claims in five separate lawsuits filed by WhatsApp, Apple, and several individual plaintiffs in the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Virginia. As lead trial counsel, represented Everport Terminal Services Inc. in a matter with implications for much of the international trade on the Pacific Coast. In an appellate reversal of an NLRB decision, convinced the D.C. Circuit unanimously to recognize that the NLRB’s decision “would make the system of collective bargaining ... nonsensical and unworkable.” As co-lead counsel, represents American Kidney Fund (AKF) and other plaintiffs in a constitutional challenge to California AB 290. Secured a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of AB 290 on the eve of the statute’s effective date. The Court subsequently granted summary judgment in our clients’ favor. As lead trial counsel, achieved a total victory including a permanent injunction and an award of attorney’s fees in a first-of-its-kind unfair competition lawsuit on behalf of Hope Pharmaceuticals alleging violations of the unfair competition and trade practices laws of California, Florida, Tennessee, South Carolina and Connecticut. As lead counsel, represented Americold Logistics, LLC, in a high-stakes commercial dispute against the nation’s largest publicly-traded grocery distributor, United Natural Foods, Inc. (UNFI). This matter settled on confidential terms shortly before trial. Represented plaintiffs, in a corporate valuation dispute against a defense industry manufacturer of millimeter wave aircraft radar components. After a bench trial, the court awarded the plaintiffs 387.5% of the defendant's prelitigation valuation, plus attorney’s fees, court costs, and more than two years of prejudgment interest. Represent an international cybersecurity technology company NSO Group in the defense of a groundbreaking lawsuit brought by Facebook, Inc., and WhatsApp Inc. under the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and its California analogue. Obtained stay of district court proceedings while the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considers the company’s claim that it is entitled to derivative foreign sovereign immunity. Represented a global pharmaceutical company, as plaintiff, in an unfair competition action against a purported compounding pharmacy promoting and selling competing “compounded” drugs on a national basis. Obtained partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act, California False Advertising Law, and California Unfair Competition Law. The action resolved shortly thereafter on confidential terms, and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s false advertising and unlawful business practices.\nRepresented one of North America’s largest grain companies in a fraudulent transfer action against a former customer. Obtained summary judgment as to liability and a multimillion-dollar award including an award of punitive damages and successfully defended the matter on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.\nAs lead trial counsel, represented a global pharmaceutical company in an action for unfair competition and false advertising against a competitor selling drugs not approved by FDA. After obtaining partial summary judgment as to liability on claims under the federal Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law, a jury awarded the client damages and the court imposed a permanent injunction against the counterparty’s unlawful business practices.\nAs lead counsel, represented one of the world’s largest international containerized freight shipping companies and its terminal operator subsidiary in a business “divorce” from a joint venture partner. Defeated motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction and obtained dismissal of the matter and an award of costs.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nAs lead counsel, represented a domestic subsidiary of one of the world’s largest international containerized shipping companies in defense of a federal court action for interim injunctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. Accomplished denial of the petition for injunction and dismissal of the action.\nRepresents the U.S. West Coast’s largest marine terminal (by container lifts), responsible for over one million container moves per year in commercial and regulatory matters.\nAs lead counsel, represented a leading U.S. West Coast marine terminal operator in a labor relations action brought by a union representing mechanics previously employed at the terminal. After asserting a leading-edge position in a motion for judgment on the pleadings, obtained dismissal of the lawsuit and an award of costs.\nDefeated class action lawsuit against largest marine container terminal on the U.S. West Coast. Plaintiffs had alleged unlawful collection of demurrage during the “West Coast Port Slowdown.” After demonstrating that a terminal cannot be “constructively” closed by labor activity not amounting to a strike, obtained dismissal of the action in its entirety.\nPersuaded a federal agency to withdraw its notice of violation of anti-pollution regulations against a port terminal operator, avoiding approximately $9.2 million in potential penalties.\nPersuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of marine terminal operator. After the union appealed, the NLRB’s Office of the General Counsel affirmed the declination decisions in the client’s favor. Persuaded the National Labor Relations Board to close investigations of international shipping line and its domestic agent.\nRepresented a marine terminal operator in an investigation by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection, mitigating the penalty to just nine percent of the penalty sought.\nServed as lead counsel in a federal criminal investigation of a nationwide ground shipping company suspected of aiding and abetting the trafficking of millions of dollars of counterfeit high fashion goods. No charges were filed.\nRepresented the CEO of a Southern California-based manufacturer, packager, and distributor of health food, nutritional supplements, and cosmetic products in a federal court criminal action alleging import violations. Matter was resolved with a probationary sentence.\nRepresented global network of YouTube content creators and brands in a trade secrets dispute with company’s former employees.\nRepresented president of Southern California-based construction company in state court criminal investigation concerning alleged theft of public monies. Client received a probationary sentence, and the conviction was expunged entirely shortly thereafter.\nRepresented associate general counsel of a Los Angeles-based investment fund in a state court criminal investigation. Investigation was dropped without the filing of any charges.\nRepresented the CEO of China-based petroleum exploration, extraction, and production company in federal court securities action by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission.\nRepresented one of the nation’s largest engineering and construction companies and its subsidiaries in a federal court action brought under the False Claims Act alleging overcharging in federal government contracts.\nRepresented the largest health plan in California in a 40-day trial arising out of an enforcement proceeding brought by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented California’s largest HMO in dozens of investigations and litigation conducted by the California Department of Managed Health Care.\nRepresented the world’s leading satellite television provider in a major contract dispute with one of its largest retailers.","searchable_name":"Joseph Akrotirianakis (Joe)","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":443972,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6906,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAbdulaziz Al Fahad is a Saudi national admitted to the bar in Saudi Arabia and has been practicing law since 1985. Al Fahad handles matters across a broad spectrum of work in Saudi Arabia. He has handled cases before Saudi courts and tribunals and handled matters for international and local lenders and sponsors to major projects, mergers, acquisitions, and IPOs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAl Fahad was an advisor to the Saudi Ministry of Commerce and Industry on the proposed accession of Saudi Arabia to the World Trade Organization, to a global energy company on the proposed Saudi Gas Initiative and on several projects related to the privatization of government entities. He has represented parties in major and complex disputes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAl Fahad is a graduate of Michigan State University (B.A,) School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University (M.A.) and Yale Law School (JD).\u0026nbsp; In addition, Al Fahad was the recipient of a fellowship at Harvard University, where he was appointed jointly as a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and a Research Fellow at Harvard Law School. Al Fahad was a member of the Advisory Commission to the Supreme Economic Council between 1999-2003.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"abdulaziz-al-fahad","email":"aalfahad@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3141}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Al Fahad","nick_name":"Abdulaziz","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Abdulaziz","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":2605,"meta":{"degree":"Juris Doctor","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1984-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Eminent Practitioners: Dispute Resolution, Saudi Arabia","detail":"Chambers Global Guide 2024"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":"Abdulaziz Hamad Al Fahad is a Saudi national admitted to the bar in Saudi Arabia and has been practicing law since 1985. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":143,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAbdulaziz Al Fahad is a Saudi national admitted to the bar in Saudi Arabia and has been practicing law since 1985. Al Fahad handles matters across a broad spectrum of work in Saudi Arabia. He has handled cases before Saudi courts and tribunals and handled matters for international and local lenders and sponsors to major projects, mergers, acquisitions, and IPOs.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAl Fahad was an advisor to the Saudi Ministry of Commerce and Industry on the proposed accession of Saudi Arabia to the World Trade Organization, to a global energy company on the proposed Saudi Gas Initiative and on several projects related to the privatization of government entities. He has represented parties in major and complex disputes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAl Fahad is a graduate of Michigan State University (B.A,) School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University (M.A.) and Yale Law School (JD).\u0026nbsp; In addition, Al Fahad was the recipient of a fellowship at Harvard University, where he was appointed jointly as a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and a Research Fellow at Harvard Law School. Al Fahad was a member of the Advisory Commission to the Supreme Economic Council between 1999-2003.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Eminent Practitioners: Dispute Resolution, Saudi Arabia","detail":"Chambers Global Guide 2024"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12405}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:12.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:12.000Z","searchable_text":"Al Fahad{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Eminent Practitioners: Dispute Resolution, Saudi Arabia\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global Guide 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}Abdulaziz Al Fahad is a Saudi national admitted to the bar in Saudi Arabia and has been practicing law since 1985. Al Fahad handles matters across a broad spectrum of work in Saudi Arabia. He has handled cases before Saudi courts and tribunals and handled matters for international and local lenders and sponsors to major projects, mergers, acquisitions, and IPOs.\nAl Fahad was an advisor to the Saudi Ministry of Commerce and Industry on the proposed accession of Saudi Arabia to the World Trade Organization, to a global energy company on the proposed Saudi Gas Initiative and on several projects related to the privatization of government entities. He has represented parties in major and complex disputes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.\nAl Fahad is a graduate of Michigan State University (B.A,) School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University (M.A.) and Yale Law School (JD).  In addition, Al Fahad was the recipient of a fellowship at Harvard University, where he was appointed jointly as a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Center for Middle Eastern Studies and a Research Fellow at Harvard Law School. Al Fahad was a member of the Advisory Commission to the Supreme Economic Council between 1999-2003. Abdulaziz Al Fahad Partner / Chairman, Saudi Arabia Practice Eminent Practitioners: Dispute Resolution, Saudi Arabia Chambers Global Guide 2024 Michigan State University Michigan State University College of Law Yale University Yale Law School Johns Hopkins University  Saudi Arabia Member of the Committee for the Development of International Trade, Chamber of Commerce, Riyadh Member of the Advisory Commission to the Supreme Economic Council (1999-2003) Member of the Academic Committee, Legal Experts Commission, Council of Ministers (2002 - 2008)","searchable_name":"Abdulaziz Al Fahad","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":443980,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6903,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eIbrahim Alkhudair specializes in complex commercial litigation and arbitration, project finance, commercial transactions, and general corporate matters. Ibrahim has over 15 years\u0026rsquo; experience in Saudi Arabia. Ibrahim has acted as counsel in connection with numerous KSA \u0026amp; GCC mergers and acquisition transactions. He frequently advises both sponsors and lenders on project finance.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIbrahim cases are generally high-value complex commercial disputes. He represented high-net-worth individuals, corporations, financial institutions, and government entities in resolving disputes via arbitration, litigation, and mediation. He is experienced in representing clients in arbitrations before major forums, including the ICC, PAC, SCCA, and ad hoc arbitrations, as well as award enforcement. Ibrahim also regularly represents clients before Saudi courts and judicial committees at all levels of litigation including the Saudi Supreme Court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe has notable experience in advising parties on financing high-value projects, cross-border M\u0026amp;A, and joint ventures. Ibrahim's practice also includes advising institutional investors on their investments in private investment funds and sponsors on fund formations. His deep experience in Saudi court rulings puts him in a unique position when advising clients on various types of transactions in Saudi Arabia.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"ibrahim-alkhudair","email":"ialkhudair@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a financial institution in proceedings before the Specialized Chamber for Large Claims in the General Court in Riyadh - successfully defending against a (3 Billion+) SAR claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the defendant in a lawsuit before the Specialized Chamber for Large Claims in the General Court in Dammam - successfully defending against requests to nullify the disposal of 33 real estates.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArbitrator for a claim by a company manager regarding unpaid wages and benefits - the claim amount (5 Million+) SAR.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eICC arbitration regarding disputes between mining contracting companies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully obtained the first urgent relief awarded from an emergency arbitrator appointed under the SCCA arbitration rules. the urgent relief was successfully enforced.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully reducing fines imposed by the Customs Authority from (30 Million+) SAR down to less than (40k) SAR before the Customs Committees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised lenders on debt restructuring/financing of a chemical factory amount (3.7 Billion+) USD.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised sponsors on financing a medical company - amount (250 Million+) SAR.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised lenders on financing a drilling/mining company - amount (120 Million +) SAR.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":75,"guid":"75.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1220,"guid":"1220.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Alkhudair","nick_name":"Ibrahim","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Ibrahim","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":32,"law_schools":[{"id":1245,"meta":{"degree":"LL.M.","honors":"","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2015-01-01 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\u003eIbrahim Alkhudair specializes in complex commercial litigation and arbitration, project finance, commercial transactions, and general corporate matters. Ibrahim has over 15 years\u0026rsquo; experience in Saudi Arabia. Ibrahim has acted as counsel in connection with numerous KSA \u0026amp; GCC mergers and acquisition transactions. He frequently advises both sponsors and lenders on project finance.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIbrahim cases are generally high-value complex commercial disputes. He represented high-net-worth individuals, corporations, financial institutions, and government entities in resolving disputes via arbitration, litigation, and mediation. He is experienced in representing clients in arbitrations before major forums, including the ICC, PAC, SCCA, and ad hoc arbitrations, as well as award enforcement. Ibrahim also regularly represents clients before Saudi courts and judicial committees at all levels of litigation including the Saudi Supreme Court.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHe has notable experience in advising parties on financing high-value projects, cross-border M\u0026amp;A, and joint ventures. Ibrahim's practice also includes advising institutional investors on their investments in private investment funds and sponsors on fund formations. His deep experience in Saudi court rulings puts him in a unique position when advising clients on various types of transactions in Saudi Arabia.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a financial institution in proceedings before the Specialized Chamber for Large Claims in the General Court in Riyadh - successfully defending against a (3 Billion+) SAR claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the defendant in a lawsuit before the Specialized Chamber for Large Claims in the General Court in Dammam - successfully defending against requests to nullify the disposal of 33 real estates.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArbitrator for a claim by a company manager regarding unpaid wages and benefits - the claim amount (5 Million+) SAR.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eICC arbitration regarding disputes between mining contracting companies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully obtained the first urgent relief awarded from an emergency arbitrator appointed under the SCCA arbitration rules. the urgent relief was successfully enforced.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully reducing fines imposed by the Customs Authority from (30 Million+) SAR down to less than (40k) SAR before the Customs Committees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised lenders on debt restructuring/financing of a chemical factory amount (3.7 Billion+) USD.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised sponsors on financing a medical company - amount (250 Million+) SAR.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdvised lenders on financing a drilling/mining company - amount (120 Million +) SAR.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12400}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:16.000Z","updated_at":"2025-12-05T05:02:16.000Z","searchable_text":"Alkhudair{{ FIELD }}Representing a financial institution in proceedings before the Specialized Chamber for Large Claims in the General Court in Riyadh - successfully defending against a (3 Billion+) SAR claim.{{ FIELD }}Representing the defendant in a lawsuit before the Specialized Chamber for Large Claims in the General Court in Dammam - successfully defending against requests to nullify the disposal of 33 real estates.{{ FIELD }}Arbitrator for a claim by a company manager regarding unpaid wages and benefits - the claim amount (5 Million+) SAR.{{ FIELD }}ICC arbitration regarding disputes between mining contracting companies.{{ FIELD }}Successfully obtained the first urgent relief awarded from an emergency arbitrator appointed under the SCCA arbitration rules. the urgent relief was successfully enforced.{{ FIELD }}Successfully reducing fines imposed by the Customs Authority from (30 Million+) SAR down to less than (40k) SAR before the Customs Committees.{{ FIELD }}Advised lenders on debt restructuring/financing of a chemical factory amount (3.7 Billion+) USD.{{ FIELD }}Advised sponsors on financing a medical company - amount (250 Million+) SAR.{{ FIELD }}Advised lenders on financing a drilling/mining company - amount (120 Million +) SAR.{{ FIELD }}Ibrahim Alkhudair specializes in complex commercial litigation and arbitration, project finance, commercial transactions, and general corporate matters. Ibrahim has over 15 years’ experience in Saudi Arabia. Ibrahim has acted as counsel in connection with numerous KSA \u0026amp; GCC mergers and acquisition transactions. He frequently advises both sponsors and lenders on project finance.\nIbrahim cases are generally high-value complex commercial disputes. He represented high-net-worth individuals, corporations, financial institutions, and government entities in resolving disputes via arbitration, litigation, and mediation. He is experienced in representing clients in arbitrations before major forums, including the ICC, PAC, SCCA, and ad hoc arbitrations, as well as award enforcement. Ibrahim also regularly represents clients before Saudi courts and judicial committees at all levels of litigation including the Saudi Supreme Court.\nHe has notable experience in advising parties on financing high-value projects, cross-border M\u0026amp;A, and joint ventures. Ibrahim's practice also includes advising institutional investors on their investments in private investment funds and sponsors on fund formations. His deep experience in Saudi court rulings puts him in a unique position when advising clients on various types of transactions in Saudi Arabia. Partner King Saud University College of Law \u0026amp; Political Sciences  Michigan State University Michigan State University College of Law Saudi Arabia Admitted to the Saudi Bar Association Representing a financial institution in proceedings before the Specialized Chamber for Large Claims in the General Court in Riyadh - successfully defending against a (3 Billion+) SAR claim. Representing the defendant in a lawsuit before the Specialized Chamber for Large Claims in the General Court in Dammam - successfully defending against requests to nullify the disposal of 33 real estates. Arbitrator for a claim by a company manager regarding unpaid wages and benefits - the claim amount (5 Million+) SAR. ICC arbitration regarding disputes between mining contracting companies. Successfully obtained the first urgent relief awarded from an emergency arbitrator appointed under the SCCA arbitration rules. the urgent relief was successfully enforced. Successfully reducing fines imposed by the Customs Authority from (30 Million+) SAR down to less than (40k) SAR before the Customs Committees. Advised lenders on debt restructuring/financing of a chemical factory amount (3.7 Billion+) USD. Advised sponsors on financing a medical company - amount (250 Million+) SAR. Advised lenders on financing a drilling/mining company - amount (120 Million +) SAR.","searchable_name":"Ibrahim Alkhudair","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":32,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444836,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3981,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eErich represents energy industry clients in high-stakes commercial disputes and torts in the areas of construction and engineering, decommissioning, oil and gas royalties, environmental justice, and personal injury and property damage matters. He also represents mineral lessees and operators in disputes before federal agencies relating to decommissioning and oil and gas royalties and provides pre-litigation counseling on contractual risk allocation and compliance with Department of the Interior regulations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErich has experience in large-scale, multiparty litigation, as well as in individual actions. He practices in numerous jurisdictions, representing clients in all aspects of litigation across the country. Erich has represented public and private companies in a broad range of disputes in arbitration and federal and state court relating to breach of contract, trade secrets, securities, and RICO violations and provided litigation risk counseling and strategic advice on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues. He has also represented clients in False Claims Act and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErich earned his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center and served on the Journal for Poverty Law and Policy. After law school, he served as an Infantry Officer in the United States Army. Erich has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, has published two articles in Infantry Magazine and is an alumnus of the Army\u0026rsquo;s Strategic Studies Fellowship Program.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"erich-almonte","email":"ealmonte@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented owners in several construction disputes with general contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented major energy company in natural gas royalty multi-state class action litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented major energy company in natural gas royalty disputes against the U.S. Department of the Interior.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eAdvised major beer manufacturer on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eDefended national retailer in misappropriation of trade secret and conspiracy litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresented major technology company in securities and shareholder derivative litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global pharmaceutical company in a FCPA enforcement action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eExtensive pro bono work, including a Special Immigrant Visa application, Violence Against Women Act self-petition for immigration, veteran landlord-tenant dispute, divorce with custody, and United States Supreme Court \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e brief on behalf of the Innocence Project regarding the application of the scientific method in determining the reliability of expert witnesses.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":125,"guid":"125.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1143,"guid":"1143.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1236,"guid":"1236.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1237,"guid":"1237.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Almonte","nick_name":"Erich","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Erich","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":755,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2005-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"J.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eErich represents energy industry clients in high-stakes commercial disputes and torts in the areas of construction and engineering, decommissioning, oil and gas royalties, environmental justice, and personal injury and property damage matters. He also represents mineral lessees and operators in disputes before federal agencies relating to decommissioning and oil and gas royalties and provides pre-litigation counseling on contractual risk allocation and compliance with Department of the Interior regulations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErich has experience in large-scale, multiparty litigation, as well as in individual actions. He practices in numerous jurisdictions, representing clients in all aspects of litigation across the country. Erich has represented public and private companies in a broad range of disputes in arbitration and federal and state court relating to breach of contract, trade secrets, securities, and RICO violations and provided litigation risk counseling and strategic advice on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues. He has also represented clients in False Claims Act and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eErich earned his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center and served on the Journal for Poverty Law and Policy. After law school, he served as an Infantry Officer in the United States Army. Erich has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, has published two articles in Infantry Magazine and is an alumnus of the Army\u0026rsquo;s Strategic Studies Fellowship Program.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented owners in several construction disputes with general contractors.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented major energy company in natural gas royalty multi-state class action litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented major energy company in natural gas royalty disputes against the U.S. Department of the Interior.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eAdvised major beer manufacturer on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eDefended national retailer in misappropriation of trade secret and conspiracy litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eRepresented major technology company in securities and shareholder derivative litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global pharmaceutical company in a FCPA enforcement action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eExtensive pro bono work, including a Special Immigrant Visa application, Violence Against Women Act self-petition for immigration, veteran landlord-tenant dispute, divorce with custody, and United States Supreme Court \u003cem\u003eamicus curiae\u003c/em\u003e brief on behalf of the Innocence Project regarding the application of the scientific method in determining the reliability of expert witnesses.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":693}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-07T04:54:37.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-07T04:54:37.000Z","searchable_text":"Almonte{{ FIELD }}Represented owners in several construction disputes with general contractors.{{ FIELD }}Represented major energy company in natural gas royalty multi-state class action litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented major energy company in natural gas royalty disputes against the U.S. Department of the Interior.  {{ FIELD }}Advised major beer manufacturer on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues.{{ FIELD }}Defended national retailer in misappropriation of trade secret and conspiracy litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented major technology company in securities and shareholder derivative litigation.{{ FIELD }}Represented global pharmaceutical company in a FCPA enforcement action.{{ FIELD }}Extensive pro bono work, including a Special Immigrant Visa application, Violence Against Women Act self-petition for immigration, veteran landlord-tenant dispute, divorce with custody, and United States Supreme Court amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Innocence Project regarding the application of the scientific method in determining the reliability of expert witnesses.{{ FIELD }}Erich represents energy industry clients in high-stakes commercial disputes and torts in the areas of construction and engineering, decommissioning, oil and gas royalties, environmental justice, and personal injury and property damage matters. He also represents mineral lessees and operators in disputes before federal agencies relating to decommissioning and oil and gas royalties and provides pre-litigation counseling on contractual risk allocation and compliance with Department of the Interior regulations. \nErich has experience in large-scale, multiparty litigation, as well as in individual actions. He practices in numerous jurisdictions, representing clients in all aspects of litigation across the country. Erich has represented public and private companies in a broad range of disputes in arbitration and federal and state court relating to breach of contract, trade secrets, securities, and RICO violations and provided litigation risk counseling and strategic advice on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues. He has also represented clients in False Claims Act and Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement actions conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission.\nErich earned his Juris Doctor from Georgetown University Law Center and served on the Journal for Poverty Law and Policy. After law school, he served as an Infantry Officer in the United States Army. Erich has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, has published two articles in Infantry Magazine and is an alumnus of the Army’s Strategic Studies Fellowship Program. Partner Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center Georgetown University Georgetown University Law Center U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas District of Columbia Texas Represented owners in several construction disputes with general contractors. Represented major energy company in natural gas royalty multi-state class action litigation. Represented major energy company in natural gas royalty disputes against the U.S. Department of the Interior.   Advised major beer manufacturer on franchise termination litigation and relationship issues. Defended national retailer in misappropriation of trade secret and conspiracy litigation. Represented major technology company in securities and shareholder derivative litigation. Represented global pharmaceutical company in a FCPA enforcement action. Extensive pro bono work, including a Special Immigrant Visa application, Violence Against Women Act self-petition for immigration, veteran landlord-tenant dispute, divorce with custody, and United States Supreme Court amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Innocence Project regarding the application of the scientific method in determining the reliability of expert witnesses.","searchable_name":"Erich J. Almonte","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":446196,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":6879,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRecognized by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e for Antitrust \u0026ndash; New York for more than a decade, and perennially listed in \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s Who\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal of Competition Lawyers in New York and other similar publications, clients turn to Olivier for antitrust counseling when it matters most for their company. Olivier focuses primarily on antitrust counseling for \u0026ldquo;bet the company\u0026rdquo; transactional matters, as well as high-stakes antitrust litigation and government investigations.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivier has extensive experience representing merging parties, or merger opponents, in transactions raising significant antitrust scrutiny before U.S. Antitrust agencies as well as foreign competition authorities.\u0026nbsp; Olivier has successfully obtained merger clearances in highly contested transactions, and successfully represented merger opponents in some of the most high-profile abandoned transactions and joint ventures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivier often provides \u0026ldquo;one-stop-shop\u0026rdquo; counseling on international antitrust questions requiring a bespoke analysis globally. Olivier's practice also includes civil and criminal antitrust enforcement matters and antitrust audit counseling.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivier's work has covered a broad range of industries, including financial institutions, telecommunications, video distribution, satellite radio, recorded music and music publishing, fixed satellites, oil and gas, paper and forestry products, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, healthcare, food products and food service, bread, spirits, beer, vitamins, textiles, chemicals, fertilizers, sports goods, airlines, automotive and automotive parts, semiconductors, media buying, and advertising.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"olivier-antoine","email":"oantoine@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative M\u0026amp;A and Joint Venture Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent DIRECTV in many transactions including the proposed acquisition of the DISH video distribution business from EchoStar, and Standard General\u0026rsquo;s abandoned acquisition of TEGNA, as well as Disney, Fox, and Warner Brother Discovery\u0026rsquo;s abandoned \u0026ldquo;Venu\u0026rdquo; streaming Joint Venture, and the proposed Nexstar/TEGNA transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAT\u0026amp;T Inc. in many transactions including its recent $5.75 billion acquisition of Lumen Technologies\u0026rsquo; Mass Markets Fiber-to-the-home business, and its recent acquisition of wireless spectrum licenses from EchoStar for $23 billion, the $43 billion spin off Warner Media to Discovery, the $7.8 billion sale of an interest in DIRECTV to TPG, the $1.175 billion sale of the Crunchyroll business to Sony, the $108.7 billion acquisition of Time Warner Inc., its $67 billion acquisition of DIRECTV, its $1.19 billion acquisition of Leap Wireless, its $944 million acquisition of Centennial Communications, and its attempted $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSiemens AG in many transactions including the $1.3 billion sale of its Healthcare IT business to Cerner, the sale of its microbiology business to Danaher, and its global collaboration with Varian Medical Systems, and Siemens Healthineers in its $1.1 billion acquisition of Corindus Vascular Robotics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA third-party foodservice divestiture acquirer in connection with U.S. Foods\u0026rsquo;s $1.8 billion acquisition of Service Group of America, Inc. and several other matters including Sysco\u0026rsquo;s proposed acquisition of U.S. Foods.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eUnited Technologies in connection with its $30 billion acquisition of Rockwell Collins, and its $15.5 billion acquisition of Goodrich.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTransCanada in its $13 billion acquisition of Columbia Pipeline Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAlcoa in its $2.85 billion acquisition of Firth Rixson.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGoldman Sachs \u0026amp; Co. in its spinoff of the REDI business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFlowers Foods in its $355 million acquisition of the Hostess bread assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDuPont in the $4.9 billion sale of DuPont Paint and Coating business to the Carlyle Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVeolia in the $1.9 billion sale of its waste assets to Highstar Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReed Elsevier PLC in its $4.1 billion acquisition of ChoicePoint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSirius Satellite Radio in its $13 billion merger with XM Satellite Radio.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTravelport in its $1.4 billion acquisition of Worldspan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSmithfield Foods in its $810 million acquisition of Premium Standard Foods, and its $367 million acquisition of Farmland Foods.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePanAmSat in its $3.2 billion sale to Intelsat.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdidas AG in its $3.8 billion acquisition of Reebok.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVNU in the attempted $7 billion acquisition of IMS Health.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCelanese before the European Commission in its $492 million acquisition of Acetex. (Phase II investigation)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGrey Global in its $1.7 billion sale to WPP.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCSL in its $925 million acquisition of the Aventis Behring plasma business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVivendi Universal in its $8.1 billion sale of the Seagram Spirits and Wine business to Diageo and Pernod Ricard.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTotal before the European Commission in its \u0026euro;50 billion acquisition of Elf. (Phase II investigation)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Litigation Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDIRECTV LLC v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e, No 1:2023cv02221 \u0026ndash; Represent DIRECTV in antitrust litigation against Nexstar Media Group, Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcast.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFuboTV Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e1:24-cv-01363-MMG (S.D.N.Y) \u0026ndash; Represented DIRECTV in connection with the proposed \u0026ldquo;Venu\u0026rdquo; streaming joint venture by Disney, Fox and Warner Brothers Discovery. The parties eventually abandoned the joint venture following opposition from non-parties EchoStar and DIRECTV.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState of New York et al. v. Deutsche Telekom et al,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eNo 1:19-cv-05434 (S.D.N.Y) \u0026ndash; Represented AT\u0026amp;T Inc. in connection with the New York Attorney General et al. challenge of T-Mobile USA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $56 billion acquisition of Sprint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 3.09cv58 (E.D.VA) \u0026ndash; Represented E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in trade secret infringement litigation against Kolon Industries, Inc., and related monopolization counterclaim (ED Va). DuPont won a $919.9 million verdict, and the antitrust counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Air Cargo Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, MDL-1715 (E.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Represented a European airline in defending class action claims that air cargo rates were fixed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Digital Music Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06 MD 1780 (S.D.N.Y) \u0026ndash; Represented Warner Music Group in connection with DOJ and NYAG investigations regarding the pricing of digital music and in class action claims filed against music companies alleging collusion in digital music pricing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Methyl-Methacrylate Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, MDL-1768 (E.D. Pa.) \u0026ndash; Represented Lucite Inc. in class actions alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of methyl-methacrylate (MMA) and polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(MDL No. 1631, D. Conn.) \u0026ndash; Represented a major pulp and paper producer in a nationwide antitrust action alleging an unlawful conspiracy to fix the price of publication paper.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3225}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":24,"guid":"24.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":32,"guid":"32.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1220,"guid":"1220.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1141,"guid":"1141.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1,"guid":"1.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Antoine","nick_name":"Olivier","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Olivier","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":722,"meta":{"degree":"LL.M.","honors":"cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1999-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"N.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Global Competition Review: GCR 100","detail":"2013-2025"},{"title":"Chambers USA: Antitrust – New York","detail":"2013 - 2024"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/oantoine/","seodescription":"Olivier is a partner","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eRecognized by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e for Antitrust \u0026ndash; New York for more than a decade, and perennially listed in \u003cem\u003eGlobal Competition Review\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s Who\u0026rsquo;s Who Legal of Competition Lawyers in New York and other similar publications, clients turn to Olivier for antitrust counseling when it matters most for their company. Olivier focuses primarily on antitrust counseling for \u0026ldquo;bet the company\u0026rdquo; transactional matters, as well as high-stakes antitrust litigation and government investigations.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivier has extensive experience representing merging parties, or merger opponents, in transactions raising significant antitrust scrutiny before U.S. Antitrust agencies as well as foreign competition authorities.\u0026nbsp; Olivier has successfully obtained merger clearances in highly contested transactions, and successfully represented merger opponents in some of the most high-profile abandoned transactions and joint ventures.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivier often provides \u0026ldquo;one-stop-shop\u0026rdquo; counseling on international antitrust questions requiring a bespoke analysis globally. Olivier's practice also includes civil and criminal antitrust enforcement matters and antitrust audit counseling.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eOlivier's work has covered a broad range of industries, including financial institutions, telecommunications, video distribution, satellite radio, recorded music and music publishing, fixed satellites, oil and gas, paper and forestry products, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, healthcare, food products and food service, bread, spirits, beer, vitamins, textiles, chemicals, fertilizers, sports goods, airlines, automotive and automotive parts, semiconductors, media buying, and advertising.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative M\u0026amp;A and Joint Venture Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresent DIRECTV in many transactions including the proposed acquisition of the DISH video distribution business from EchoStar, and Standard General\u0026rsquo;s abandoned acquisition of TEGNA, as well as Disney, Fox, and Warner Brother Discovery\u0026rsquo;s abandoned \u0026ldquo;Venu\u0026rdquo; streaming Joint Venture, and the proposed Nexstar/TEGNA transaction.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAT\u0026amp;T Inc. in many transactions including its recent $5.75 billion acquisition of Lumen Technologies\u0026rsquo; Mass Markets Fiber-to-the-home business, and its recent acquisition of wireless spectrum licenses from EchoStar for $23 billion, the $43 billion spin off Warner Media to Discovery, the $7.8 billion sale of an interest in DIRECTV to TPG, the $1.175 billion sale of the Crunchyroll business to Sony, the $108.7 billion acquisition of Time Warner Inc., its $67 billion acquisition of DIRECTV, its $1.19 billion acquisition of Leap Wireless, its $944 million acquisition of Centennial Communications, and its attempted $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA Inc.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSiemens AG in many transactions including the $1.3 billion sale of its Healthcare IT business to Cerner, the sale of its microbiology business to Danaher, and its global collaboration with Varian Medical Systems, and Siemens Healthineers in its $1.1 billion acquisition of Corindus Vascular Robotics.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eA third-party foodservice divestiture acquirer in connection with U.S. Foods\u0026rsquo;s $1.8 billion acquisition of Service Group of America, Inc. and several other matters including Sysco\u0026rsquo;s proposed acquisition of U.S. Foods.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eUnited Technologies in connection with its $30 billion acquisition of Rockwell Collins, and its $15.5 billion acquisition of Goodrich.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTransCanada in its $13 billion acquisition of Columbia Pipeline Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAlcoa in its $2.85 billion acquisition of Firth Rixson.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGoldman Sachs \u0026amp; Co. in its spinoff of the REDI business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFlowers Foods in its $355 million acquisition of the Hostess bread assets.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDuPont in the $4.9 billion sale of DuPont Paint and Coating business to the Carlyle Group.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVeolia in the $1.9 billion sale of its waste assets to Highstar Capital.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReed Elsevier PLC in its $4.1 billion acquisition of ChoicePoint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSirius Satellite Radio in its $13 billion merger with XM Satellite Radio.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTravelport in its $1.4 billion acquisition of Worldspan.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSmithfield Foods in its $810 million acquisition of Premium Standard Foods, and its $367 million acquisition of Farmland Foods.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePanAmSat in its $3.2 billion sale to Intelsat.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAdidas AG in its $3.8 billion acquisition of Reebok.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVNU in the attempted $7 billion acquisition of IMS Health.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCelanese before the European Commission in its $492 million acquisition of Acetex. (Phase II investigation)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGrey Global in its $1.7 billion sale to WPP.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCSL in its $925 million acquisition of the Aventis Behring plasma business.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eVivendi Universal in its $8.1 billion sale of the Seagram Spirits and Wine business to Diageo and Pernod Ricard.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTotal before the European Commission in its \u0026euro;50 billion acquisition of Elf. (Phase II investigation)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRepresentative Litigation Experience\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDIRECTV LLC v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. et al\u003c/em\u003e, No 1:2023cv02221 \u0026ndash; Represent DIRECTV in antitrust litigation against Nexstar Media Group, Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcast.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFuboTV Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e1:24-cv-01363-MMG (S.D.N.Y) \u0026ndash; Represented DIRECTV in connection with the proposed \u0026ldquo;Venu\u0026rdquo; streaming joint venture by Disney, Fox and Warner Brothers Discovery. The parties eventually abandoned the joint venture following opposition from non-parties EchoStar and DIRECTV.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eState of New York et al. v. Deutsche Telekom et al,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eNo 1:19-cv-05434 (S.D.N.Y) \u0026ndash; Represented AT\u0026amp;T Inc. in connection with the New York Attorney General et al. challenge of T-Mobile USA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $56 billion acquisition of Sprint.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc\u003c/em\u003e., No. 3.09cv58 (E.D.VA) \u0026ndash; Represented E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in trade secret infringement litigation against Kolon Industries, Inc., and related monopolization counterclaim (ED Va). DuPont won a $919.9 million verdict, and the antitrust counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Air Cargo Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, MDL-1715 (E.D.N.Y.) \u0026ndash; Represented a European airline in defending class action claims that air cargo rates were fixed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Digital Music Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06 MD 1780 (S.D.N.Y) \u0026ndash; Represented Warner Music Group in connection with DOJ and NYAG investigations regarding the pricing of digital music and in class action claims filed against music companies alleging collusion in digital music pricing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Methyl-Methacrylate Antitrust Litigation\u003c/em\u003e, MDL-1768 (E.D. Pa.) \u0026ndash; Represented Lucite Inc. in class actions alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of methyl-methacrylate (MMA) and polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e(MDL No. 1631, D. Conn.) \u0026ndash; Represented a major pulp and paper producer in a nationwide antitrust action alleging an unlawful conspiracy to fix the price of publication paper.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Global Competition Review: GCR 100","detail":"2013-2025"},{"title":"Chambers USA: Antitrust – New York","detail":"2013 - 2024"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":12282}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-27T14:37:17.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-27T14:37:17.000Z","searchable_text":"Antoine{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Global Competition Review: GCR 100\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2013-2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA: Antitrust – New York\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2013 - 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}Representative M\u0026amp;A and Joint Venture Experience\nRepresent DIRECTV in many transactions including the proposed acquisition of the DISH video distribution business from EchoStar, and Standard General’s abandoned acquisition of TEGNA, as well as Disney, Fox, and Warner Brother Discovery’s abandoned “Venu” streaming Joint Venture, and the proposed Nexstar/TEGNA transaction.{{ FIELD }}AT\u0026amp;T Inc. in many transactions including its recent $5.75 billion acquisition of Lumen Technologies’ Mass Markets Fiber-to-the-home business, and its recent acquisition of wireless spectrum licenses from EchoStar for $23 billion, the $43 billion spin off Warner Media to Discovery, the $7.8 billion sale of an interest in DIRECTV to TPG, the $1.175 billion sale of the Crunchyroll business to Sony, the $108.7 billion acquisition of Time Warner Inc., its $67 billion acquisition of DIRECTV, its $1.19 billion acquisition of Leap Wireless, its $944 million acquisition of Centennial Communications, and its attempted $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA Inc.{{ FIELD }}Siemens AG in many transactions including the $1.3 billion sale of its Healthcare IT business to Cerner, the sale of its microbiology business to Danaher, and its global collaboration with Varian Medical Systems, and Siemens Healthineers in its $1.1 billion acquisition of Corindus Vascular Robotics.{{ FIELD }}A third-party foodservice divestiture acquirer in connection with U.S. Foods’s $1.8 billion acquisition of Service Group of America, Inc. and several other matters including Sysco’s proposed acquisition of U.S. Foods.{{ FIELD }}United Technologies in connection with its $30 billion acquisition of Rockwell Collins, and its $15.5 billion acquisition of Goodrich.{{ FIELD }}TransCanada in its $13 billion acquisition of Columbia Pipeline Group.{{ FIELD }}Alcoa in its $2.85 billion acquisition of Firth Rixson.{{ FIELD }}Goldman Sachs \u0026amp; Co. in its spinoff of the REDI business.{{ FIELD }}Flowers Foods in its $355 million acquisition of the Hostess bread assets.{{ FIELD }}DuPont in the $4.9 billion sale of DuPont Paint and Coating business to the Carlyle Group.{{ FIELD }}Veolia in the $1.9 billion sale of its waste assets to Highstar Capital.{{ FIELD }}Reed Elsevier PLC in its $4.1 billion acquisition of ChoicePoint.{{ FIELD }}Sirius Satellite Radio in its $13 billion merger with XM Satellite Radio.{{ FIELD }}Travelport in its $1.4 billion acquisition of Worldspan.{{ FIELD }}Smithfield Foods in its $810 million acquisition of Premium Standard Foods, and its $367 million acquisition of Farmland Foods.{{ FIELD }}PanAmSat in its $3.2 billion sale to Intelsat.{{ FIELD }}Adidas AG in its $3.8 billion acquisition of Reebok.{{ FIELD }}VNU in the attempted $7 billion acquisition of IMS Health.{{ FIELD }}Celanese before the European Commission in its $492 million acquisition of Acetex. (Phase II investigation){{ FIELD }}Grey Global in its $1.7 billion sale to WPP.{{ FIELD }}CSL in its $925 million acquisition of the Aventis Behring plasma business.{{ FIELD }}Vivendi Universal in its $8.1 billion sale of the Seagram Spirits and Wine business to Diageo and Pernod Ricard.{{ FIELD }}Total before the European Commission in its €50 billion acquisition of Elf. (Phase II investigation){{ FIELD }}Representative Litigation Experience\nDIRECTV LLC v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. et al, No 1:2023cv02221 – Represent DIRECTV in antitrust litigation against Nexstar Media Group, Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcast.{{ FIELD }}FuboTV Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al, 1:24-cv-01363-MMG (S.D.N.Y) – Represented DIRECTV in connection with the proposed “Venu” streaming joint venture by Disney, Fox and Warner Brothers Discovery. The parties eventually abandoned the joint venture following opposition from non-parties EchoStar and DIRECTV.{{ FIELD }}State of New York et al. v. Deutsche Telekom et al, No 1:19-cv-05434 (S.D.N.Y) – Represented AT\u0026amp;T Inc. in connection with the New York Attorney General et al. challenge of T-Mobile USA’s proposed $56 billion acquisition of Sprint.{{ FIELD }}E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., No. 3.09cv58 (E.D.VA) – Represented E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in trade secret infringement litigation against Kolon Industries, Inc., and related monopolization counterclaim (ED Va). DuPont won a $919.9 million verdict, and the antitrust counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice.{{ FIELD }}In re Air Cargo Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1715 (E.D.N.Y.) – Represented a European airline in defending class action claims that air cargo rates were fixed.{{ FIELD }}In re Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, No. 06 MD 1780 (S.D.N.Y) – Represented Warner Music Group in connection with DOJ and NYAG investigations regarding the pricing of digital music and in class action claims filed against music companies alleging collusion in digital music pricing.{{ FIELD }}In re Methyl-Methacrylate Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1768 (E.D. Pa.) – Represented Lucite Inc. in class actions alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of methyl-methacrylate (MMA) and polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA).{{ FIELD }}In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1631, D. Conn.) – Represented a major pulp and paper producer in a nationwide antitrust action alleging an unlawful conspiracy to fix the price of publication paper.{{ FIELD }}Recognized by Chambers USA for Antitrust – New York for more than a decade, and perennially listed in Global Competition Review’s Who’s Who Legal of Competition Lawyers in New York and other similar publications, clients turn to Olivier for antitrust counseling when it matters most for their company. Olivier focuses primarily on antitrust counseling for “bet the company” transactional matters, as well as high-stakes antitrust litigation and government investigations.\nOlivier has extensive experience representing merging parties, or merger opponents, in transactions raising significant antitrust scrutiny before U.S. Antitrust agencies as well as foreign competition authorities.  Olivier has successfully obtained merger clearances in highly contested transactions, and successfully represented merger opponents in some of the most high-profile abandoned transactions and joint ventures.\nOlivier often provides “one-stop-shop” counseling on international antitrust questions requiring a bespoke analysis globally. Olivier's practice also includes civil and criminal antitrust enforcement matters and antitrust audit counseling.\nOlivier's work has covered a broad range of industries, including financial institutions, telecommunications, video distribution, satellite radio, recorded music and music publishing, fixed satellites, oil and gas, paper and forestry products, pharmaceuticals and medical devices, healthcare, food products and food service, bread, spirits, beer, vitamins, textiles, chemicals, fertilizers, sports goods, airlines, automotive and automotive parts, semiconductors, media buying, and advertising. Olivier Antoine lawyer Partner Global Competition Review: GCR 100 2013-2025 Chambers USA: Antitrust – New York 2013 - 2024 University of Paris, Pantheon Sorbonne  Fordham University Fordham University School of Law University of Paris, Pantheon Sorbonne  New York New York State Bar Association, Chair of the International Antitrust and Competition Law Committee American Bar Association, Member of the International Antitrust Law Committee Steering Group Representative M\u0026amp;A and Joint Venture Experience\nRepresent DIRECTV in many transactions including the proposed acquisition of the DISH video distribution business from EchoStar, and Standard General’s abandoned acquisition of TEGNA, as well as Disney, Fox, and Warner Brother Discovery’s abandoned “Venu” streaming Joint Venture, and the proposed Nexstar/TEGNA transaction. AT\u0026amp;T Inc. in many transactions including its recent $5.75 billion acquisition of Lumen Technologies’ Mass Markets Fiber-to-the-home business, and its recent acquisition of wireless spectrum licenses from EchoStar for $23 billion, the $43 billion spin off Warner Media to Discovery, the $7.8 billion sale of an interest in DIRECTV to TPG, the $1.175 billion sale of the Crunchyroll business to Sony, the $108.7 billion acquisition of Time Warner Inc., its $67 billion acquisition of DIRECTV, its $1.19 billion acquisition of Leap Wireless, its $944 million acquisition of Centennial Communications, and its attempted $39 billion acquisition of T-Mobile USA Inc. Siemens AG in many transactions including the $1.3 billion sale of its Healthcare IT business to Cerner, the sale of its microbiology business to Danaher, and its global collaboration with Varian Medical Systems, and Siemens Healthineers in its $1.1 billion acquisition of Corindus Vascular Robotics. A third-party foodservice divestiture acquirer in connection with U.S. Foods’s $1.8 billion acquisition of Service Group of America, Inc. and several other matters including Sysco’s proposed acquisition of U.S. Foods. United Technologies in connection with its $30 billion acquisition of Rockwell Collins, and its $15.5 billion acquisition of Goodrich. TransCanada in its $13 billion acquisition of Columbia Pipeline Group. Alcoa in its $2.85 billion acquisition of Firth Rixson. Goldman Sachs \u0026amp; Co. in its spinoff of the REDI business. Flowers Foods in its $355 million acquisition of the Hostess bread assets. DuPont in the $4.9 billion sale of DuPont Paint and Coating business to the Carlyle Group. Veolia in the $1.9 billion sale of its waste assets to Highstar Capital. Reed Elsevier PLC in its $4.1 billion acquisition of ChoicePoint. Sirius Satellite Radio in its $13 billion merger with XM Satellite Radio. Travelport in its $1.4 billion acquisition of Worldspan. Smithfield Foods in its $810 million acquisition of Premium Standard Foods, and its $367 million acquisition of Farmland Foods. PanAmSat in its $3.2 billion sale to Intelsat. Adidas AG in its $3.8 billion acquisition of Reebok. VNU in the attempted $7 billion acquisition of IMS Health. Celanese before the European Commission in its $492 million acquisition of Acetex. (Phase II investigation) Grey Global in its $1.7 billion sale to WPP. CSL in its $925 million acquisition of the Aventis Behring plasma business. Vivendi Universal in its $8.1 billion sale of the Seagram Spirits and Wine business to Diageo and Pernod Ricard. Total before the European Commission in its €50 billion acquisition of Elf. (Phase II investigation) Representative Litigation Experience\nDIRECTV LLC v. Nexstar Media Group, Inc. et al, No 1:2023cv02221 – Represent DIRECTV in antitrust litigation against Nexstar Media Group, Mission Broadcasting and White Knight Broadcast. FuboTV Inc. et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al, 1:24-cv-01363-MMG (S.D.N.Y) – Represented DIRECTV in connection with the proposed “Venu” streaming joint venture by Disney, Fox and Warner Brothers Discovery. The parties eventually abandoned the joint venture following opposition from non-parties EchoStar and DIRECTV. State of New York et al. v. Deutsche Telekom et al, No 1:19-cv-05434 (S.D.N.Y) – Represented AT\u0026amp;T Inc. in connection with the New York Attorney General et al. challenge of T-Mobile USA’s proposed $56 billion acquisition of Sprint. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Kolon Industries, Inc., No. 3.09cv58 (E.D.VA) – Represented E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company in trade secret infringement litigation against Kolon Industries, Inc., and related monopolization counterclaim (ED Va). DuPont won a $919.9 million verdict, and the antitrust counterclaim was dismissed with prejudice. In re Air Cargo Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1715 (E.D.N.Y.) – Represented a European airline in defending class action claims that air cargo rates were fixed. In re Digital Music Antitrust Litigation, No. 06 MD 1780 (S.D.N.Y) – Represented Warner Music Group in connection with DOJ and NYAG investigations regarding the pricing of digital music and in class action claims filed against music companies alleging collusion in digital music pricing. In re Methyl-Methacrylate Antitrust Litigation, MDL-1768 (E.D. Pa.) – Represented Lucite Inc. in class actions alleging a conspiracy to fix prices of methyl-methacrylate (MMA) and polymethyl-methacrylate (PMMA). In re Publication Paper Antitrust Litigation (MDL No. 1631, D. Conn.) – Represented a major pulp and paper producer in a nationwide antitrust action alleging an unlawful conspiracy to fix the price of publication paper.","searchable_name":"Olivier N. Antoine","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":445534,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7306,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNatalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation,\u0026rdquo; ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003elisted in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, selected to the Texas\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;list, and named \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex\u0026mdash;and often high-profile\u0026mdash;business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie\u0026rsquo;s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn an IP case covered by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client\u0026rsquo;s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, the trial court judge stated, \u0026ldquo;Counsel\u0026rsquo;s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie\u0026rsquo;s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor\u0026mdash;someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"natalie-arbaugh","email":"narbaugh@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for \u003cstrong\u003einternational luxury fashion brand owners\u003c/strong\u003e, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms\u0026mdash;through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003esoftware solutions company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client\u0026rsquo;s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor\u0026rsquo;s customers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of \u003cstrong\u003ea global petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading bank consulting and software services company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee\u0026rsquo;s transfer and use of thousands of client\u0026rsquo;s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client\u0026rsquo;s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client\u0026rsquo;s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Dress Infringement. Represented a \u003cstrong\u003ecooler and drink ware manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark Infringement. Successfully defended the \u003cstrong\u003eyellow pages and a marketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQui Tam Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTexas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented \u003cstrong\u003ea whistleblower\u003c/strong\u003e in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFalse Claims Act. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded human services provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Action and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003eedible bouquet client\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003ehotel chain\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003eleading watch manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of \u0026ldquo;Made in America\u0026rdquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Commercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003edisaster recovery and business continuity company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client\u0026rsquo;s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading global semiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecollege\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHarassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal communications company\u003c/strong\u003e against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAge Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGender Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecounty\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003emarketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA Collective Action. Defended a l\u003cstrong\u003eeading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReported Decisions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages\u0026nbsp;and judgment of over US$42M for defendants\u0026rsquo; willful infringement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoach Inc. v. Sassy Couture\u003c/em\u003e, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eINEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP\u003c/em\u003e; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1203,"guid":"1203.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1409,"guid":"1409.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Arbaugh","nick_name":"Natalie","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Justice Deborah Hankinson, Texas Supreme Court","years_held":"2001 - 2002"}],"first_name":"Natalie","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":176,"law_schools":[{"id":1852,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2001-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023–2025"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Trademark Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 "},{"title":"Recognized for Plaintiff","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026"},{"title":"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024"},{"title":"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation","detail":"D Magazine, 2014–2022"},{"title":"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” ","detail":"Texas Monthly, January 2020"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eNatalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rsquo;s \u0026ldquo;Top 250 Women in Litigation,\u0026rdquo; ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA,\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003elisted in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u0026reg;\u003c/em\u003e, selected to the Texas\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;list, and named \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex\u0026mdash;and often high-profile\u0026mdash;business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eNatalie\u0026rsquo;s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General\u0026rsquo;s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Department of the Year\u0026rdquo; finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a \u0026ldquo;Winning Woman\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTexas Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn an IP case covered by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLaw360\u003c/em\u003e, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client\u0026rsquo;s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys\u0026rsquo; fees, the trial court judge stated, \u0026ldquo;Counsel\u0026rsquo;s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie\u0026rsquo;s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor\u0026mdash;someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTrade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for \u003cstrong\u003einternational luxury fashion brand owners\u003c/strong\u003e, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms\u0026mdash;through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003esoftware solutions company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client\u0026rsquo;s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor\u0026rsquo;s customers.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of \u003cstrong\u003ea global petrochemical company\u003c/strong\u003e, obtained temporary injunction against world\u0026rsquo;s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant\u0026rsquo;s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading bank consulting and software services company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee\u0026rsquo;s transfer and use of thousands of client\u0026rsquo;s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client\u0026rsquo;s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client\u0026rsquo;s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrade Dress Infringement. Represented a \u003cstrong\u003ecooler and drink ware manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTrademark Infringement. Successfully defended the \u003cstrong\u003eyellow pages and a marketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eQui Tam Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eTexas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented \u003cstrong\u003ea whistleblower\u003c/strong\u003e in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world\u0026rsquo;s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFalse Claims Act. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003epublicly traded human services provider\u003c/strong\u003e in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Action and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an \u003cstrong\u003eedible bouquet client\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003ehotel chain\u003c/strong\u003e in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003eleading watch manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of \u0026ldquo;Made in America\u0026rdquo; claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eOther Commercial Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a \u003cstrong\u003edisaster recovery and business continuity company\u003c/strong\u003e, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eFortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client\u0026rsquo;s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eBreach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading global semiconductor company\u003c/strong\u003e in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eEmployment and Collective Action Litigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecollege\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eHarassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal communications company\u003c/strong\u003e against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAge Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003eleading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers\u003c/strong\u003e in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eGender Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003ecounty\u003c/strong\u003e against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a \u003cstrong\u003emarketing company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA. Defended a \u003cstrong\u003eglobal insurance company\u003c/strong\u003e against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eFLSA Collective Action. Defended a l\u003cstrong\u003eeading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers \u003c/strong\u003ein consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company\u0026rsquo;s behalf. Case settled.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eReported Decisions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages\u0026nbsp;and judgment of over US$42M for defendants\u0026rsquo; willful infringement)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eTory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCoach Inc. v. Sassy Couture\u003c/em\u003e, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eINEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP\u003c/em\u003e; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026 Surrounds","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023–2025"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters","detail":"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025"},{"title":"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Trademark Law","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026"},{"title":"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026"},{"title":"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026"},{"title":"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 "},{"title":"Recognized for Plaintiff","detail":"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026"},{"title":"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” ","detail":"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024"},{"title":"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation","detail":"D Magazine, 2014–2022"},{"title":"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” ","detail":"Texas Monthly, January 2020"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13341}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:57.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-03T16:04:57.000Z","searchable_text":"Arbaugh{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2023–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Trademark Law\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026 \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Plaintiff\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, 2017–2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"D Magazine, 2014–2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Top Women Attorneys in Texas” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Texas Monthly, January 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation{{ FIELD }}Trademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for international luxury fashion brand owners, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms—through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a software solutions company, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client’s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor’s customers.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a global petrochemical company, obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant’s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a leading bank consulting and software services company, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee’s transfer and use of thousands of client’s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client’s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client’s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Trade Dress Infringement. Represented a cooler and drink ware manufacturer in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company.{{ FIELD }}Trademark Infringement. Successfully defended the yellow pages and a marketing company against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff.{{ FIELD }}Qui Tam Litigation{{ FIELD }}Texas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented a whistleblower in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world’s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas.{{ FIELD }}False Claims Act. Defended a publicly traded human services provider in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages.{{ FIELD }}Class Action and Collective Action Litigation{{ FIELD }}Representing an edible bouquet client in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.{{ FIELD }}Represented a hotel chain in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs.{{ FIELD }}Represented a leading watch manufacturer in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of “Made in America” claims.{{ FIELD }}Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Other Commercial Litigation{{ FIELD }}Regularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a disaster recovery and business continuity company, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Fraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a Fortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client’s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed.{{ FIELD }}Breach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a leading global semiconductor company in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms.{{ FIELD }}Employment and Collective Action Litigation{{ FIELD }}Reverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a college against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Harassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a global communications company against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Age Discrimination. Successfully defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement.{{ FIELD }}Gender Discrimination. Successfully defended a county against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}Pregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a marketing company against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client.{{ FIELD }}FLSA. Defended a global insurance company against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement.{{ FIELD }}FLSA Collective Action. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled.{{ FIELD }}Reported Decisions{{ FIELD }}Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc. Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages and judgment of over US$42M for defendants’ willful infringement){{ FIELD }}Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al., No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims){{ FIELD }}Coach Inc. v. Sassy Couture, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting){{ FIELD }}INEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets){{ FIELD }}Kathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.){{ FIELD }}Natalie Arbaugh is a trial lawyer with a passion for top-notch client service, creative problem solving, and courtroom excellence. Her extensive experience has led her to be recognized multiple times as one of Benchmark Litigation’s “Top 250 Women in Litigation,” ranked by Chambers USA, listed in The Best Lawyers in America®, selected to the Texas Super Lawyers list, and named “Winning Woman” by Texas Lawyer. \nNatalie represents plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of industries in state and federal courts throughout the country in complex—and often high-profile—business and intellectual property disputes. From handling breach of contract matters to trade secret litigation to class actions, she is skilled at distilling even the most complex of business disputes into a simple story that resonates with judges and juries alike. Her intellectual property practice focuses on trade secret and departing employee issues, including noncompete counseling and litigation, and trademark litigation. \nNatalie’s trial experience includes an eight-year case in which she co-counseled with the Texas Attorney General’s office to try one of the largest and most complex fraud cases in Texas history. Resulting in the largest Medicaid fraud settlement in Texas, this record-breaking case led to her prior law firm being named a “Litigation Department of the Year” finalist and contributed to Natalie being named a “Winning Woman” by Texas Lawyer. She also was a key member of the trial team for the widely publicized insider trading case brought by the SEC against billionaire entrepreneur Mark Cuban. Following a three-week trial in Dallas federal court, the jury cleared Mr. Cuban of any wrongdoing.\nIn an IP case covered by Law360, Natalie obtained sanctions against her opponent after methodically building a case to show that the defendants falsified and modified evidence and committed perjury and fraud in an attempt to undermine her client’s trademark infringement claims and assert superior trademark rights. She decisively persuaded the court otherwise, and following a bench trial, obtained a $42 million judgment for her client. In awarding her client its attorneys’ fees, the trial court judge stated, “Counsel’s skill and expertise has been evident throughout this litigation, and their performance under taxing circumstances has been impressive.”\nThe most fulfilling aspect of Natalie’s career is the strong relationships she builds with her clients. They rely on her as a trusted legal advisor—someone collaborative, innovative, and deeply invested in guiding them toward the best possible outcome, whether that means winning at trial, resolving a dispute early, or finding a creative business solution. Natalie understands that her clients need thoughtful, strategic counsel to navigate their most pressing challenges, and she treats their priorities as her own. She works closely with them to evaluate risks, make informed decisions, and resolve complex issues long before a case ever reaches the courtroom.  Partner Litigation: General Commercial—Texas: Dallas, Fort Worth \u0026amp; Surrounds Chambers USA, 2023–2025 Recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for Intellectual Property: Trade Secrets, Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters The Legal 500 US, 2024–2025 Recognized for Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation The Best Lawyers in America®, 2018–2026 Recognized for Trademark Law The Best Lawyers in America®, 2026 Recognized as a “Texas Litigation Star” for General Commercial Litigation and for Intellectual Property Benchmark Litigation US, 2018–2026 Listed in “Top 250 Women in Litigation”  Benchmark Litigation US, 2017–2026 Recognized for Complex Commercial Litigation, IP, and Class Actions Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2024–2026  Recognized for Plaintiff Lawdragon “500 Leading Litigators in America”, 2026 Named a “Top Rated Business Litigation Attorney in Dallas, Texas”  Super Lawyers, 2017–2024 “Best Lawyer in Dallas” for Business Litigation D Magazine, 2014–2022 “Top Women Attorneys in Texas”  Texas Monthly, January 2020 Southern Methodist University Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law Texas Member of Trade Secrets Committee, AIPLA, 2015–present Member of Board of Directors, Texas General Counsel Forum, DFW Chapter, 2011–Present Dallas Association of Young Lawyers Lifetime Fellow Law Clerk, Honorable Justice Deborah Hankinson, Texas Supreme Court Trade Secret, Departing Employee and Trademark Litigation Trademark/Copyright/Counterfeiting. Serves as lead counsel in trademark and copyright infringement matters for international luxury fashion brand owners, including as part of their national anti-counterfeiting campaigns. Regularly manages litigations throughout Texas and the nation and consistently resolves cases on favorable terms—through settlement, motion for summary judgment, or otherwise. She has led more than 100 matters through resolution. Trade Secrets. Regularly counsels clients in broad range of noncompete, non-solicitation, and departing employee issues. Trade Secret/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a software solutions company, obtained an injunction prohibiting a competitor from using or disclosing client’s trade secret solutions in implementing solutions, tools, and technologies for the competitor’s customers. Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract. On behalf of a global petrochemical company, obtained temporary injunction against world’s third-largest chemical company in state court, alleging trade secret theft and breach of contract arising from defendant’s licensing of polyethylene technology to various manufacturers in other countries. Case settled on very favorable terms. Trade Secret Misappropriation/Breach of Contract/Inevitable Disclosure. On behalf of a leading bank consulting and software services company, brought suit against former senior principals and a competitor alleging theft of trade secrets and breach of fiduciary duty after an employee resigned under suspicious circumstances. Obtained a temporary restraining order against the former employee on theory of inevitable disclosure. Subsequently developed proof, through computer forensic evidence, of the employee’s transfer and use of thousands of client’s files, resulting in a temporary injunction which, among other things, prohibited former employee from using and disclosing the client’s trade secrets and other confidential information, from soliciting client’s customers and employees, and from working in competition with client in revenue enhancement. Settled the lawsuit on favorable terms. Trade Dress Infringement. Represented a cooler and drink ware manufacturer in series of litigations brought against it by competitor company. Trademark Infringement. Successfully defended the yellow pages and a marketing company against a suit by a national competitor alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition. Settled lawsuit on very favorable terms for nuisance value after presenting legal flaws to plaintiff. Qui Tam Litigation Texas Medicaid Fraud/Conspiracy to Breach Fiduciary Duty. Represented a whistleblower in co-prosecuting Medicaid fraud case with the State of Texas against one of the world’s largest consumer health and pharmaceutical companies. Case settled for $158 million, the largest Medicaid recovery in the history of the State of Texas. False Claims Act. Defended a publicly traded human services provider in a federal court FCA case in which the State of Texas sought $4 in damages. Lawsuit settled for a fraction of the claimed damages. Class Action and Collective Action Litigation Representing an edible bouquet client in defense of purported class action alleging violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. Represented a hotel chain in defense of allegations of violations of Telephone Consumer Protection Act and threat of class actions by several plaintiffs. Represented a leading watch manufacturer in the defense of class action claims of false advertising, deceptive practices, and related claims arising out of “Made in America” claims. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled on very favorable terms. Other Commercial Litigation Regularly advises clients in all aspects of contract disputes, from negotiation of contracts to pre-suit disputes to litigation. Breach of Commissions Contract. Obtained a favorable jury verdict as second-chair trial counsel on behalf of a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry. A former employee alleged breach of commissions agreement against the client, which the jury denied. Case settled on very favorable terms after trial. Breach of Disaster Recovery Contract. On behalf of a disaster recovery and business continuity company, brought suit in a federal court action alleging breach of disaster recovery agreement. Case settled on favorable terms. Fraud/Breach of Contract/Breach of Fiduciary Duty. Successfully defended a Fortune 100 semiconductor and digital signal processing company in a lawsuit by a former employee and purchaser of the client’s business in which the purchaser claimed that the client misrepresented facts and breached an acquisition agreement in connection with the sale of the business. Settled the lawsuit for a fraction of the damages claimed. Breach of Computer Automation Contract. Defended a leading global semiconductor company in a state court suit against allegations of breach of computer automation services contract. Settled the lawsuit on very favorable terms. Employment and Collective Action Litigation Reverse Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a college against claims alleging reverse race discrimination under Title VII and breach of contract arising from termination of a professor. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client. Harassment/Race Discrimination. Successfully defended a global communications company against claims in federal court alleging harassment in the workplace, race discrimination, defamation, and breach of contract arising from termination of employee. Obtained total summary judgment on behalf of client. Age Discrimination. Successfully defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in the consumer goods industry against claims alleging age discrimination. Obtained nuisance-value settlement. Gender Discrimination. Successfully defended a county against claims alleging gender discrimination. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client. Pregnancy Discrimination. Successfully defended a marketing company against claim of pregnancy discrimination arising from termination of employee. Obtained summary judgment on behalf of client. FLSA. Defended a global insurance company against claim alleging violation of and retaliation under Fair Labor Standards Act in connection with wages paid to employee, resulting in a favorable settlement. FLSA Collective Action. Defended a leading provider of business services for manufacturers and retailers in consumer goods industry in purported collective action claims of alleged unpaid overtime. Obtained complete denial of collective action on company’s behalf. Case settled. Reported Decisions Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP. v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc. Slip Copy, 2015 WL 3916271 (S.D.N.Y. June 25, 2015) (obtained trebled damages and judgment of over US$42M for defendants’ willful infringement) Tory Burch LLC and River Light V, LP v. Lin \u0026amp; J International, Inc., et al., No. 13cv3669, 2014 WL 6850966, (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 4, 2014) (obtained summary judgment in favor of Tory Burch on trademark infringement and counterfeiting claims) Coach Inc. v. Sassy Couture, No. SA-10-CV-601-XR, 2012 WL 162366 (W.D. Tex. Jan 19, 2012) (obtained summary judgment on behalf of Coach Inc. on claims for trademark counterfeiting) INEOS Group Ltd. v. Chevron Phillips Chemical Company LP; 312 S.W.3d 843 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 2009) (affirmed temporary injunction obtained on behalf of Chevron Phillips Chemical Company in case alleging breach of contract and theft of trade secrets) Kathi Bowman v. CROSSMARK, Inc., No. 3:09-CV-16, 2010 WL 2837519 (E.D. Tenn. July 19, 2010) (obtained denial of conditional certification of class under the Fair Labor Standards Act on behalf of CROSSMARK, Inc.)","searchable_name":"Natalie L. Arbaugh","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":176,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442365,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBruce Baber focuses his practice\u0026nbsp;in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e. He has also been listed in multiple editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Trademark Professionals\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Trademark Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, numerous\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;lists and other leading industry publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e","slug":"bruce-baber","email":"bbaber@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-917-749-1247","matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":17}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":105,"guid":"105.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":763,"guid":"763.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Baber","nick_name":"Bruce","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Bruce","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"W.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/brucebaber/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eBruce Baber focuses his practice\u0026nbsp;in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e. He has also been listed in multiple editions of\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Legal 500\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World\u0026rsquo;s Leading Trademark Professionals\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe International Who\u0026rsquo;s Who of Trademark Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e, numerous\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;lists and other leading industry publications.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch5\u003e\u003cbr /\u003eAdmitted only in Georgia.\u003c/h5\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":9}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:34.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-05T05:03:34.000Z","searchable_text":"Baber{{ FIELD }}Bruce Baber focuses his practice in intellectual property, with an emphasis on litigation and other contested matters. A founding member and senior partner in our Intellectual Property, Patent and Trademark Litigation practice, Bruce works with a wide variety of clients in patent, copyright, trademark and trade dress infringement matters; false advertising disputes; significant IP transactions; and strategic global portfolio management issues.\nBruce represents global and national companies in patent infringement, copyright infringement and trademark infringement; dilution and counterfeiting matters; and false advertising disputes. He represents clients before the U.S. district courts and courts of appeals nationwide, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus.\nBruce is experienced in advising companies on the protection of trademarks, copyrights and other forms of intellectual property; the prosecution of applications for registration of these properties; and the development and implementation of worldwide protection strategies and risk assessments relating to IP issues of all types, including potential false advertising claims. He has been involved in many high-profile litigation matters and numerous major licensing- and other intellectual property-related corporate transactions, joint venture agreements and marketing agreements.\nFor many years, Bruce has been selected as a leading IP lawyer by Chambers USA. He has also been listed in multiple editions of The Best Lawyers in America, The Legal 500, The World Trademark Review WTR 1000 Guide to the World’s Leading Trademark Professionals, The International Who’s Who of Trademark Lawyers, numerous Super Lawyer lists and other leading industry publications.\nA frequent speaker on intellectual property issues, Bruce has also authored a number of articles on trademark matters.\n \nAdmitted only in Georgia. Bruce W Baber Partner Princeton University  Duke University Duke University School of Law Georgia American Bar Association State Bar of Georgia Atlanta Bar Association Best Lawyers In America.","searchable_name":"Bruce W. Baber","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":442768,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5372,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"melvin-bailey","email":"mbailey@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":761,"guid":"761.smart_tags","index":5,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bailey","nick_name":"Mel","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Melvin","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":1896,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1987-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"D.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Super Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)"},{"title":"Texas Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in Dallas","detail":"Dallas D Magazine"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2017-2018"},{"title":"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy","detail":"2017"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/mel-bailey-10aa2033/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation.\u003c/p\u003e","recognitions":[{"title":"Super Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)"},{"title":"Texas Lawyer","detail":"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in Dallas","detail":"Dallas D Magazine"},{"title":"Best Lawyers in America","detail":"2017-2018"},{"title":"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy","detail":"2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6358}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:46.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:56:46.000Z","searchable_text":"Bailey{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018)\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in Dallas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Dallas D Magazine\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017-2018\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Mel Bailey focuses his practice on high profile product liability, business litigation and personal injury cases for more than 30 years. He has achieved success at trial attorney in some of the most challenging venues in the United States, including Texas, California, New York, New Jersey, Wyoming, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maryland, Nevada and Florida. His extensive courtroom experience has resulted in representation of leading corporate clients in complex and high stake litigation.\nMel has tried more than 65 cases to verdict in his career and has served as lead trial counsel on behalf of numerous Fortune 100 Companies in both product liability and toxic tort litigation. Partner Super Lawyer Superlawyer’s Magazine (2003-2018) Texas Lawyer Superlawyer’s Edition (2006-2018) Best Lawyers in Dallas Dallas D Magazine Best Lawyers in America 2017-2018 International Association of Defense Counsel Trial Academy 2017 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas Texas Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers Member, International Association of Defense Counsel Fellow, Litigation of Trial Counsel Member, The Trial Lawyer Honorary Society Former Member, American Board Trial Advocates Member, Diversity Law Institute Member, Trial Law Institute Inactive  Member, American Board of Trial Advocates IADC Trial Academy Faculty, Stanford University","searchable_name":"Melvin D. Bailey (Mel)","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":437134,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3123,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"david-balser","email":"dbalser@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":18}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":18,"guid":"18.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1157,"guid":"1157.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":120,"guid":"120.capabilities","index":12,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":133,"guid":"133.capabilities","index":16,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1243,"guid":"1243.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Balser","nick_name":"David","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia","years_held":"1987-1989"}],"first_name":"David","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"L.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eDavid Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients\u0026rsquo; most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRanked by \u003cem\u003eChambers USA\u003c/em\u003e as a \u0026ldquo;Star Individual\u0026rdquo; for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cul\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e\u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eHe's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo;\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ul\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid\u0026rsquo;s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDistinguished Leader\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;by the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eDaily Report \u003c/em\u003ein 2022, which praised his \u0026ldquo;\u003cem\u003eproven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.\u003c/em\u003e\u0026rdquo; He has also been named a \u0026ldquo;Litigation Star\u0026rdquo; by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBenchmark Litigation\u003c/em\u003e and honored as a\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBTI Client Service All-Star\u003c/em\u003e. David\u0026rsquo;s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDavid leads the firm\u0026rsquo;s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and\u0026nbsp;litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape\u0026nbsp;of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eClass Actions\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCurrently defending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank\u0026rsquo;s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eCapital One\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEquifax\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eDaVita Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained favorable settlement in securities class action for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eTivity Health, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eHeartland Payment Systems\u003c/strong\u003e, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConvinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBenefytt Technologies Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, an insurance technology company.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of consumer class actions for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNovant Health, Inc.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ealleging failure to adequately safeguard patients\u0026rsquo; personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant\u0026rsquo;s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant\u0026rsquo;s website.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eObtained dismissal of putative class action against\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eShutterfly, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California\u0026rsquo;s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefend\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eEmory University\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eReached a favorable settlement for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliates of The Southern Company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Litigation and Other Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean international airline\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSea Island Company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; challenging Sea Island\u0026rsquo;s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea large nuclear power provider\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eLed the defense of \u0026ldquo;bet-the-company\u0026rdquo; litigation for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eSCANA Corporation\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003erelating to the abandonment of SCANA\u0026rsquo;s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA\u0026rsquo;s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGeorgia Power\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners\u0026rsquo; rights and obligations with respect to the project.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003ePrevailed on appeal on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eGlobal Payments Direct, Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e, a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding\u0026rsquo;s comprehensive challenge of the jury\u0026rsquo;s verdict staved off a \u0026ldquo;windfall\u0026rdquo; recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAHS Residential, LLC\u003c/strong\u003e, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called \u0026ldquo;Assembly Yards.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead counsel for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAT\u0026amp;T\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eNew York based hedge fund\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client\u0026rsquo;s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor on its counterclaims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eServed as lead trial counsel for an\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eaffiliate of Roark Capital\u003c/strong\u003e, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client\u0026rsquo;s favor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefended more than a dozen\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eAmLaw 200 firms\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation","detail":"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT"},{"title":"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” ","detail":"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022"},{"title":"\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA 2023"},{"title":"“He is top in class action litigation\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\"","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”","detail":"CHAMBERS USA 2023"},{"title":"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)","detail":"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022"},{"title":"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation","detail":"Best Lawyers in America"},{"title":"U.S. “Litigation Star” ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT"},{"title":"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia","detail":"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present"},{"title":"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star","detail":"BTI, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":11778}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-11T18:21:37.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-11T18:21:37.000Z","searchable_text":"Balser{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“He is top in class action litigation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"CHAMBERS USA 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection)\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Best Lawyers in America\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"U.S. “Litigation Star” \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"2018 BTI Client Service All-Star\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"BTI, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Class Actions{{ FIELD }}Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products.{{ FIELD }}Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services.{{ FIELD }}Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit.{{ FIELD }}Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit.{{ FIELD }}Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court.{{ FIELD }}Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality.{{ FIELD }}Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial.{{ FIELD }}Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees.{{ FIELD }}Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website.{{ FIELD }}Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act.{{ FIELD }}Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment.{{ FIELD }}Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance.{{ FIELD }}Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes{{ FIELD }}Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets{{ FIELD }}Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island.{{ FIELD }}Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action.{{ FIELD }}Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019.{{ FIELD }}Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project.{{ FIELD }}Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia.{{ FIELD }}Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.”{{ FIELD }}Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims.{{ FIELD }}Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor.{{ FIELD }}Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.{{ FIELD }}David Balser tries high-stakes cases on behalf of Fortune 500 companies and other leading businesses in the financial services, telecommunications, energy, transportation, professional services, and private equity sectors. David is often called upon to handle clients’ most sensitive, complex, and enterprise-threatening matters. A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, David focuses on contract disputes, business torts, class actions and professional liability litigation. \nRanked by Chambers USA as a “Star Individual” for Commercial Litigation, David is praised by his peers and clients for his command of the courtroom and his leadership in bet-the-company cases:\n\n “He is the preeminent class action lawyer in town. On his feet he's amazing, he's every bit as good as the best.”\n“He has a mastery of law, a commanding presence and a real strategic approach to litigation.”\n“He can be tough as nails, but has great manner with clients. He's extraordinarily impressive.”\n“He is a bet-the-company litigator and a go-to. He might be the top bet-the-company litigator I've ever met.”\n“He's a trusted adviser through and through. David is a rockstar of a lawyer.”\n\nDavid’s creativity and collaborative style have earned him accolades such as Distinguished Leader by the Daily Report in 2022, which praised his “proven track record of creativity and collaboration [that] sets him apart from the competition.” He has also been named a “Litigation Star” by Benchmark Litigation and honored as a BTI Client Service All-Star. David’s reputation, built on excellence, strategy, and client trust, makes him a go-to lawyer for the most complex and consequential litigation challenges. \nDavid leads the firm’s nationwide class action practice and has defended more than 200 class actions, including many filed in the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions in the country. At the forefront of developing and litigating novel theories, David has been a trailblazer in shaping the evolving landscape of complex data breaches and has served as lead counsel on some of the most notable cases in U.S. history, including high-profile matters for Equifax and Capital One.\n  David L Balser Partner Band 1: Georgia: Commercial Litigation Chambers USA, 2006 - PRESENT “His proven track record of creativity and collaboration sets him apart from the competition.”  DISTINGUISHED LEADER, DAILY REPORT, 2022 \"He is an excellent lawyer and a true workhorse. He is a go-to first chair trial lawyer.\"  Chambers USA 2023 “He is top in class action litigation\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very strategic and thoughtful, but aggressive when necessary - he's not afraid of a fight.\" CHAMBERS USA 2023 \"He's very solid in class actions, there's nobody better.” CHAMBERS USA 2023 Recommend in Cyber Law (including Data Privacy and Data Protection) THE LEGAL 500 UNITED STATES, 2022 “Bet the Company” Litigation, Commercial Litigation Best Lawyers in America U.S. “Litigation Star”  Benchmark Litigation, 2018 - PRESENT Top 100 Lawyers in Georgia Georgia Super Lawyers, 2012–Present 2018 BTI Client Service All-Star BTI, 2018 University of Pennsylvania University of Pennsylvania Law School University of Michigan University of Michigan Law School Georgia Law Clerk, Honorable Charles A. Moye, Jr., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia Class Actions Currently defending Capital One in parallel consumer class action and regulatory actions alleging deceptive marketing and unfair practices related to interest rates on the bank’s 360 Savings and 360 Performance Savings products. Defended Capital One as lead counsel in over 60 consumer class actions relating to a data security incident announced in July 2019 involving approximately 100 million U.S. consumers. The firm obtained dismissal with prejudice of the alleged RICO claims and led the defense of the litigation through fact and expert discovery, class certification, Daubert briefing, and summary judgment briefing. Our work included litigating numerous privilege disputes, including successfully protecting a privileged root cause investigation report. Most recently, the firm negotiated a $190 million class action settlement, which was approved and resolved all of the consumer claims against Capital One and codefendant Amazon Web Services. Defended Equifax as lead counsel in the MDL involving hundreds of consumer and financial institutions class actions filed in the wake of a high-profile 2017 data breach. After more than a year and a half of contentious litigation, David led the negotiation of a class action settlement to resolve the claims of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers. David successfully defended the settlement on appeal to the 11th Circuit. Defended an international airline in a series of consumer class actions that were filed following the 2018 announcement of a cybersecurity incident involving a third-party vendor. Two of the cases were dismissed with prejudice, and the plaintiff in the third case discontinued the lawsuit. Representing DaVita Inc. in a consolidated class actions arising from an April 2024 ransomware attack and data breach in Colorado federal court. Defending an international airline in a class action lawsuit in the Central District of California involving allegations of greenwashing and misrepresentation regarding the total environmental impact of its business operations and claims of carbon neutrality. Obtained favorable settlement in securities class action for Tivity Health, Inc. and certain current and former directors and officers regarding its $1.3B acquisition of Nutrisystem. As lead trial counsel, David successfully excluded Plaintiff’s key expert in a Daubert hearing, significantly weakening the case and securing a highly favorable settlement on the eve of trial. Secured dismissal of a putative nationwide class action in the District of New Jersey against Heartland Payment Systems, a subsidiary of Global Payments, over alleged excessive merchant fees. Convinced the Ninth Circuit to vacate the certification of two nationwide classes in a Telephone Consumer Protection Act case against Benefytt Technologies Inc., an insurance technology company. Obtained dismissal of consumer class actions for Novant Health, Inc. alleging failure to adequately safeguard patients’ personally identifiable information and personal health information and allowed the improper and unauthorized transmission of PII and PHI to Meta (formerly known as Facebook) as a result of Novant’s use of the Meta tracking pixel on Novant’s website. Obtained dismissal of putative class action against Shutterfly, LLC arising from a ransomware attack bringing several claims, including under California’s Unfair Competition Laws and cause of action under the relatively new California Consumer Privacy Act. Defend Emory University in a COVID-19 related class action seeking tuition refunds and obtained dismissal of the plaintiff's claims for breach of express contract and unjust enrichment. Reached a favorable settlement for an international airline in a COVID-19 related class action seeking ticket refunds. Defeated class certification and obtained summary judgment for an international airline in a class action in the Southern District of Florida alleging RICO and breach of contract claims relating to trip insurance. Defeated class certification in $300 million consumer class action on behalf of affiliates of The Southern Company in a long-running, high-stakes putative class action in Cook County (Ill.) Chancery Court asserting purported violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act. Commercial Litigation and Other Disputes Representing an international airline and several senior executives in a lawsuit seeking $1 billion in damages for alleged misappropriation of trade secrets Representing Sea Island Company in “bet-the-company” challenging Sea Island’s private ownership of the roads on Sea Island, Georgia, including the causeway connecting Sea Island, Georgia to St. Simons Island. Representing a large nuclear power provider in alleged antitrust price-fixing class action. Led the defense of “bet-the-company” litigation for SCANA Corporation relating to the abandonment of SCANA’s new nuclear development at the V.C. Summer plant in South Carolina. David led multiple teams of King \u0026amp; Spalding lawyers in the defense of ratepayer class actions, derivative claims, federal securities class actions, and state and federal governmental investigations, as well as an expedited federal court injunction proceeding seeking to block implementation of confiscatory legislation targeting SCANA. David served as lead counsel for SCANA in a 15-day evidentiary proceeding before the South Carolina Public Service Commission in which multiple parties sought to block SCANA’s proposed $14.6 billion merger with Dominion Energy. SCANA achieved a complete victory in that matter, leading to the closing of the Dominion merger in January of 2019. Defended Georgia Power in a contract dispute involving alleged obligations to cover certain construction costs associated with the Plant Vogtle nuclear power units per the terms of certain agreements that govern the co-owners’ rights and obligations with respect to the project. Prevailed on appeal on behalf of Global Payments Direct, Inc., a global financial technology services company, in the reversal of a $135 million verdict awarded by a jury in DeKalb County, Georgia, to Frontline Processing Corporation, an independent sales organization. King \u0026amp; Spalding’s comprehensive challenge of the jury’s verdict staved off a “windfall” recovery under an unprecedented damages theory and reaffirmed the limits on consequential damages awards under Georgia law and represents a rare and important reversal of a jury verdict in Georgia. Represented AHS Residential, LLC, a Miami-based company that builds and operates multi-family housing across the U.S., in a breach of contract dispute involving an agreement to purchase 8.9 acres of land out of a larger tract in suburban Atlanta called “Assembly Yards.” Served as lead counsel for AT\u0026amp;T in an international arbitration seeking to block enforcement of a multi-million dollar judgment obtained by a former executive in Argentina. In a complete victory, the arbitration panel, after an extensive evidentiary hearing, issued a world-wide injunction preventing the former executive from seeking to enforce his judgment. Served as lead trial counsel for a New York based hedge fund in a jury trial in Superior Court of Fulton County. The client’s entire $85 million investment in a real estate joint venture was at stake. David obtained a complete defense verdict and a verdict in his client’s favor on its counterclaims. Served as lead trial counsel for an affiliate of Roark Capital, a leading private equity fund, in a trial in Delaware Chancery Court involving a post-acquisition tax dispute. David obtained a judgment in his client’s favor. Defended more than a dozen AmLaw 200 firms against claims of legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.","searchable_name":"David L. Balser","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":447228,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":7274,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the \u0026ldquo;v.\u0026rdquo; In particular,\u0026nbsp;he\u0026nbsp;has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to\u0026nbsp;rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will\u0026nbsp;served as Associate General Counsel\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot and\u0026nbsp;was a member of the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Legal Senior Leadership Team.\u0026nbsp;As leader of\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he\u0026nbsp;was responsible for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s most significant commercial and business litigation,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;challenged core aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business. During his\u0026nbsp;21-year tenure\u0026nbsp;with The Home Depot,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;led the successful defense\u0026nbsp;of several hundred class\u0026nbsp;actions, created and led the company\u0026rsquo;s recovery litigation program,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations\u0026nbsp;and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized thought leader in complex litigation,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term\u0026mdash;one of the few in-house\u0026nbsp;counsel\u0026nbsp;to do so. He received the\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Business Chronicle\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works,\u0026nbsp;Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions,\u0026nbsp;ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee\u0026nbsp;Winston\u0026nbsp;College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding\u0026nbsp;Adjunct\u0026nbsp;Professor Award in 2025.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026nbsp;chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform,\u0026nbsp;which was\u0026nbsp;instrumental in passing Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will\u0026nbsp;played\u0026nbsp;varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"william-barnette-2","email":"wbarnette@kslaw.com ","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k)\u0026nbsp;plan,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCano v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;e.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBerger v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarino v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGoldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009)\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVarnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWillard v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScott v. Am. Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of individual smoking and health jury trials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: OSB Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppeals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDrafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWoodfield v. Bowman\u003c/em\u003e, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eon remand\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTransunion v. Ramirez\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFacebook v. Duguid\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUnited States PTO v. Booking.com BV\u003c/em\u003e, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInvestigations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Representation while in-house counsel\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":129,"guid":"129.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":2,"guid":"2.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":111,"guid":"111.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":9,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":127,"guid":"127.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1176,"guid":"1176.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":502,"guid":"502.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":14,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1188,"guid":"1188.smart_tags","index":15,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1199,"guid":"1199.smart_tags","index":16,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1206,"guid":"1206.smart_tags","index":17,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":18,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":19,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Barnette","nick_name":"Will","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, Hon. Sol Gothard, Louisiana","years_held":"1995 - 1996"}],"first_name":"William","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":1136,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"magna cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1995-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":0,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"P.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020"},{"title":"Chairman-Class Actions Section","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present "},{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25"},{"title":"General Counsel Pro Bono Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2020"},{"title":"Store Support Excellence Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2024"},{"title":"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award","detail":"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016"},{"title":"Member","detail":"American Law Institute, 2025-present"},{"title":"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award","detail":"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow","detail":"2024-present"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow ","detail":"2019-2023"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eWill Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm\u0026rsquo;s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the \u0026ldquo;v.\u0026rdquo; In particular,\u0026nbsp;he\u0026nbsp;has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to\u0026nbsp;rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will\u0026nbsp;served as Associate General Counsel\u0026nbsp;for\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot and\u0026nbsp;was a member of the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;Legal Senior Leadership Team.\u0026nbsp;As leader of\u0026nbsp;The Home Depot\u0026rsquo;s\u0026nbsp;commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he\u0026nbsp;was responsible for\u0026nbsp;the\u0026nbsp;company\u0026rsquo;s most significant commercial and business litigation,\u0026nbsp;which\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;challenged core aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business. During his\u0026nbsp;21-year tenure\u0026nbsp;with The Home Depot,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;led the successful defense\u0026nbsp;of several hundred class\u0026nbsp;actions, created and led the company\u0026rsquo;s recovery litigation program,\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations\u0026nbsp;and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eA recognized thought leader in complex litigation,\u0026nbsp;Will\u0026nbsp;argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term\u0026mdash;one of the few in-house\u0026nbsp;counsel\u0026nbsp;to do so. He received the\u0026nbsp;Atlanta Business Chronicle\u0026rsquo;s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works,\u0026nbsp;Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions,\u0026nbsp;ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He\u0026nbsp;frequently\u0026nbsp;lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee\u0026nbsp;Winston\u0026nbsp;College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding\u0026nbsp;Adjunct\u0026nbsp;Professor Award in 2025.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWill\u0026nbsp;chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform,\u0026nbsp;which was\u0026nbsp;instrumental in passing Georgia\u0026rsquo;s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will\u0026nbsp;played\u0026nbsp;varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.)\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k)\u0026nbsp;plan,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eCano v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ePizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber,\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;e.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eKitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBerger v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eO\u0026rsquo;Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMarino v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGoldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009)\u0026nbsp;*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVarnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWillard v. Home Depot\u003c/em\u003e, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eScott v. Am. Tobacco Co.\u003c/em\u003e, 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eMizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eWon series of individual smoking and health jury trials,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003ee.g.\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eEiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp.\u003c/em\u003e, 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRecovery\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: OSB Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig.\u003c/em\u003e, MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eAppeals\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDrafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot v. Jackson\u003c/em\u003e, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eArgued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eWoodfield v. Bowman\u003c/em\u003e, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eHome Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig.,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019),\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eon remand\u003c/em\u003e, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eIn re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig.\u003c/em\u003e, 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFrederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eRickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eManaged drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eTransunion v. Ramirez\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eFacebook v. Duguid\u003c/em\u003e, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020);\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eUnited States PTO v. Booking.com BV\u003c/em\u003e, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eInvestigations\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003e*Representation while in-house counsel\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020"},{"title":"Chairman-Class Actions Section","detail":"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present "},{"title":"Chairman-Board of Directors","detail":"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25"},{"title":"General Counsel Pro Bono Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2020"},{"title":"Store Support Excellence Award","detail":"The Home Depot, 2024"},{"title":"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award","detail":"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016"},{"title":"Member","detail":"American Law Institute, 2025-present"},{"title":"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award","detail":"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow","detail":"2024-present"},{"title":"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow ","detail":"2019-2023"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":13228}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-03-31T22:04:40.000Z","updated_at":"2026-03-31T22:04:40.000Z","searchable_text":"Barnette{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Board of Directors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Class Actions Section\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present \"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chairman-Board of Directors\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"General Counsel Pro Bono Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Home Depot, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Store Support Excellence Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Home Depot, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Member\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Law Institute, 2025-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2024-present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America Fellow \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2019-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.){{ FIELD }}Representing national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.){{ FIELD }}Won reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)* {{ FIELD }}Won three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k) plan, Cano v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25); Pizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024); Lanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions, In re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials, In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber, e.g., Kitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers, e.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25); Berger v. Home Depot, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014); Chochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013); Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008); O’Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services, e.g., Marino v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents, e.g., Goldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009) * {{ FIELD }}Won series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices, e.g., Varnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15); Willard v. Home Depot, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)* {{ FIELD }}Defense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation, Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998) {{ FIELD }}Won dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal, Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)* {{ FIELD }}Won series of individual smoking and health jury trials, e.g., Eiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005) {{ FIELD }}Recovery {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board, In re: OSB Litig., No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)* {{ FIELD }}Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services, In re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig., MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)* {{ FIELD }}Appeals {{ FIELD }}Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068{{ FIELD }}Argued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Home Depot v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)* {{ FIELD }}Argued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute, Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999) {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards, In re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Frederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)* {{ FIELD }}Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)* {{ FIELD }}Managed drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, Transunion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021); Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020); United States PTO v. Booking.com BV, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)* {{ FIELD }}Investigations {{ FIELD }}Successfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act {{ FIELD }}*Representation while in-house counsel {{ FIELD }}Will Barnette is a partner in the Atlanta office of King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he is a member of the firm’s business litigation practice and class action defense group. During his 30-year career, Will has consistently led clients to successful outcomes in their most sensitive and high exposure class action, MDL, and related regulatory matters. From litigating high-stakes tobacco class actions at the turn of the century, to defending massive data breach litigation in the last decade, and winning several lucrative antitrust opt-out settlements more recently, Will has played a key role in much of the leading complex litigation of the era and led clients to tremendous success on both sides of the “v.” In particular, he has deep experience in litigating consumer, products, and antitrust class actions, commercial disputes, and managing internal investigations. \nPrior to rejoining King \u0026amp; Spalding, where he worked earlier in his career, Will served as Associate General Counsel for The Home Depot and was a member of the company’s Legal Senior Leadership Team. As leader of The Home Depot’s commercial litigation team for more than ten years, he was responsible for the company’s most significant commercial and business litigation, which frequently challenged core aspects of the company’s business. During his 21-year tenure with The Home Depot, Will led the successful defense of several hundred class actions, created and led the company’s recovery litigation program, and successfully managed multiple high-profile investigations and favorably resolved significant related regulatory matters, including with the United States Department of Justice, the United States Environmental Protection Agency, and multi-state Attorney General groups. Will has been described by a Fortune 20 GC as \"an exceptionally talented lawyer, strong leader and trusted counsel to senior level executives.\"\nA recognized thought leader in complex litigation, Will argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2019 term—one of the few in-house counsel to do so. He received the Atlanta Business Chronicle’s Corporate Counsel Award for Advocacy in 2016 and has authored seven law review articles. His recent works, Misunderstanding Original Jurisdiction and There Is No Conservative Case for Class Actions, ranked among the top SSRN downloads in Federal Courts and Jurisdiction. He frequently lectures on class actions, MDL litigation, and internal investigations, and teaches Complex Litigation at the University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, where he earned the Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award in 2025. \nWill chaired the Board of Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, which was instrumental in passing Georgia’s 2025 tort reform legislation. He also serves as Chair of the Class Actions Section for the State Bar of Georgia and is a former President of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society. Will played varsity college basketball at Sewanee and is a member of the American Law Institute. Partner Chairman-Board of Directors Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2020 Chairman-Class Actions Section State Bar of Georgia, 2024-present  Chairman-Board of Directors Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2023-25 General Counsel Pro Bono Award The Home Depot, 2020 Store Support Excellence Award The Home Depot, 2024 Corporate Counsel Advocacy Award Atlanta Business Chronicle, 2016 Member American Law Institute, 2025-present Harold C. Warner Outstanding Adjunct Professor Award University of Tennessee Winston College of Law, 2025 Litigation Counsel of America Senior Fellow 2024-present Litigation Counsel of America Fellow  2019-2023 Sewanee: The University of the South  Loyola University New Orleans Loyola University New Orleans College of Law Supreme Court of the United States Georgia Louisiana Chairman, State Bar of Georgia, Class Actions Section, 2024-present Member, American Law Institute, 2025-present Member, Board of Directors, Georgians for Lawsuit Reform, 2017-present; Vice-Chairman, 2022-23; Chairman; 2023-25 Member, In-House Counsel Advisory Board, Emory Law Institute for Complex Litigation and Mass Claims, 2017-present Member, Lawyers Club of Atlanta, 2002-present Member, State Bar of Georgia, 2000-present Member, Louisiana State Bar Association, 1995-present Member, Executive Committee of Board of Directors of the Atlanta Legal Aid Society, 2013-2021; Secretary (2017); Treasurer (2018); Vice-President (2019); President (2020) Member, Georgia Senate Study Committee on Legal Reform, 2019-2020 Member, American Bar Association House of Delegates, 1998-2002 Law Clerk, Hon. Sol Gothard, Louisiana Representing national retailer in series of class actions alleging consumer fraud related to pricing practices, e.g., Berger v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., No. 24-01435 (N.D. Ga.) Representing national retailer in antitrust MDL class action alleging price-fixing related to algorithmic pricing, In re: Construction Equipment Rental Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 3152 (N.D. Ill.) Won reversal of order finding violation of federal labor law, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. NLRB, 2025 U.S. App. Lexis 29091 (8th Cir. 11/6/25)*  Won three ERISA class actions alleging breaches of fiduciary duty in management of 401(k) plan, Cano v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 176101 (N.D. Ga. 8/26/25); Pizarro v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 111 F.4th 1165 (11th Cir. 2024); Lanfear v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 679 F.3d 1267 (11th Cir. 2012)*  Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of massive data breach/privacy class actions, In re: The Home Depot Customer Data Security Breach Litig., MDL No. 2583 (N.D. Ga. 2014)*  Successfully litigated to favorable resolution of eight class actions alleging product defects in sale of builiding materials, In re: Chinese-Manufactured Drywall Products Liability Litig., MDL No. 2047 (E.D. La. 2012)*  Won series of eight class actions alleging product defects and consumer fraud in sale of pressure-treated lumber, e.g., Kitzes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 374 Ill. 3d 1053 (Ill. 1st Dist. 2007)*  Won series of 20 class actions alleging consumer fraud in tool rental business and sale of damage waivers, e.g., Mathews v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2025 U.S. Dist. Lexis 82577 (N.D. Ga. 2/14/25); Berger v. Home Depot, 741 F.3d 1061 (9th Cir. 2014); Chochorowski v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 404 S.W. 3d 220 (Mo. 2013); Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 535 F.3d 661 (7th Cir. 2008); O’Neill v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 243 F.R.D. 469 (S.D. Fla. 2006)*  Won series of four class actions challenging pricing practices and alleging consumer fraud and breach of contract in sale of flooring installation services, e.g., Marino v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 245 F.R.D. 729 (S.D. Fla. 2007)*  Won series of three class actions alleging product defects in sale of dryer vents, e.g., Goldstein v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 609 F. Supp. 2d 1340 (N.D. Ga. 2009) *  Won series of three class actions challenging permitting and licensing practices, e.g., Varnes v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2015 U.S. Dist. Lexis 118592 (M.D. Fla. 9/4/15); Willard v. Home Depot, 2009 U.S. Dist. Lexis 113493 (N.D. Fla. 12/7/09)*  Defense trial team member in state-wide class action seeking medical monitoring and smoking cessation, Scott v. Am. Tobacco Co., 725 So. 2d 10 (La. 4th Cir. 1998)  Won dismissal of securities fraud class action and affirmance on appeal, Mizzaro v. Home Depot, Inc., 544 F.3d 1230 (11th Cir. 2008)*  Won series of individual smoking and health jury trials, e.g., Eiser v. Brown \u0026amp; Williamson Tobacco Corp., 2005 Phila. Ct. Common Pleas Lexis 43 (2005)  Recovery  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from payment card interchange fee-setting allegations, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 1720 (E.D. N.Y. 2010)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of drywall, In re: Domestic Drywall Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2437 (E.D. Pa. 2013)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of oriented strand board, In re: OSB Litig., No. 06-826 (E.D. Pa. 2007)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of polyurethane foam, In re: Polyurethane Foam Antitrust Litig., MDL No. 2196 (N.D. Ohio 2010)*  Successfully litigated opt-out claims to favorable resolution in multidistrict antitrust litigation arising from price-fixing allegations in sale of Puerto Rican cabotage services, In re: Puerto Rican Cabotage Antitrust Liig., MDL No. 1960 (D. P.R. 2008)*  Appeals  Drafted amicus brief on behalf of Retail Litigation Center in the U.S. Supreme Court in Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068 Argued jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Home Depot v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743 (2019)*  Argued and won insurance policy and assignment of rights dispute, Woodfield v. Bowman, 193 F.3d 354 (5th Cir. 1999)  Managed successful appeal vacating striking of expert testimony, Home Depot USA, Inc. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 59 F.4th 55 (3d Cir. 2023)*  Managed successful appeals which twice vacated excessive class counsel fee awards, In re: Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Sec. Breach Litig., 931 F.3d 1065 (11th Cir. 2019), on remand, 2022 U.S. App. Lexis 297 (11th Cir. 2022)*  Managed successful appeal vacating unfavorable class settlement and overly broad release, In re: Payment Card Inter. Fee and Merchant Disc. Antitrust Litig., 827 F.3d 223 (2d Cir. 2016)*  Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Frederico v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 507 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2007)*  Managed successful jurisdictional appeal under the Class Action Fairness Act, Rickher v. Home Depot USA, Inc., 2006 U.S. App. Lexis 32391 (7th Cir. 5/22/06)*  Managed drafting of amicus briefs supporting winning side in three recent significant U.S. Supreme Court cases, Transunion v. Ramirez, 141 S.Ct. 2190 (2021); Facebook v. Duguid, 141 S.Ct. 813 (2020); United States PTO v. Booking.com BV, 591 U.S, 549 (2020)*  Investigations  Successfully managed internal investigations and resolved related regulatory matters involving various federal and state laws, including whistleblower laws, privacy laws, Toxic Substances Control Act, and Lacey Act  *Representation while in-house counsel ","searchable_name":"William P. Barnette (Will)","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}]}}