{"data":{"filter_options":{"titles":[{"name":"Partner","value":"Partner"},{"name":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops","value":"Partner / Dir. E-Discovery Ops"},{"name":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office","value":"Managing Partner Atlanta Office"},{"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 / 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 Lawyer","value":"Senior Lawyer"},{"name":"Senior Attorney","value":"Senior Attorney"},{"name":"Attorney","value":"Attorney"},{"name":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions","value":"Managing Director - Capital Solutions"},{"name":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor","value":"Senior Counsel and Policy Advisor"},{"name":"Consultant","value":"Consultant"},{"name":"Government Relations Advisor","value":"Government Relations Advisor"},{"name":"Associate General Counsel","value":"Associate General Counsel"},{"name":"Patent Agent","value":"Patent Agent"},{"name":"Senior Advisor","value":"Senior Advisor"},{"name":"Senior Government Relations Advisor","value":"Senior Government Relations Advisor"},{"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 Information Officer","value":"Chief Information Officer"},{"name":"Chief Financial Officer","value":"Chief Financial Officer"},{"name":"Tax Consultant","value":"Tax Consultant"},{"name":"Director of Operations","value":"Director of Operations"},{"name":"Chief Marketing Officer","value":"Chief Marketing Officer"},{"name":"Senior Office Manager","value":"Senior Office Manager"},{"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":"Pro Bono Deputy","value":"Pro Bono Deputy"},{"name":"Director of Operations Europe","value":"Director of Operations Europe"},{"name":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration","value":"Chief of Lateral Partner Recruiting \u0026 Integration"},{"name":"Director of Office Operations","value":"Director of Office Operations"},{"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":3060},{"name":"DePaul University College of Law","value":565},{"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 Leeds School of Law","value":2850},{"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":3052},{"name":"University Paris II Assas","value":2975},{"name":"USC Gould School of Law","value":2389},{"name":"Utrecht University","value":3085},{"name":"Valparaiso University School of Law","value":2441},{"name":"Vanderbilt University School of Law","value":2442},{"name":"Vermont Law School","value":2451},{"name":"Villanova University School of Law","value":2454},{"name":"Wake Forest University School of Law","value":2471},{"name":"Washburn University School of Law","value":2482},{"name":"Washington and Lee University School of Law","value":2484},{"name":"Washington College of Law","value":61},{"name":"Washington University in St. Louis School of Law","value":2489},{"name":"Wayne State University Law School","value":2493},{"name":"West Virginia University College of Law","value":2517},{"name":"Western New England College School of Law","value":2528},{"name":"Western State College of Law","value":2897},{"name":"Wharton School of Business","value":3044},{"name":"Whittier Law School","value":2564},{"name":"Widener University Delaware Law School","value":2569},{"name":"Willamette University College of Law","value":2573},{"name":"William \u0026 Mary Law School","value":462},{"name":"William H. Bowen School of Law","value":2150},{"name":"William Mitchell College of Law","value":2758},{"name":"William S. Boyd School of Law","value":2256},{"name":"William S. Richardson School of Law","value":2195},{"name":"Wilmington University","value":2993},{"name":"Yale Law School","value":2605}],"offices":[{"name":"Abu Dhabi","value":13},{"name":"Atlanta","value":1},{"name":"Austin","value":12},{"name":"Brussels","value":23},{"name":"Charlotte","value":8},{"name":"Chicago","value":21},{"name":"Dallas","value":28},{"name":"Denver","value":22},{"name":"Dubai","value":6},{"name":"Frankfurt","value":9},{"name":"Geneva","value":15},{"name":"Houston","value":4},{"name":"London","value":5},{"name":"Los Angeles","value":19},{"name":"Miami","value":25},{"name":"New York","value":3},{"name":"Northern Virginia","value":24},{"name":"Paris","value":14},{"name":"Riyadh","value":27},{"name":"Sacramento","value":20},{"name":"San Francisco","value":10},{"name":"Silicon Valley","value":11},{"name":"Singapore","value":16},{"name":"Sydney","value":26},{"name":"Tokyo","value":18},{"name":"Washington, D.C.","value":2}],"capabilities":[{"name":"Corporate, Finance and Investments","value":"cg-1"},{"name":"Activist Defense","value":72},{"name":"Capital Markets","value":26},{"name":"Construction and Procurement","value":40},{"name":"Corporate Governance","value":27},{"name":"Emerging Companies and Venture Capital","value":80},{"name":"Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation","value":28},{"name":"Energy and Infrastructure Projects","value":35},{"name":"Financial Restructuring","value":10},{"name":"Fund Finance","value":134},{"name":"Global Human Capital and Compliance ","value":121},{"name":"Investment Funds and Asset Management","value":78},{"name":"Leveraged Finance","value":29},{"name":"Mergers and Acquisitions (M\u0026A)","value":32},{"name":"Middle East and Islamic Finance and Investment","value":31},{"name":"Private Equity","value":33},{"name":"Public Companies","value":126},{"name":"Real Estate","value":36},{"name":"Structured Finance and Securitization","value":82},{"name":"Tax","value":37},{"name":"Technology Transactions","value":115},{"name":"Government Matters","value":"cg-2"},{"name":"Antitrust","value":1},{"name":"Data, Privacy and Security","value":6},{"name":"Environmental, Health and Safety","value":71},{"name":"FDA and Life Sciences","value":21},{"name":"Government Advocacy and Public Policy","value":23},{"name":"Government Contracts","value":116},{"name":"Healthcare","value":24},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":135},{"name":"International Trade","value":25},{"name":"National Security and Corporate Espionage","value":110},{"name":"Securities Enforcement and Regulation","value":20},{"name":"Special Matters and Government Investigations","value":11},{"name":"Trial and Global Disputes","value":"cg-3"},{"name":"Antitrust ","value":129},{"name":"Appellate, Constitutional and Administrative Law","value":2},{"name":"Bankruptcy and Insolvency Litigation","value":38},{"name":"Class Action Defense","value":3},{"name":"Commercial Litigation","value":5},{"name":"Corporate and Securities Litigation","value":19},{"name":"E-Discovery","value":7},{"name":"Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes","value":4},{"name":"Innovation Protection","value":136},{"name":"Intellectual Property","value":13},{"name":"International Arbitration and Litigation","value":14},{"name":"Labor and Employment","value":15},{"name":"Product Liability","value":17},{"name":"Professional Liability","value":18},{"name":"Toxic \u0026 Environmental Torts","value":16},{"name":"Industries / Issues","value":"cg-4"},{"name":"Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning","value":133},{"name":"Automotive, Transportation and Mobility","value":106},{"name":"Buy American","value":124},{"name":"Crisis Management","value":111},{"name":"Doing Business in Latin America","value":132},{"name":"Energy Transition","value":131},{"name":"Energy","value":102},{"name":"Environmental Agenda","value":125},{"name":"Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG)","value":127},{"name":"Financial Services","value":107},{"name":"Focus on Women's Health","value":112},{"name":"Food and Beverage","value":105},{"name":"Higher Education","value":109},{"name":"Life Sciences and Healthcare","value":103},{"name":"Russia/Ukraine","value":128},{"name":"Special Purpose Acquisition Companies (SPACs)","value":123},{"name":"Technology","value":118}]},"title_id":null,"school_id":null,"office_id":"12","capability_id":null,"extra_filter_id":null,"extra_filter_type":null,"q":null,"starts_with":null,"per_page":12,"people":[{"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":436688,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3236,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation. \u0026nbsp;He regularly works with board\u0026nbsp;committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, among others, and has been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLawdragon.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;He is rated AV\u0026reg; Preeminent\u0026trade; by Martindale-Hubbel.\u0026nbsp; Client and peer reviews in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;say Paul\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.\u0026nbsp; Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he \u0026lsquo;is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u0026rsquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Securities Reporter.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"paul-bessette","email":"pbessette@kslaw.com","phone":"+1-512-940-6250","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSignificant Matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital Turbine, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSolarWinds Corp\u003c/em\u003e.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds\u0026rsquo;s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as \u0026ldquo;the largest and most sophisticated\u0026rdquo; cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhunware, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware\u0026rsquo;s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShattuck Labs\u003c/em\u003e: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re PolatityTE:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss\u0026mdash;the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE\u0026rsquo;s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolent Health, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed \u0026ldquo;rocket docket\u0026rdquo; timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdeptus Health, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFXCM, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank\u0026rsquo;s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM\u0026rsquo;s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hanger, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created \u0026ldquo;cookie jar\u0026rdquo; reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate \u0026ldquo;tone at the top.\u0026rdquo; In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003een banc,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court\u0026rsquo;s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants\u0026rsquo; state of mind. 768 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeiman v. Bulmahn, et al\u003c/em\u003e.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP\u0026rsquo;s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re SemCrude L.P.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMiyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost\u0026rsquo;s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company\u0026rsquo;s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a \u0026sect;10(b) securities-fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":132}]},"expertise":[{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":3,"guid":"3.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":126,"guid":"126.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Bessette","nick_name":"Paul","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Paul","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"R.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America","detail":"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024"},{"title":"\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\"","detail":"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense","detail":"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide"},{"title":"\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1"},{"title":"Recognized by Best Lawyer","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023"},{"title":"\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026 responsiveness.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2021"},{"title":"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.","detail":"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2"},{"title":"\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”","detail":"U.S. News \u0026 World Report, 2015"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025"},{"title":"One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\"","detail":"Lawdragon, 2008"},{"title":"One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\"","detail":"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011"},{"title":"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers ","detail":"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation","detail":"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePaul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm\u0026rsquo;s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.\u0026nbsp; For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation. \u0026nbsp;He regularly works with board\u0026nbsp;committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul is ranked by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eBest Lawyers in America,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLegal 500\u003c/em\u003e, among others, and has been recognized by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eLawdragon.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;He is rated AV\u0026reg; Preeminent\u0026trade; by Martindale-Hubbel.\u0026nbsp; Client and peer reviews in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eChambers\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;say Paul\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.\u0026nbsp; Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he \u0026lsquo;is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him\u003c/em\u003e.\u0026rdquo;\u0026rsquo; \u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\u0026ldquo;Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.\u0026rdquo;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Securities Reporter.\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eSignificant Matters\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDigital Turbine, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSolarWinds Corp\u003c/em\u003e.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds\u0026rsquo;s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as \u0026ldquo;the largest and most sophisticated\u0026rdquo; cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds\u0026rsquo; former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePhunware, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware\u0026rsquo;s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware\u0026rsquo;s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eShattuck Labs\u003c/em\u003e: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re PolatityTE:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss\u0026mdash;the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE\u0026rsquo;s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eEvolent Health, Inc\u003c/em\u003e.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed \u0026ldquo;rocket docket\u0026rdquo; timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdeptus Health, Inc.:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eWe defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus\u0026rsquo;s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFXCM, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank\u0026rsquo;s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM\u0026rsquo;s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Hanger, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created \u0026ldquo;cookie jar\u0026rdquo; reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate \u0026ldquo;tone at the top.\u0026rdquo; In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003een banc,\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court\u0026rsquo;s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs\u0026rsquo; allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants\u0026rsquo; state of mind. 768 Fed. App\u0026rsquo;x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNeiman v. Bulmahn, et al\u003c/em\u003e.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP\u0026rsquo;s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company\u0026rsquo;s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re SemCrude L.P.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMiyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost\u0026rsquo;s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff\u0026rsquo;s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eBell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company\u0026rsquo;s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation:\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eGreenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc.\u003c/em\u003e, 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a \u0026sect;10(b) securities-fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America","detail":"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024"},{"title":"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America","detail":"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024"},{"title":"\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\"","detail":"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024"},{"title":"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense","detail":"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide"},{"title":"\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1"},{"title":"Recognized by Best Lawyer","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023"},{"title":"\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026 responsiveness.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023"},{"title":"\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\"","detail":"Chambers, 2021"},{"title":"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.","detail":"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2"},{"title":"\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\"","detail":"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2"},{"title":"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”","detail":"Chambers USA, 2016"},{"title":"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”","detail":"U.S. News \u0026 World Report, 2015"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation ","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025"},{"title":"One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\"","detail":"Lawdragon, 2008"},{"title":"One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\"","detail":"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011"},{"title":"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers ","detail":"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019"},{"title":"Recognized for Securities Litigation","detail":"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4186}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-04T21:52:53.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-04T21:52:53.000Z","searchable_text":"Bessette{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Litigation Counsel of America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Leading Lawyers of America, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Paul is great at handling complexity.\\\" \\\"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023, Band 1\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Best Lawyer\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America - 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026amp; responsiveness.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026amp;Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions.\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\\\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2018, Band 2\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"“Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"U.S. News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Securities Litigation \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"One of \\\"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2008\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"One of \\\"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized for Securities Litigation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010\"}{{ FIELD }}Significant Matters{{ FIELD }}Digital Turbine, Inc.: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024.{{ FIELD }}SolarWinds Corp.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds’ December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds’s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated” cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds’ former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement.{{ FIELD }}Phunware, Inc.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware’s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware’s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim.{{ FIELD }}Shattuck Labs: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply{{ FIELD }}In re PolatityTE: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss—the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE’s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss.{{ FIELD }}Evolent Health, Inc.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed “rocket docket” timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session.{{ FIELD }}Adeptus Health, Inc.: We defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus’s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus’s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well.{{ FIELD }}FXCM, Inc.: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank’s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM’s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App’x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019).{{ FIELD }}In re Hanger, Inc.: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created “cookie jar” reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate “tone at the top.” In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs’ allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants’ state of mind. 768 Fed. App’x 175 (5th Cir. 2019).{{ FIELD }}Neiman v. Bulmahn, et al.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP’s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company’s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017).{{ FIELD }}In re SemCrude L.P.: Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015).{{ FIELD }}Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.: Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost’s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff’s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013).{{ FIELD }}Bell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.: Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company’s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005).{{ FIELD }}In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation: Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Greenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a §10(b) securities-fraud claim.{{ FIELD }}Paul Bessette, who serves as co-chair of the Firm’s Corporate \u0026amp; Securities Litigation Practice, defends clients in securities and shareholder litigation, government investigations and enforcement actions, and complex business disputes throughout the United States.  For more than 30 years, Paul has represented companies, officers and directors, underwriters and accountants in securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative litigation, regulatory investigations and bankruptcy D\u0026amp;O litigation.  He regularly works with board committees leading internal investigations and advising companies on governance and fiduciary duty issues. \nPaul is ranked by Chambers, Best Lawyers in America, and Legal 500, among others, and has been recognized by Super Lawyers and Lawdragon.  He is rated AV® Preeminent™ by Martindale-Hubbel.  Client and peer reviews in Chambers say Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.  Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors, saying that he ‘is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.”’  “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it.”\nPaul frequently speaks and writes on shareholder litigation, corporate disclosure, corporate governance and related topics. He has authored numerous securities-related articles for publications including ABA Business Law Today, Insights, Financial Executive, Law360, Financial fraud Law Report, The D\u0026amp;O Diary, Bloomberg Law Reports, National Underwriter and The Securities Reporter. Paul R. Bessette Partner Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America Litigation Counsel of America, 2024 Recognized by Leading Lawyers of America Leading Lawyers of America, 2024 \"Paul is great at handling complexity.\" \"Paul is really well-spoken advocate. He is very succinct.\" Bank 1: Litigation: Securities, Chambers 2024 Recommended for Securities Litigation Defense Legal 500 United States 2024 Guide \"Knowledgeable and experienced in dealing with securities litigation; very practical and efficient.\" Chambers USA 2023, Band 1 Recognized by Best Lawyer The Best Lawyers in America - 2023 \"One of the best defense counsel in the industry–combines legal acumen, bus. awareness, communication \u0026amp; responsiveness.\" Chambers USA, Litigation, 2022, Business Today 2023 \"He's very substantive and analytical as well as timely in providing information to clients. A strong securities player.\" Chambers, 2021 Acts on behalf of corporations and their Ds\u0026amp;Os in high-stakes securities litigation, including enforcement actions. Chambers USA, 2020, Band 2 Paul Bessette maintains a specialty in securities litigation, which includes SEC enforcement actions and class actions. Chambers, Litigation: Securities-Texas 2019, Band 2 \"An expert in the area and knows it extraordinarily well\" “Practicing in this area is an art, and he is very good at it\" Chambers USA 2018, Band 2 Paul “has a fast growing reputation for the quality of his representation in a wide range of securities matters.” Chambers USA, 2016 “Market sources laud his ability to engage with company directors” Chambers USA, 2016 Paul “is a very strong boardroom guy with a good team around him.” Chambers USA, 2016 “Strength in a full range of securities litigation matters.” U.S. News \u0026amp; World Report, 2015 Recognized for Securities Litigation  The Best Lawyers in America, 2011–2025 One of \"100 Lawyers You Need to Know in Securities Litigation\" Lawdragon, 2008 One of \"3000 Leading Lawyers in America\" Lawdragon.com, 2006, 2010–2011 Recognized by Texas Super Lawyers  Super Lawyers magazine, 2007–2019 Recognized for Securities Litigation Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, 2009–2010 The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Baylor University Baylor University School of Law Supreme Court of the United States U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the 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 U.S. District Court for the Central District of California U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California New York Texas Significant Matters Digital Turbine, Inc.: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action lawsuit arising out of a 2021 restatement of financial results following two acquisitions of companies in the digital advertising space. We secured a motion to dismiss victory in 2023, and then we won dismissal of the case with prejudice in 2024. SolarWinds Corp.: We defended the Company and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit in the Western District of Texas alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The lawsuit arose after SolarWinds’ December 2020 announcement that it had been victimized in a cutting-edge cyberattack seeking to compromise systems of SolarWinds’s U.S. Government and Fortune 500 clients that use its Orion software. The novel attack has been described as “the largest and most sophisticated” cyberoperation ever executed. It is estimated that more than 1,000 highly skilled engineers working on behalf of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service took part in the attack. On March 30, 2022, the Court entered an order granting dismissal of plaintiff's Section 10(b) claims against SolarWinds’ former CEO, whom King \u0026amp; Spalding also represented, but allowing plaintiff's remaining claims to proceed to the discovery phase. The parties thereafter mediated the case and reached a settlement. Phunware, Inc.: We represent the Company and its pre- and post-SPAC officer and director defendants in a shareholder suit alleging breaches of fiduciary duty, a Delaware corporate law statutory claim, statutory fraud under Texas law and Texas Securities Act claims. Originally filed in Texas, the suit was transferred to the Delaware Chancery Court after King \u0026amp; Spalding successfully moved to transfer the case. This case is an early example of litigation following the recent SPAC transaction boom. Plaintiffs are investors in the pre-SPAC target company that invested in various early rounds of financing while the Company was privately held. The lawsuit followed the de-SPAC merger; plaintiffs allege that Phunware should not have subjected their shares to a 180-day lock-up following the de-SPAC transaction. During the 180-day period following the de-SPAC transaction, Phunware’s stock price rose by hundreds of dollars per share but ultimately dropped significantly before the end of the lock-up period. Plaintiffs, who collectively owned more than 1 million Phunware shares, seek damages, including the lost value of their shares during the lock-up period, as well as costs and professional fees. Vice Chancellor Cook granted Phunware’s motion to dismiss on the Texas Securities Act and statutory fraud claims and denied plaintiffs’ partial motion for summary judgment on the Delaware statutory claim. Shattuck Labs: We represented the Company, its CEO and founder, CFO, Executive Chairman of the Board and founder, and members of the Board in a securities class action in the Eastern District of New York. The Company is a clinical-stage biotechnology company developing a new class of biologic medicine. The initial drug product candidates are in immuno-oncology. Shattuck was conducting a Phase I dose escalation clinical trial to determine the safety of its drug in late-stage cancer patients. Based on a misreading of scientific results, Plaintiffs argued that Shattuck misled investors about the efficacy of the drug in that trial. After we filed a compelling motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs chose to settle the matter cheaply In re PolatityTE: We represented the Company and its executives in a securities class action in the District of Utah. The lawsuit alleged that PolarityTE made false and misleading statements regarding the registration of its SkinTE product with the FDA, the Company's manufacturing facilities, and its new drug application for SkinTE. We won two motions to dismiss—the second with prejudice. We worked with the client to understand PolarityTE’s business and the applicable FDA regulations to be able to draft compelling motions to dismiss. Evolent Health, Inc.: We represented the Company and several of its current and former executives in a securities class action lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Virginia that asserted securities fraud claims arising from the Company's acquisition of its largest customer, a Kentucky Medicaid organization called Passport Health Plan. The operative complaint alleged that more than 20 statements were false or misleading, but after our compelling motion to dismiss, the court dismissed more than three quarters of the plaintiffs' allegations. This shortened the Class Period and significantly reduced the Company's exposure. Plaintiffs then filed a third amended complaint, and the third motion to dismiss was granted in part. Discovery into the remaining claims moved forward on a compressed “rocket docket” timeline, along with the class certification portion of the case. The parties reached a favorable settlement after a second mediation session. Adeptus Health, Inc.: We defended the former CEO in breach of fiduciary duty actions in the Eastern District of Texas and in Delaware Chancery Court, brought by the Litigation Trustee appointed during Adeptus’s bankruptcy. The Trustee alleges that the CEO and various directors benefited from synthetic offerings at the expense of the Company, and also that the CEO pursued a reckless growth strategy that harmed the long-term prospects of the Company. We aggressively litigated and settled the Trustee action. We also defended the CEO in a related federal securities class action and a Texas State Court opt-out case, both brought by shareholders of Adeptus alleging that former officers knowingly or recklessly made misleading and untrue statements to investors in Adeptus’s registration statement for its IPO and in several secondary public offerings, and in subsequent press releases and SEC filings regarding its free-standing emergency room operations, and failed to disclose material weaknesses in its internal accounting practices. We reached favorable settlements in both shareholder actions as well. FXCM, Inc.: Obtained a hard-won dismissal for FXCM, Inc., its CEO, and its CFO in a securities class action following the Swiss National Bank’s unprecedented decision to allow the Swiss franc to trade freely against the euro. The Southern District of New York dismissed the case holding that FXCM’s losses were attributable to an unforeseeable market event, not to any fraud or recklessness by FXCM and its management. The Second Circuit remanded to allow the District Court to consider evidence from a regulatory investigation that concluded after the case was dismissed. The District Court once again dismissed the case and the Second Circuit affirmed the judgment. 767 Fed. App’x 139 (2nd Cir. 2019). In re Hanger, Inc.: Obtained dismissal of a case against Hanger and its CEO that involved a large, four-year restatement and an audit committee investigation that concluded that some members of management created “cookie jar” reserves to smooth earnings and set an inappropriate “tone at the top.” In a panel opinion in August 2018, the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded for further proceedings. After filing for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc, the panel vacated its August 2018 opinion and replaced it with a decision that fully affirmed the district court’s dismissal with prejudice. The panel held that the plaintiffs’ allegations constituted the impermissible group pleading of scienter and did not adequately address the individual defendants’ state of mind. 768 Fed. App’x 175 (5th Cir. 2019). Neiman v. Bulmahn, et al.: The Fifth Circuit affirmed an August 2015 district court dismissal of a putative class action filed by ATP shareholders under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The shareholders accused ATP’s former officers of committing securities fraud by misrepresenting various aspects of the company’s business prior to bankruptcy, including its production from a particular oil-and-gas well, its liquidity, and the resignation of its CEO. The Fifth Circuit held that the shareholders failed to satisfy the heightened standard for pleading scienter. 854 F.3d 741 (5th Cir. 2017). In re SemCrude L.P.: Obtained a permanent injunction preventing investors in bankrupt oil-and-gas company from bringing derivative claims against former CEO in Oklahoma state court. A successful Third Circuit appeal won reversal of orders that had denied injunctive relief, with the court quoting the former CEO's brief in a published opinion on the distinction between derivative and direct claims. 796 F.3d 310 (3rd Cir. 2015). Miyahira v. Vitacost.com, Inc.: Obtained a full dismissal of plaintiff’s claims under the Securities Act of 1933 for misleading statements in Vitacost’s IPO prospectus. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal, holding that the complaint did not state a claim for relief despite reliance on ten confidential witnesses and over 100 pages of allegations. This decision is significant given the nearly strict-liability nature of plaintiff’s Securities Act claims. 715 F.3d 1257 (11th Cir. 2013). Bell v. Ascendant Solutions, Inc.: Defeated class certification in a securities fraud class action involving alleged fraud in connection with an IPO. In a widely followed opinion, the Fifth Circuit upheld the denial of class certification based on argument that the company’s stock did not trade in an efficient market during the class period. 422 F.3d 307 (5th Cir. 2005). In re Crossroads Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation: Obtained summary judgment in a securities fraud class action where the plaintiffs alleged that the company improperly accounted for inventory reserves and sought more than $800 million in damages. The Fifth Circuit affirmed in Greenberg v. Crossroads Sys., Inc., 364 F.3d 657 (5th Cir. 2004). This opinion is one of the key Fifth Circuit cases on what plaintiffs must show to demonstrate entitlement to the fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance, a key element of a §10(b) securities-fraud claim.","searchable_name":"Paul R. Bessette","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":444643,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5039,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eZach Burnett joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2017 as an associate in the Austin office\u0026rsquo;s Tort \u0026amp; Environmental practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses primarily on complex litigations involving medical devices, pharmaceutical products, and consumer products, with a secondary\u0026nbsp;focus on toxic torts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has substantial experience with complex products-liability litigations involving medical-device and pharmaceutical\u0026nbsp;companies, including in MDL proceedings.\u0026nbsp; Zach works on\u0026nbsp;multiple case and trial teams, in both state and federal court,\u0026nbsp;and plays a key, active role in every aspect of pre-trial and trial proceedings, including preparing initial case assessments;\u0026nbsp;conducting written discovery;\u0026nbsp;preparing for and taking fact- and expert-witness depositions; preparing corporate-representative and fact witnesses for deposition; assisting with trial strategy and preparation; and working closely with trial counsel at trial, both in the war room and the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has served as the assistant and lead drafter of numerous successful motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 702/Daubert motions, and motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp; He also\u0026nbsp;has experience arguing discovery and Rule 702 motions, as well as motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his products-liability practice, Zach maintains an active\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;docket representing DACA renewal applicants and civil-rights litigants across the country.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"zachary-burnett","email":"zburnett@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefending \u003cstrong\u003eBoehringer Ingelheim\u003c/strong\u003e in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColoplast\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLundbeck\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":103,"guid":"103.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":112,"guid":"112.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Burnett","nick_name":"Zach","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Zachary","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"C.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Named Staff Editor of the Year ","detail":"American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/zachary-burnett-2115b148/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eZach Burnett joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2017 as an associate in the Austin office\u0026rsquo;s Tort \u0026amp; Environmental practice.\u0026nbsp; His practice focuses primarily on complex litigations involving medical devices, pharmaceutical products, and consumer products, with a secondary\u0026nbsp;focus on toxic torts.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has substantial experience with complex products-liability litigations involving medical-device and pharmaceutical\u0026nbsp;companies, including in MDL proceedings.\u0026nbsp; Zach works on\u0026nbsp;multiple case and trial teams, in both state and federal court,\u0026nbsp;and plays a key, active role in every aspect of pre-trial and trial proceedings, including preparing initial case assessments;\u0026nbsp;conducting written discovery;\u0026nbsp;preparing for and taking fact- and expert-witness depositions; preparing corporate-representative and fact witnesses for deposition; assisting with trial strategy and preparation; and working closely with trial counsel at trial, both in the war room and the courtroom.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eZach has served as the assistant and lead drafter of numerous successful motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 702/Daubert motions, and motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp; He also\u0026nbsp;has experience arguing discovery and Rule 702 motions, as well as motions for summary judgment.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn addition to his products-liability practice, Zach maintains an active\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003epro bono\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;docket representing DACA renewal applicants and civil-rights litigants across the country.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eDefending \u003cstrong\u003eBoehringer Ingelheim\u003c/strong\u003e in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting \u003cstrong\u003e3M\u003c/strong\u003e in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eColoplast\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eLundbeck\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Named Staff Editor of the Year ","detail":"American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5377}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-01-02T15:56:35.000Z","updated_at":"2026-01-02T15:56:35.000Z","searchable_text":"Burnett{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named Staff Editor of the Year \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}Defending Boehringer Ingelheim in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL.{{ FIELD }}Representing 3M in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general.{{ FIELD }}Defending Coloplast in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse.{{ FIELD }}Defending Lundbeck in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.{{ FIELD }}Zach Burnett joined King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2017 as an associate in the Austin office’s Tort \u0026amp; Environmental practice.  His practice focuses primarily on complex litigations involving medical devices, pharmaceutical products, and consumer products, with a secondary focus on toxic torts.\nZach has substantial experience with complex products-liability litigations involving medical-device and pharmaceutical companies, including in MDL proceedings.  Zach works on multiple case and trial teams, in both state and federal court, and plays a key, active role in every aspect of pre-trial and trial proceedings, including preparing initial case assessments; conducting written discovery; preparing for and taking fact- and expert-witness depositions; preparing corporate-representative and fact witnesses for deposition; assisting with trial strategy and preparation; and working closely with trial counsel at trial, both in the war room and the courtroom.  \nZach has served as the assistant and lead drafter of numerous successful motions to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Rule 702/Daubert motions, and motions for summary judgment.  He also has experience arguing discovery and Rule 702 motions, as well as motions for summary judgment. \nIn addition to his products-liability practice, Zach maintains an active pro bono docket representing DACA renewal applicants and civil-rights litigants across the country.  Partner Named Staff Editor of the Year  American Journal of Criminal Law, 2017 The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas Texas State Bar of Texas Defending Boehringer Ingelheim in the ongoing Zantac litigation, including playing a key role at a two-month trial in Cook County, IL. Representing 3M in natural resource damages cases involving state attorneys general. Defending Coloplast in the nationwide products-liability litigation concerning its surgical mesh implants for treatment of female stress urinary incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse. Defending Lundbeck in products-liability disputes concerning various pharmaceutical products.","searchable_name":"Zachary C. Burnett (Zach)","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426320,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2435,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAmina Dammann specializes in environmental law and litigation.\u0026nbsp; She has extensive experience representing multinational corporations in the automotive, energy and pharma sectors.\u0026nbsp; Her practice includes defending clients in governmental investigations and enforcement actions, as well as in federal and state court litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmina has many years of experience representing German and U.S. blue chip companies in both U.S. and German proceedings, as well as in transnational matters. A particular focus of her practice is on advising German companies facing litigation or governmental investigations in the United States. This includes representing German clients before U.S. agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB); it also involves coordinating parallel proceedings in the United States and Germany.\u0026nbsp; Amina \u0026nbsp;holds U.S. degrees from Harvard and Texas and has also obtained the two German state exams in law as well as a doctorate in law from Frankfurt University.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications and Awards\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVacating Arbitration Awards for Mistake of Fact\u003c/em\u003e, 27 Review of Litigation 441\u0026ndash;512 (2008); honored with the Vinson \u0026amp; Elkins LLP Outstanding Note Award\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull;\u0026nbsp; Die Beschwerdekammern der europ\u0026auml;ischen Agenturen [The Boards of Appeal of the European Agencies], Peter Lang, 2004; honored with the Baker \u0026amp; McKenzie Award for best dissertation in the area of business law\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"amina-dammann","email":"adammann@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp class=\"Base\"\u003eAmina Dammann\u0026rsquo;s experience includes the following matters:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented German car manufacturer in environmental enforcement action before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp class=\"Base\"\u003eRepresented German car manufacturer in litigation and governmental investigations regarding disputes over diesel emissions standards;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented New General Motors in litigation relating to ignition switch;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eS3 Graphics Co., Ltd. v. ATI Technologies ULC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eRepresentation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. S3 Graphics Co., Ltd., et al.\u003c/em\u003e Representation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Chevron in litigation arising out of an explosion at a refinery;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented oil refinery owner in arbitration dispute arising out of a refinery construction project in Colombia;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global wind farm developer in arbitration dispute arising out of a long-term turbine service agreement;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKeranos, LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e Representation of Microchip and other defendants in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, filed in the Eastern District of Texas;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrochip Technology Inc. et al. v. United Module Corp. et al.\u003c/em\u003e(and related cases).\u0026nbsp; Representation of Microchip, Silicon Storage Technology and other declaratory judgment plaintiffs in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, pending in the Eastern District of Texas;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corporation v. Louisiana Public Service Commission et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Occidental in litigation to assert rights of qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJD Wind et al. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Occidental in state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rate that must be paid to wind-generating facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and implementing regulations, filed in Texas state and federal courts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Occidental involving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture et al. v. CEMEX Construction Material Florida, LLC\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of CEMEX in a lawsuit concerning a plant construction with multi-million dollar cost overrun and construction delays, filed in Florida state court (Business Court Division).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKing Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of patent holder in a paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePennfield Oil Company d/b/a Pennfield Animal Health v. Alpharma Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Alpharma in a false advertising action arising from Alpharma advertisements that report the results of pharmaceutical research studies, filed in the District of Nebraska.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlpharma Inc. v. Wyeth\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Alpharma in a lawsuit regarding the breach of a trademark license agreement and the infringement of Alpharma\u0026rsquo;s trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":7,"guid":"7.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":762,"guid":"762.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1270,"guid":"1270.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1303,"guid":"1303.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Dammann","nick_name":"Amina","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Amina","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":196,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"S.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAmina Dammann specializes in environmental law and litigation.\u0026nbsp; She has extensive experience representing multinational corporations in the automotive, energy and pharma sectors.\u0026nbsp; Her practice includes defending clients in governmental investigations and enforcement actions, as well as in federal and state court litigation.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmina has many years of experience representing German and U.S. blue chip companies in both U.S. and German proceedings, as well as in transnational matters. A particular focus of her practice is on advising German companies facing litigation or governmental investigations in the United States. This includes representing German clients before U.S. agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB); it also involves coordinating parallel proceedings in the United States and Germany.\u0026nbsp; Amina \u0026nbsp;holds U.S. degrees from Harvard and Texas and has also obtained the two German state exams in law as well as a doctorate in law from Frankfurt University.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003ePublications and Awards\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eVacating Arbitration Awards for Mistake of Fact\u003c/em\u003e, 27 Review of Litigation 441\u0026ndash;512 (2008); honored with the Vinson \u0026amp; Elkins LLP Outstanding Note Award\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026bull;\u0026nbsp; Die Beschwerdekammern der europ\u0026auml;ischen Agenturen [The Boards of Appeal of the European Agencies], Peter Lang, 2004; honored with the Baker \u0026amp; McKenzie Award for best dissertation in the area of business law\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp class=\"Base\"\u003eAmina Dammann\u0026rsquo;s experience includes the following matters:\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented German car manufacturer in environmental enforcement action before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp class=\"Base\"\u003eRepresented German car manufacturer in litigation and governmental investigations regarding disputes over diesel emissions standards;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented New General Motors in litigation relating to ignition switch;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eS3 Graphics Co., Ltd. v. ATI Technologies ULC, et al.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eRepresentation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdvanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. S3 Graphics Co., Ltd., et al.\u003c/em\u003e Representation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Chevron in litigation arising out of an explosion at a refinery;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented oil refinery owner in arbitration dispute arising out of a refinery construction project in Colombia;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented global wind farm developer in arbitration dispute arising out of a long-term turbine service agreement;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKeranos, LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e Representation of Microchip and other defendants in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, filed in the Eastern District of Texas;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMicrochip Technology Inc. et al. v. United Module Corp. et al.\u003c/em\u003e(and related cases).\u0026nbsp; Representation of Microchip, Silicon Storage Technology and other declaratory judgment plaintiffs in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, pending in the Eastern District of Texas;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corporation v. Louisiana Public Service Commission et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Occidental in litigation to assert rights of qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana;\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJD Wind et al. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Occidental in state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rate that must be paid to wind-generating facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and implementing regulations, filed in Texas state and federal courts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Occidental involving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture et al. v. CEMEX Construction Material Florida, LLC\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of CEMEX in a lawsuit concerning a plant construction with multi-million dollar cost overrun and construction delays, filed in Florida state court (Business Court Division).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKing Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of patent holder in a paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePennfield Oil Company d/b/a Pennfield Animal Health v. Alpharma Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Alpharma in a false advertising action arising from Alpharma advertisements that report the results of pharmaceutical research studies, filed in the District of Nebraska.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlpharma Inc. v. Wyeth\u003c/em\u003e: Representation of Alpharma in a lawsuit regarding the breach of a trademark license agreement and the infringement of Alpharma\u0026rsquo;s trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e"]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":4206}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:50:54.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:50:54.000Z","searchable_text":"Dammann{{ FIELD }}Amina Dammann’s experience includes the following matters:{{ FIELD }}Represented German car manufacturer in environmental enforcement action before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board;{{ FIELD }}Represented German car manufacturer in litigation and governmental investigations regarding disputes over diesel emissions standards;{{ FIELD }}Represented New General Motors in litigation relating to ignition switch;{{ FIELD }}S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. v. ATI Technologies ULC, et al.  Representation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware;{{ FIELD }}Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. S3 Graphics Co., Ltd., et al. Representation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware;{{ FIELD }}Represented Chevron in litigation arising out of an explosion at a refinery;{{ FIELD }}Represented oil refinery owner in arbitration dispute arising out of a refinery construction project in Colombia;{{ FIELD }}Represented global wind farm developer in arbitration dispute arising out of a long-term turbine service agreement;{{ FIELD }}Keranos, LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., et al. Representation of Microchip and other defendants in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, filed in the Eastern District of Texas;{{ FIELD }}Microchip Technology Inc. et al. v. United Module Corp. et al.(and related cases).  Representation of Microchip, Silicon Storage Technology and other declaratory judgment plaintiffs in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, pending in the Eastern District of Texas;{{ FIELD }}Occidental Chemical Corporation v. Louisiana Public Service Commission et al.: Representation of Occidental in litigation to assert rights of qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana;{{ FIELD }}JD Wind et al. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas et al.: Representation of Occidental in state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rate that must be paid to wind-generating facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and implementing regulations, filed in Texas state and federal courts.{{ FIELD }}Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission: Representation of Occidental involving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.{{ FIELD }}AMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture et al. v. CEMEX Construction Material Florida, LLC: Representation of CEMEX in a lawsuit concerning a plant construction with multi-million dollar cost overrun and construction delays, filed in Florida state court (Business Court Division).{{ FIELD }}King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.: Representation of patent holder in a paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.{{ FIELD }}Pennfield Oil Company d/b/a Pennfield Animal Health v. Alpharma Inc.: Representation of Alpharma in a false advertising action arising from Alpharma advertisements that report the results of pharmaceutical research studies, filed in the District of Nebraska.{{ FIELD }}Alpharma Inc. v. Wyeth: Representation of Alpharma in a lawsuit regarding the breach of a trademark license agreement and the infringement of Alpharma’s trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.{{ FIELD }}Amina Dammann specializes in environmental law and litigation.  She has extensive experience representing multinational corporations in the automotive, energy and pharma sectors.  Her practice includes defending clients in governmental investigations and enforcement actions, as well as in federal and state court litigation.\nAmina has many years of experience representing German and U.S. blue chip companies in both U.S. and German proceedings, as well as in transnational matters. A particular focus of her practice is on advising German companies facing litigation or governmental investigations in the United States. This includes representing German clients before U.S. agencies such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB); it also involves coordinating parallel proceedings in the United States and Germany.  Amina  holds U.S. degrees from Harvard and Texas and has also obtained the two German state exams in law as well as a doctorate in law from Frankfurt University. \nPublications and Awards\n•   Vacating Arbitration Awards for Mistake of Fact, 27 Review of Litigation 441–512 (2008); honored with the Vinson \u0026amp; Elkins LLP Outstanding Note Award\n•  Die Beschwerdekammern der europäischen Agenturen [The Boards of Appeal of the European Agencies], Peter Lang, 2004; honored with the Baker \u0026amp; McKenzie Award for best dissertation in the area of business law Partner Frankfurt University  The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law Harvard University Harvard Law School Texas Federal Republic of Germany Amina Dammann’s experience includes the following matters: Represented German car manufacturer in environmental enforcement action before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the California Air Resources Board; Represented German car manufacturer in litigation and governmental investigations regarding disputes over diesel emissions standards; Represented New General Motors in litigation relating to ignition switch; S3 Graphics Co., Ltd. v. ATI Technologies ULC, et al.  Representation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., et al. v. S3 Graphics Co., Ltd., et al. Representation of AMD in patent ownership dispute, filed in the District of Delaware; Represented Chevron in litigation arising out of an explosion at a refinery; Represented oil refinery owner in arbitration dispute arising out of a refinery construction project in Colombia; Represented global wind farm developer in arbitration dispute arising out of a long-term turbine service agreement; Keranos, LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., et al. Representation of Microchip and other defendants in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, filed in the Eastern District of Texas; Microchip Technology Inc. et al. v. United Module Corp. et al.(and related cases).  Representation of Microchip, Silicon Storage Technology and other declaratory judgment plaintiffs in patent infringement suit involving memory cell technology, pending in the Eastern District of Texas; Occidental Chemical Corporation v. Louisiana Public Service Commission et al.: Representation of Occidental in litigation to assert rights of qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana; JD Wind et al. v. Public Utility Commission of Texas et al.: Representation of Occidental in state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rate that must be paid to wind-generating facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act and implementing regulations, filed in Texas state and federal courts. Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission: Representation of Occidental involving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana. AMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture et al. v. CEMEX Construction Material Florida, LLC: Representation of CEMEX in a lawsuit concerning a plant construction with multi-million dollar cost overrun and construction delays, filed in Florida state court (Business Court Division). King Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.: Representation of patent holder in a paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware. Pennfield Oil Company d/b/a Pennfield Animal Health v. Alpharma Inc.: Representation of Alpharma in a false advertising action arising from Alpharma advertisements that report the results of pharmaceutical research studies, filed in the District of Nebraska. Alpharma Inc. v. Wyeth: Representation of Alpharma in a lawsuit regarding the breach of a trademark license agreement and the infringement of Alpharma’s trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.","searchable_name":"Amina S. Dammann","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":196,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":442799,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5621,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eEd is an experienced trial lawyer and is a partner in our Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice and is located in the firm\u0026rsquo;s Austin office. He has been recognized nationally for representing clients in a range of litigation issues, including complex business litigation, energy disputes, professional liability, securities litigation, patent litigation and trade secrets. Ed has experience trying high-stakes cases in both state and federal courts throughout the United States.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis representation of clients has awarded him several national and local distinctions from leading publications like\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAustin Black Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"edward-fernandes","email":"efernandes@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest specialty chemical companies in a six-week trade secret jury trial against a competitor resulting in a $152 million jury verdict for the client. The verdict was identified by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of the 10 largest verdicts in the U.S. in 2006.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major U.S. Bank in a $400 million fraud case brought by a Mexican pharmaceutical company resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client after a multi-week jury trial and awarding the client $2 million in attorneys' fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major manufacturer in a $270 million antitrust lawsuit resulting in a directed verdict for the client after seven weeks of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major venture capital firm in a $300 million breach of contract case by a Spanish language television station resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a river authority in a federal bench trial defending claims that water diversions caused the death of whooping cranes in violation of the Endangered Species Act. After the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the 5th Circuit reversed and rendered, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause and foreseeability as a matter of law. Law360 named the case one of the top five environmental cases of the year.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major U.S. bank in a four-week trial successfully defending an action by the FDIC seeking $1.2 billion in damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major international software company in connection with a $1.3 billion patent infringement and trade secret dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest accounting firms in connection with a $500 million negligence/malpractice lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest utility companies in the defense of a $200 million class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major law firm in an $80 million class action involving claims of aiding and abetting securities violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest medical devices manufacturers in connection with a $1 billion patent infringement and trade secrets case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest banks in a suit by 54 foreign investors alleging fraud and aiding and abetting securities violations and seeking more than $27 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a bankruptcy trustee in a highly publicized bankruptcy case involving one of the nation's largest mortgage fraud cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international telecommunications provider in a $15 million fraud claim.\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":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Fernandes","nick_name":"Ed","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Edward","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[{"id":485,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":null,"is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"1983-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":"F.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Selected as one of the 2019 “Top 10 Central Texas Super Lawyers”","detail":"Austin Black Business Journal"},{"title":"Selected as a “Best Lawyer for Commercial Litigation” and “Litigation – Environmental” in Texas","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2012 – 2019"},{"title":"Recognized by The National Law Journal in its feature “Winning” ranking that profiles that nation’s top 10 litigators ","detail":"2004"},{"title":"Recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America”","detail":"The National Law Journal, 2008"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eEd is an experienced trial lawyer and is a partner in our Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice and is located in the firm\u0026rsquo;s Austin office. He has been recognized nationally for representing clients in a range of litigation issues, including complex business litigation, energy disputes, professional liability, securities litigation, patent litigation and trade secrets. Ed has experience trying high-stakes cases in both state and federal courts throughout the United States.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHis representation of clients has awarded him several national and local distinctions from leading publications like\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe Best Lawyers in America\u003c/em\u003e, and\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eAustin Black Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest specialty chemical companies in a six-week trade secret jury trial against a competitor resulting in a $152 million jury verdict for the client. The verdict was identified by\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eThe National Law Journal\u003c/em\u003e\u0026nbsp;as one of the 10 largest verdicts in the U.S. in 2006.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major U.S. Bank in a $400 million fraud case brought by a Mexican pharmaceutical company resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client after a multi-week jury trial and awarding the client $2 million in attorneys' fees.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major manufacturer in a $270 million antitrust lawsuit resulting in a directed verdict for the client after seven weeks of trial.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major venture capital firm in a $300 million breach of contract case by a Spanish language television station resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a river authority in a federal bench trial defending claims that water diversions caused the death of whooping cranes in violation of the Endangered Species Act. After the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the 5th Circuit reversed and rendered, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause and foreseeability as a matter of law. Law360 named the case one of the top five environmental cases of the year.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major U.S. bank in a four-week trial successfully defending an action by the FDIC seeking $1.2 billion in damages.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major international software company in connection with a $1.3 billion patent infringement and trade secret dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest accounting firms in connection with a $500 million negligence/malpractice lawsuit.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest utility companies in the defense of a $200 million class action.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a major law firm in an $80 million class action involving claims of aiding and abetting securities violations.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest medical devices manufacturers in connection with a $1 billion patent infringement and trade secrets case.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented one of the nation's largest banks in a suit by 54 foreign investors alleging fraud and aiding and abetting securities violations and seeking more than $27 million.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a bankruptcy trustee in a highly publicized bankruptcy case involving one of the nation's largest mortgage fraud cases.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented an international telecommunications provider in a $15 million fraud claim.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Selected as one of the 2019 “Top 10 Central Texas Super Lawyers”","detail":"Austin Black Business Journal"},{"title":"Selected as a “Best Lawyer for Commercial Litigation” and “Litigation – Environmental” in Texas","detail":"The Best Lawyers in America, 2012 – 2019"},{"title":"Recognized by The National Law Journal in its feature “Winning” ranking that profiles that nation’s top 10 litigators ","detail":"2004"},{"title":"Recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America”","detail":"The National Law Journal, 2008"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7212}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:36.000Z","updated_at":"2025-11-13T04:57:36.000Z","searchable_text":"Fernandes{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Selected as one of the 2019 “Top 10 Central Texas Super Lawyers”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Austin Black Business Journal\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Selected as a “Best Lawyer for Commercial Litigation” and “Litigation – Environmental” in Texas\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Best Lawyers in America, 2012 – 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized by The National Law Journal in its feature “Winning” ranking that profiles that nation’s top 10 litigators \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"2004\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America”\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The National Law Journal, 2008\"}{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation's largest specialty chemical companies in a six-week trade secret jury trial against a competitor resulting in a $152 million jury verdict for the client. The verdict was identified by The National Law Journal as one of the 10 largest verdicts in the U.S. in 2006.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major U.S. Bank in a $400 million fraud case brought by a Mexican pharmaceutical company resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client after a multi-week jury trial and awarding the client $2 million in attorneys' fees.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major manufacturer in a $270 million antitrust lawsuit resulting in a directed verdict for the client after seven weeks of trial.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major venture capital firm in a $300 million breach of contract case by a Spanish language television station resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client.{{ FIELD }}Represented a river authority in a federal bench trial defending claims that water diversions caused the death of whooping cranes in violation of the Endangered Species Act. After the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the 5th Circuit reversed and rendered, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause and foreseeability as a matter of law. Law360 named the case one of the top five environmental cases of the year.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major U.S. bank in a four-week trial successfully defending an action by the FDIC seeking $1.2 billion in damages.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major international software company in connection with a $1.3 billion patent infringement and trade secret dispute.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation's largest accounting firms in connection with a $500 million negligence/malpractice lawsuit.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation's largest utility companies in the defense of a $200 million class action.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major law firm in an $80 million class action involving claims of aiding and abetting securities violations.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation's largest medical devices manufacturers in connection with a $1 billion patent infringement and trade secrets case.{{ FIELD }}Represented one of the nation's largest banks in a suit by 54 foreign investors alleging fraud and aiding and abetting securities violations and seeking more than $27 million.{{ FIELD }}Represented a bankruptcy trustee in a highly publicized bankruptcy case involving one of the nation's largest mortgage fraud cases.{{ FIELD }}Represented an international telecommunications provider in a $15 million fraud claim.{{ FIELD }}Ed is an experienced trial lawyer and is a partner in our Trial \u0026amp; Global Disputes practice and is located in the firm’s Austin office. He has been recognized nationally for representing clients in a range of litigation issues, including complex business litigation, energy disputes, professional liability, securities litigation, patent litigation and trade secrets. Ed has experience trying high-stakes cases in both state and federal courts throughout the United States.\nHis representation of clients has awarded him several national and local distinctions from leading publications like The National Law Journal, The Best Lawyers in America, and Austin Black Business Journal. Partner Selected as one of the 2019 “Top 10 Central Texas Super Lawyers” Austin Black Business Journal Selected as a “Best Lawyer for Commercial Litigation” and “Litigation – Environmental” in Texas The Best Lawyers in America, 2012 – 2019 Recognized by The National Law Journal in its feature “Winning” ranking that profiles that nation’s top 10 litigators  2004 Recognized as one of “The 50 Most Influential Minority Lawyers in America” The National Law Journal, 2008 Dartmouth College  Columbia University Columbia University School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado Massachusetts Texas Member, American Board of Trial Advocates, 2016 – Present Volunteer Legal Services of Central Texas, Advisory Board, 2012 – Present Director, Texas Appleseed, 2007 – 2016 Chair, Board of Trustees, Texas Bar Foundation, 2010 – 2011 LeadershipSBOT Steering Committee, State Bar of Texas, 2010 – 2011 Director, State Bar of Texas, 2005 – 2008 Director, Houston Bar Association, 1996 – 2000 Advisory Council, Texas A\u0026amp;M Transportation Institute, 2019 - Present Director, Catholic Foundation - Diocese of Austin, 2022 - Present Represented one of the nation's largest specialty chemical companies in a six-week trade secret jury trial against a competitor resulting in a $152 million jury verdict for the client. The verdict was identified by The National Law Journal as one of the 10 largest verdicts in the U.S. in 2006. Represented a major U.S. Bank in a $400 million fraud case brought by a Mexican pharmaceutical company resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client after a multi-week jury trial and awarding the client $2 million in attorneys' fees. Represented a major manufacturer in a $270 million antitrust lawsuit resulting in a directed verdict for the client after seven weeks of trial. Represented a major venture capital firm in a $300 million breach of contract case by a Spanish language television station resulting in a defense jury verdict for the client. Represented a river authority in a federal bench trial defending claims that water diversions caused the death of whooping cranes in violation of the Endangered Species Act. After the trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the 5th Circuit reversed and rendered, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish proximate cause and foreseeability as a matter of law. Law360 named the case one of the top five environmental cases of the year. Represented a major U.S. bank in a four-week trial successfully defending an action by the FDIC seeking $1.2 billion in damages. Represented a major international software company in connection with a $1.3 billion patent infringement and trade secret dispute. Represented one of the nation's largest accounting firms in connection with a $500 million negligence/malpractice lawsuit. Represented one of the nation's largest utility companies in the defense of a $200 million class action. Represented a major law firm in an $80 million class action involving claims of aiding and abetting securities violations. Represented one of the nation's largest medical devices manufacturers in connection with a $1 billion patent infringement and trade secrets case. Represented one of the nation's largest banks in a suit by 54 foreign investors alleging fraud and aiding and abetting securities violations and seeking more than $27 million. Represented a bankruptcy trustee in a highly publicized bankruptcy case involving one of the nation's largest mortgage fraud cases. Represented an international telecommunications provider in a $15 million fraud claim.","searchable_name":"Edward F. Fernandes (Ed)","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":445931,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3473,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAdam Gray focuses on complex disputes and pre-dispute counseling around the globe.\u0026nbsp; As a partner in our\u0026nbsp;Construction Litigation and International Arbitration\u0026nbsp;practices, Adam represents clients in the\u0026nbsp;construction, energy, and technology sectors.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the construction sector, Adam represents clients in disputes and\u0026nbsp;counseling regarding the construction of power plants,\u0026nbsp;refineries, renewable energy projects, data centers, hotels, and other facilities. He has litigated claims regarding construction megaprojects\u0026nbsp;in the Middle East, South America and other areas of the world,\u0026nbsp;including disputes before the ICC, LCIA, and other arbitration institutions.\u0026nbsp; He focuses particularly on pre-dispute resolution to help clients avoid lengthy disputes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the energy sector, Adam represents companies in a wide variety of matters, including disputes over decommissioning obligations, regulatory requirements, power contracts, operating agreements, oil field technology, equipment failures and electricity pricing. He has represented industry leaders such as Weatherford International, Shell, Occidental, Halliburton, Chevron, and Calpine Corporation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdam has been recognized by The Legal 500 and Chambers\u0026nbsp;for construction expertise since 2018 and 2020, respectively, and separately\u0026nbsp;by Chambers for general commercial disputes since 2022.\u0026nbsp; According to client comments provided to Chambers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\"Adam\u0026nbsp;is well versed in technical and difficult matters that arise in construction cases\"\u003c/em\u003e;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ea\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\"mastermind\"\u003c/em\u003e;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\"down to earth and able to explain complex matters.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\"\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"adam-gray","email":"agray@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epetrochemical-facility owner\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration with contractor regarding project in Saudi Arabia\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the assessment of variation orders related to giga-projects in Saudi Arabia\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ewindfarm owner\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in international arbitration against supplier of turbines\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003estate-owned oil company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an ICC dispute arising out of the construction of one of the largest refineries in the world -- secured a $1 billion+ award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a nine-figure dispute before the LCIA relating to the construction of oil production facilities in Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eWeatherford International\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation regarding a contract for freight-forwarding and customs-clearance services in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eowner\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof a power plant in a billion-dollar arbitration dispute involving construction delays and design disputes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eregarding the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas platforms and related facilities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMicrosoft\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an arbitration regarding delays in the construction of a data center.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBass Pro\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in complex contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eHalliburton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation involving fracking technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCalpine\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute regarding taxation of geothermal facilities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured complete dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFacebook\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute involving antitrust allegations.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":83}]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1219,"guid":"1219.smart_tags","index":6,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1237,"guid":"1237.smart_tags","index":7,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Gray","nick_name":"Adam","clerkships":[{"name":"Law Clerk, The Honorable Emilio M. Garza, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit","years_held":"2008-2009"}],"first_name":"Adam","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":35,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"high honors","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2008-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Foreign Expert: Construction","detail":"Chambers Global 2024 - United Arab Emirates"},{"title":"\"Adam is well versed in technical and difficult matters that arise in construction cases. He is the mastermind.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"\"[E]specially experienced in ... construction disputes in the U.S, Latin America, and the Middle East\" ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022-2023"},{"title":"\"Adam Gray is not just an extremely intelligent attorney, he brings unique insights that are invaluable[.]\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"\"He is down to earth and able to explain complex matters.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021"},{"title":"Named by Benchmark Litigation to its 40 \u0026 Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021"},{"title":"\"Very smart and provides a high level of client service.\"","detail":"Legal 500 USA, 2020"},{"title":"\"Adam Gray is described as a 'refined, very skilled and up-and-coming practitioner' by market sources\" ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020"},{"title":"Recognized as one of nine Next Generation Lawyers for Construction in the United States","detail":"Legal 500, 2019"},{"title":"\"Adam Gray is a ‘rising star in the construction world’.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2018"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eAdam Gray focuses on complex disputes and pre-dispute counseling around the globe.\u0026nbsp; As a partner in our\u0026nbsp;Construction Litigation and International Arbitration\u0026nbsp;practices, Adam represents clients in the\u0026nbsp;construction, energy, and technology sectors.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the construction sector, Adam represents clients in disputes and\u0026nbsp;counseling regarding the construction of power plants,\u0026nbsp;refineries, renewable energy projects, data centers, hotels, and other facilities. He has litigated claims regarding construction megaprojects\u0026nbsp;in the Middle East, South America and other areas of the world,\u0026nbsp;including disputes before the ICC, LCIA, and other arbitration institutions.\u0026nbsp; He focuses particularly on pre-dispute resolution to help clients avoid lengthy disputes.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eIn the energy sector, Adam represents companies in a wide variety of matters, including disputes over decommissioning obligations, regulatory requirements, power contracts, operating agreements, oil field technology, equipment failures and electricity pricing. He has represented industry leaders such as Weatherford International, Shell, Occidental, Halliburton, Chevron, and Calpine Corporation.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAdam has been recognized by The Legal 500 and Chambers\u0026nbsp;for construction expertise since 2018 and 2020, respectively, and separately\u0026nbsp;by Chambers for general commercial disputes since 2022.\u0026nbsp; According to client comments provided to Chambers,\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\"Adam\u0026nbsp;is well versed in technical and difficult matters that arise in construction cases\"\u003c/em\u003e;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003ea\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\"mastermind\"\u003c/em\u003e;\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003eand\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003e\"down to earth and able to explain complex matters.\u003c/em\u003e\u003cem\u003e\"\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003epetrochemical-facility owner\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in ICC arbitration with contractor regarding project in Saudi Arabia\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in the assessment of variation orders related to giga-projects in Saudi Arabia\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ewindfarm owner\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in international arbitration against supplier of turbines\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003estate-owned oil company\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an ICC dispute arising out of the construction of one of the largest refineries in the world -- secured a $1 billion+ award.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;contractor\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a nine-figure dispute before the LCIA relating to the construction of oil production facilities in Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eWeatherford International\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation regarding a contract for freight-forwarding and customs-clearance services in the Middle East.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eowner\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eof a power plant in a billion-dollar arbitration dispute involving construction delays and design disputes.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eChevron\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003eregarding the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas platforms and related facilities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eMicrosoft\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003ein an arbitration regarding delays in the construction of a data center.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eBass Pro\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in complex contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eHalliburton\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in litigation involving fracking technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eCalpine\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute regarding taxation of geothermal facilities.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSecured complete dismissal for\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eFacebook\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a dispute involving antitrust allegations.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Foreign Expert: Construction","detail":"Chambers Global 2024 - United Arab Emirates"},{"title":"\"Adam is well versed in technical and difficult matters that arise in construction cases. He is the mastermind.\"","detail":"Chambers USA, 2023"},{"title":"\"[E]specially experienced in ... construction disputes in the U.S, Latin America, and the Middle East\" ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2022-2023"},{"title":"\"Adam Gray is not just an extremely intelligent attorney, he brings unique insights that are invaluable[.]\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2021"},{"title":"\"He is down to earth and able to explain complex matters.\" ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2021"},{"title":"Named by Benchmark Litigation to its 40 \u0026 Under Hot List","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2021"},{"title":"\"Very smart and provides a high level of client service.\"","detail":"Legal 500 USA, 2020"},{"title":"\"Adam Gray is described as a 'refined, very skilled and up-and-coming practitioner' by market sources\" ","detail":"Chambers USA, 2020"},{"title":"Recognized as one of nine Next Generation Lawyers for Construction in the United States","detail":"Legal 500, 2019"},{"title":"\"Adam Gray is a ‘rising star in the construction world’.\"","detail":"Legal 500, 2018"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10609}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-17T21:53:55.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-17T21:53:55.000Z","searchable_text":"Gray{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Foreign Expert: Construction\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers Global 2024 - United Arab Emirates\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Adam is well versed in technical and difficult matters that arise in construction cases. He is the mastermind.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"[E]specially experienced in ... construction disputes in the U.S, Latin America, and the Middle East\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2022-2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Adam Gray is not just an extremely intelligent attorney, he brings unique insights that are invaluable[.]\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"He is down to earth and able to explain complex matters.\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Named by Benchmark Litigation to its 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Very smart and provides a high level of client service.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 USA, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Adam Gray is described as a 'refined, very skilled and up-and-coming practitioner' by market sources\\\" \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, 2020\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Recognized as one of nine Next Generation Lawyers for Construction in the United States\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2019\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"\\\"Adam Gray is a ‘rising star in the construction world’.\\\"\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, 2018\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing petrochemical-facility owner in ICC arbitration with contractor regarding project in Saudi Arabia{{ FIELD }}Representing confidential client in the assessment of variation orders related to giga-projects in Saudi Arabia{{ FIELD }}Representing windfarm owner in international arbitration against supplier of turbines{{ FIELD }}Represented state-owned oil company in an ICC dispute arising out of the construction of one of the largest refineries in the world -- secured a $1 billion+ award.{{ FIELD }}Represented the contractor in a nine-figure dispute before the LCIA relating to the construction of oil production facilities in Iraq.{{ FIELD }}Represented Weatherford International in litigation regarding a contract for freight-forwarding and customs-clearance services in the Middle East.{{ FIELD }}Represented the owner of a power plant in a billion-dollar arbitration dispute involving construction delays and design disputes.{{ FIELD }}Represented Chevron regarding the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas platforms and related facilities.{{ FIELD }}Represented Microsoft in an arbitration regarding delays in the construction of a data center.{{ FIELD }}Represented Bass Pro in complex contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.{{ FIELD }}Represented Halliburton in litigation involving fracking technology.{{ FIELD }}Represented Calpine in a dispute regarding taxation of geothermal facilities.{{ FIELD }}Secured complete dismissal for Facebook in a dispute involving antitrust allegations.{{ FIELD }}Adam Gray focuses on complex disputes and pre-dispute counseling around the globe.  As a partner in our Construction Litigation and International Arbitration practices, Adam represents clients in the construction, energy, and technology sectors.\nIn the construction sector, Adam represents clients in disputes and counseling regarding the construction of power plants, refineries, renewable energy projects, data centers, hotels, and other facilities. He has litigated claims regarding construction megaprojects in the Middle East, South America and other areas of the world, including disputes before the ICC, LCIA, and other arbitration institutions.  He focuses particularly on pre-dispute resolution to help clients avoid lengthy disputes.  \nIn the energy sector, Adam represents companies in a wide variety of matters, including disputes over decommissioning obligations, regulatory requirements, power contracts, operating agreements, oil field technology, equipment failures and electricity pricing. He has represented industry leaders such as Weatherford International, Shell, Occidental, Halliburton, Chevron, and Calpine Corporation.\nAdam has been recognized by The Legal 500 and Chambers for construction expertise since 2018 and 2020, respectively, and separately by Chambers for general commercial disputes since 2022.  According to client comments provided to Chambers, \"Adam is well versed in technical and difficult matters that arise in construction cases\"; a \"mastermind\"; and \"down to earth and able to explain complex matters.\" Adam L. Gray Partner Foreign Expert: Construction Chambers Global 2024 - United Arab Emirates \"Adam is well versed in technical and difficult matters that arise in construction cases. He is the mastermind.\" Chambers USA, 2023 \"[E]specially experienced in ... construction disputes in the U.S, Latin America, and the Middle East\"  Chambers USA, 2022-2023 \"Adam Gray is not just an extremely intelligent attorney, he brings unique insights that are invaluable[.]\" Legal 500, 2021 \"He is down to earth and able to explain complex matters.\"  Chambers USA, 2021 Named by Benchmark Litigation to its 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List Benchmark Litigation, 2021 \"Very smart and provides a high level of client service.\" Legal 500 USA, 2020 \"Adam Gray is described as a 'refined, very skilled and up-and-coming practitioner' by market sources\"  Chambers USA, 2020 Recognized as one of nine Next Generation Lawyers for Construction in the United States Legal 500, 2019 \"Adam Gray is a ‘rising star in the construction world’.\" Legal 500, 2018 Duke University Duke University School of Law The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit U.S. District Court for the 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 U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California California Texas Law Clerk, The Honorable Emilio M. Garza, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Representing petrochemical-facility owner in ICC arbitration with contractor regarding project in Saudi Arabia Representing confidential client in the assessment of variation orders related to giga-projects in Saudi Arabia Representing windfarm owner in international arbitration against supplier of turbines Represented state-owned oil company in an ICC dispute arising out of the construction of one of the largest refineries in the world -- secured a $1 billion+ award. Represented the contractor in a nine-figure dispute before the LCIA relating to the construction of oil production facilities in Iraq. Represented Weatherford International in litigation regarding a contract for freight-forwarding and customs-clearance services in the Middle East. Represented the owner of a power plant in a billion-dollar arbitration dispute involving construction delays and design disputes. Represented Chevron regarding the decommissioning of offshore oil and gas platforms and related facilities. Represented Microsoft in an arbitration regarding delays in the construction of a data center. Represented Bass Pro in complex contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue. Represented Halliburton in litigation involving fracking technology. Represented Calpine in a dispute regarding taxation of geothermal facilities. Secured complete dismissal for Facebook in a dispute involving antitrust allegations.","searchable_name":"Adam Gray","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":35,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":436464,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":4215,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLisa Horvath has significant experience representing clients in mass torts, with an emphasis on pharmaceutical, medical device and toxic exposure claims. Lisa also has significant experience in complex commercial litigation matters, representing financial institutions, energy companies and engineering entities in lawsuits alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional malfeasance.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe has appeared in courts throughout the country, including Texas, Minnesota, Illinois, and Delaware. She has handled every aspect of a case, from pleadings and motion practice; written and document discovery; depositions of plaintiffs, third party fact witnesses, corporate representatives, and expert witnesses; pretrial motions, and resolution through mediation, arbitration and trial. She also has been involved in appeals, and argued before the Supreme Court of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLisa has led teams in the identification, development and presentation of expert witnesses in national dockets. She works diligently to identify the best expert witnesses so that complex scientific concepts can be conveyed simply and persuasively to the court and the jury. She has worked with numerous clients and experts to investigate and challenge the scientific reliability of claims. She has served as a guest lecturer at the St. Mary's University School of Law on the subject of deposing expert witnesses. She has received numerous recognitions and awards including being named a Texas\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, and is a recipient of the Outstanding Lawyer Award and the Women's Leadership Award from the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSan Antonio Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"lisa-shub","email":"lhorvath@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePharmaceutical / Medical Devices\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeading expert witness team in national litigation against medical device manufacturer\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipation in the identification, retention and presentation of expert witnesses in cases brought by thousands of plaintiffs against a pharmaceutical manufacturer of over-the-counter medicines\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipation in the case development of the first case to go to trial nationally involving pharmaceutical product\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eToxic Exposure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefending employers against claims that workplace exposures caused employees' offspring to have birth defects, including identification, presentation and cross examination of medical and epidemiology experts and leading successful Daubert challenges to plaintiffs' causation experts\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipation in defense of multiple pesticide manufacturers in mass tort case involving allegations that pesticide contamination caused personal injuries and property damage, including: \u0026nbsp;primary contact with defense expert witnesses on issues of pesticide fate and transport, exposure calculations, toxicology and epidemiology; and obtaining early summary judgment and claims resolution of defendant on no evidence grounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending chemical distributors against claims brought by over 400 former employees of an o-ring manufacturing facility alleging exposure to \"toxic soup\"\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending product manufacturers against claims brought by over 2,000 construction workers and 8,000 family members alleging toxic exposure during construction of the South Texas Nuclear Power Plant and Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant resulting in defense summary judgments against all plaintiffs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending premises owners/operators/employers against claims of chemical exposure on work sites\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFiduciary Duty / Professional Malfeasance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting financial institutions in claims regarding allegations of mismanagement of mineral interests and investment accounts\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending estate executors and trustees in claims for loss of inheritance\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending engineers accused of improper engineering practices and ethics violations before Texas Board of Professional Engineers\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eContract Disputes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefending premises owners/operators against claims of negligence over theft of resident belongings, resulting in defense verdict at trial\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending against commercial claims between parties to art auction resulting in favorable outcome for client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting companies in claims brought by competing business owners against allegations of tortious interference with a contract\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting home realty company in litigation brought by subsequent home purchasers\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":21,"guid":"21.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.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":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1256,"guid":"1256.smart_tags","index":8,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":970,"guid":"970.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1157,"guid":"1157.smart_tags","index":10,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Horvath","nick_name":"Lisa","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Lisa","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":34,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"Ann","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Outstanding Lawyer Award ","detail":"San Antonio Business Journal, 2016"},{"title":"Women's Leadership Award ","detail":"San Antonio Business Journal, 2016"},{"title":"Texas Super Lawyer ","detail":"Thomson Reuters, 2013–2017"},{"title":"Legal 500 US, recommended lawyer, Product Liability \u0026 Mass Tort Defense: Toxic Tort ","detail":"The Legal 500, 2015"},{"title":"Texas Top Rated Lawyer ","detail":"LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, 2013–Present"},{"title":"Who's Who in Energy ","detail":"San Antonio Business Journal, 2012–2013"},{"title":"Texas Rising Star, energy law ","detail":"Thomson Reuters, 2005"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLisa Horvath has significant experience representing clients in mass torts, with an emphasis on pharmaceutical, medical device and toxic exposure claims. Lisa also has significant experience in complex commercial litigation matters, representing financial institutions, energy companies and engineering entities in lawsuits alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional malfeasance.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eShe has appeared in courts throughout the country, including Texas, Minnesota, Illinois, and Delaware. She has handled every aspect of a case, from pleadings and motion practice; written and document discovery; depositions of plaintiffs, third party fact witnesses, corporate representatives, and expert witnesses; pretrial motions, and resolution through mediation, arbitration and trial. She also has been involved in appeals, and argued before the Supreme Court of Texas.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLisa has led teams in the identification, development and presentation of expert witnesses in national dockets. She works diligently to identify the best expert witnesses so that complex scientific concepts can be conveyed simply and persuasively to the court and the jury. She has worked with numerous clients and experts to investigate and challenge the scientific reliability of claims. She has served as a guest lecturer at the St. Mary's University School of Law on the subject of deposing expert witnesses. She has received numerous recognitions and awards including being named a Texas\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSuper Lawyer\u003c/em\u003e, and is a recipient of the Outstanding Lawyer Award and the Women's Leadership Award from the\u0026nbsp;\u003cem\u003eSan Antonio Business Journal\u003c/em\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePharmaceutical / Medical Devices\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eLeading expert witness team in national litigation against medical device manufacturer\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipation in the identification, retention and presentation of expert witnesses in cases brought by thousands of plaintiffs against a pharmaceutical manufacturer of over-the-counter medicines\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipation in the case development of the first case to go to trial nationally involving pharmaceutical product\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eToxic Exposure\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefending employers against claims that workplace exposures caused employees' offspring to have birth defects, including identification, presentation and cross examination of medical and epidemiology experts and leading successful Daubert challenges to plaintiffs' causation experts\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eParticipation in defense of multiple pesticide manufacturers in mass tort case involving allegations that pesticide contamination caused personal injuries and property damage, including: \u0026nbsp;primary contact with defense expert witnesses on issues of pesticide fate and transport, exposure calculations, toxicology and epidemiology; and obtaining early summary judgment and claims resolution of defendant on no evidence grounds.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending chemical distributors against claims brought by over 400 former employees of an o-ring manufacturing facility alleging exposure to \"toxic soup\"\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending product manufacturers against claims brought by over 2,000 construction workers and 8,000 family members alleging toxic exposure during construction of the South Texas Nuclear Power Plant and Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant resulting in defense summary judgments against all plaintiffs\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending premises owners/operators/employers against claims of chemical exposure on work sites\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eFiduciary Duty / Professional Malfeasance\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eRepresenting financial institutions in claims regarding allegations of mismanagement of mineral interests and investment accounts\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending estate executors and trustees in claims for loss of inheritance\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eSuccessfully defending engineers accused of improper engineering practices and ethics violations before Texas Board of Professional Engineers\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eContract Disputes\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eDefending premises owners/operators against claims of negligence over theft of resident belongings, resulting in defense verdict at trial\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDefending against commercial claims between parties to art auction resulting in favorable outcome for client\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting companies in claims brought by competing business owners against allegations of tortious interference with a contract\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting home realty company in litigation brought by subsequent home purchasers\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Outstanding Lawyer Award ","detail":"San Antonio Business Journal, 2016"},{"title":"Women's Leadership Award ","detail":"San Antonio Business Journal, 2016"},{"title":"Texas Super Lawyer ","detail":"Thomson Reuters, 2013–2017"},{"title":"Legal 500 US, recommended lawyer, Product Liability \u0026 Mass Tort Defense: Toxic Tort ","detail":"The Legal 500, 2015"},{"title":"Texas Top Rated Lawyer ","detail":"LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, 2013–Present"},{"title":"Who's Who in Energy ","detail":"San Antonio Business Journal, 2012–2013"},{"title":"Texas Rising Star, energy law ","detail":"Thomson Reuters, 2005"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7326}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-09-02T04:55:10.000Z","updated_at":"2025-09-02T04:55:10.000Z","searchable_text":"Horvath{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Outstanding Lawyer Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"San Antonio Business Journal, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Women's Leadership Award \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"San Antonio Business Journal, 2016\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Super Lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Thomson Reuters, 2013–2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 US, recommended lawyer, Product Liability \u0026amp; Mass Tort Defense: Toxic Tort \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"The Legal 500, 2015\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Top Rated Lawyer \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, 2013–Present\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Who's Who in Energy \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"San Antonio Business Journal, 2012–2013\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Texas Rising Star, energy law \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Thomson Reuters, 2005\"}{{ FIELD }}Pharmaceutical / Medical Devices\nLeading expert witness team in national litigation against medical device manufacturer{{ FIELD }}Participation in the identification, retention and presentation of expert witnesses in cases brought by thousands of plaintiffs against a pharmaceutical manufacturer of over-the-counter medicines{{ FIELD }}Participation in the case development of the first case to go to trial nationally involving pharmaceutical product{{ FIELD }}Toxic Exposure\nDefending employers against claims that workplace exposures caused employees' offspring to have birth defects, including identification, presentation and cross examination of medical and epidemiology experts and leading successful Daubert challenges to plaintiffs' causation experts{{ FIELD }}Participation in defense of multiple pesticide manufacturers in mass tort case involving allegations that pesticide contamination caused personal injuries and property damage, including:  primary contact with defense expert witnesses on issues of pesticide fate and transport, exposure calculations, toxicology and epidemiology; and obtaining early summary judgment and claims resolution of defendant on no evidence grounds.{{ FIELD }}Defending chemical distributors against claims brought by over 400 former employees of an o-ring manufacturing facility alleging exposure to \"toxic soup\"{{ FIELD }}Defending product manufacturers against claims brought by over 2,000 construction workers and 8,000 family members alleging toxic exposure during construction of the South Texas Nuclear Power Plant and Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant resulting in defense summary judgments against all plaintiffs{{ FIELD }}Defending premises owners/operators/employers against claims of chemical exposure on work sites{{ FIELD }}Fiduciary Duty / Professional Malfeasance\nRepresenting financial institutions in claims regarding allegations of mismanagement of mineral interests and investment accounts{{ FIELD }}Defending estate executors and trustees in claims for loss of inheritance{{ FIELD }}Successfully defending engineers accused of improper engineering practices and ethics violations before Texas Board of Professional Engineers{{ FIELD }}Contract Disputes\nDefending premises owners/operators against claims of negligence over theft of resident belongings, resulting in defense verdict at trial{{ FIELD }}Defending against commercial claims between parties to art auction resulting in favorable outcome for client{{ FIELD }}Representing companies in claims brought by competing business owners against allegations of tortious interference with a contract{{ FIELD }}Representing home realty company in litigation brought by subsequent home purchasers{{ FIELD }}Lisa Horvath has significant experience representing clients in mass torts, with an emphasis on pharmaceutical, medical device and toxic exposure claims. Lisa also has significant experience in complex commercial litigation matters, representing financial institutions, energy companies and engineering entities in lawsuits alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and professional malfeasance.\nShe has appeared in courts throughout the country, including Texas, Minnesota, Illinois, and Delaware. She has handled every aspect of a case, from pleadings and motion practice; written and document discovery; depositions of plaintiffs, third party fact witnesses, corporate representatives, and expert witnesses; pretrial motions, and resolution through mediation, arbitration and trial. She also has been involved in appeals, and argued before the Supreme Court of Texas.\nLisa has led teams in the identification, development and presentation of expert witnesses in national dockets. She works diligently to identify the best expert witnesses so that complex scientific concepts can be conveyed simply and persuasively to the court and the jury. She has worked with numerous clients and experts to investigate and challenge the scientific reliability of claims. She has served as a guest lecturer at the St. Mary's University School of Law on the subject of deposing expert witnesses. She has received numerous recognitions and awards including being named a Texas Super Lawyer, and is a recipient of the Outstanding Lawyer Award and the Women's Leadership Award from the San Antonio Business Journal. Partner Outstanding Lawyer Award  San Antonio Business Journal, 2016 Women's Leadership Award  San Antonio Business Journal, 2016 Texas Super Lawyer  Thomson Reuters, 2013–2017 Legal 500 US, recommended lawyer, Product Liability \u0026amp; Mass Tort Defense: Toxic Tort  The Legal 500, 2015 Texas Top Rated Lawyer  LexisNexis Martindale-Hubbell, 2013–Present Who's Who in Energy  San Antonio Business Journal, 2012–2013 Texas Rising Star, energy law  Thomson Reuters, 2005 Texas American Bar Association Girl Scouts of Southwest Texas, Lifetime Membership: Lifetime Membership Endowment Fund San Antonio Bar Association Defense Research Institute, 2013–2016 American Bar Association (ABA), Tort Trial and Insurance Practice Session (TIPS) Leadership Class, 2006–2007 San Antonio Bar Foundation Texas Bar Foundation City Year San Antonio, Board of Directors, 2008–2010 Dress for Success San Antonio, Board Member, Officer, 2005–2006 United Way of San Antonio and Bexar County, Issues Council: Strengthening Families Pharmaceutical / Medical Devices\nLeading expert witness team in national litigation against medical device manufacturer Participation in the identification, retention and presentation of expert witnesses in cases brought by thousands of plaintiffs against a pharmaceutical manufacturer of over-the-counter medicines Participation in the case development of the first case to go to trial nationally involving pharmaceutical product Toxic Exposure\nDefending employers against claims that workplace exposures caused employees' offspring to have birth defects, including identification, presentation and cross examination of medical and epidemiology experts and leading successful Daubert challenges to plaintiffs' causation experts Participation in defense of multiple pesticide manufacturers in mass tort case involving allegations that pesticide contamination caused personal injuries and property damage, including:  primary contact with defense expert witnesses on issues of pesticide fate and transport, exposure calculations, toxicology and epidemiology; and obtaining early summary judgment and claims resolution of defendant on no evidence grounds. Defending chemical distributors against claims brought by over 400 former employees of an o-ring manufacturing facility alleging exposure to \"toxic soup\" Defending product manufacturers against claims brought by over 2,000 construction workers and 8,000 family members alleging toxic exposure during construction of the South Texas Nuclear Power Plant and Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant resulting in defense summary judgments against all plaintiffs Defending premises owners/operators/employers against claims of chemical exposure on work sites Fiduciary Duty / Professional Malfeasance\nRepresenting financial institutions in claims regarding allegations of mismanagement of mineral interests and investment accounts Defending estate executors and trustees in claims for loss of inheritance Successfully defending engineers accused of improper engineering practices and ethics violations before Texas Board of Professional Engineers Contract Disputes\nDefending premises owners/operators against claims of negligence over theft of resident belongings, resulting in defense verdict at trial Defending against commercial claims between parties to art auction resulting in favorable outcome for client Representing companies in claims brought by competing business owners against allegations of tortious interference with a contract Representing home realty company in litigation brought by subsequent home purchasers","searchable_name":"Lisa Ann Horvath","is_active":true,"featured":null,"publish_date":null,"expiration_date":null,"blog_featured":null,"published_by":34,"capability_group_featured":null,"home_page_featured":null},{"id":426304,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2314,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGrant Nichols focuses on government investigations, independent investigations, and complex white-collar criminal defense matters. A partner in our Special Matters practice, Grant defends individuals and multinational companies in a variety of their most sensitive matters, including internal investigations and investigations\u0026nbsp;involving federal and state government authorities.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong other things, Grant counsels clients facing cross-border government investigations \u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;a space in which he has advised clients in the energy, automotive, life sciences, and financial\u0026nbsp;services industries. He advises\u0026nbsp;individuals and corporations\u0026nbsp;in criminal and regulatory matters, including investigations\u0026nbsp;conducted by various divisions of the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorneys' Offices, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as by state agencies, state attorneys general, and investigative committees of the U.S. Congress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGrant has particular experience in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance and investigations, False Claims Act matters, fraud investigations, criminal tax matters, data security incident response,\u0026nbsp;and more.\u0026nbsp;He also handles white-collar criminal litigation, independent investigations, and the development of compliance programs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to becoming a lawyer, Grant worked for the\u0026nbsp;Department of Justice\u0026nbsp;as a Special Assistant to the Attorney General, and for the White House Counsel's Office as Executive Assistant to the Deputy Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"grant-nichols","email":"gnichols@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal automobile manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;before Department of Justice, EPA, and California ARB regarding safety and environmental issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Special Committee of\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean Indonesian-based energy group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation into anticorruption allegations of payments made to Indonesian authorities. The representation resulted in a declination by the DOJ.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a tax investigation conducted by the DOJ, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and its New York Department of Financial Services\u0026ndash;appointed monitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major oilfield services company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multinational investigation (in Africa and the Middle East) into allegations of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal investigation on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean Audit and Risk Committee of a private safety-equipment manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;into allegations of financial misstatements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehospital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in investigation and response to inquiries from Department of Justice for potential violations of the False Claims Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eToyota\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with House and Senate Committee investigations relating to allegations of unintended acceleration, including preparing individuals for interview sessions with government officials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major shipping company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation into possible violations of the False Claims Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean internal investigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;into operations of a Central Asian joint venture, and advising a principal to that same joint venture on potential third-party engagements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea medical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an industry-wide criminal and civil inquiry into allegations of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly conducts Foreign Corrupt Practices Act due diligence in mergers and acquisitions in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eenergy and life sciences industries\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseled\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ecompanies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on compliance issues related to increased enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":766,"guid":"766.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":780,"guid":"780.smart_tags","index":4,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":106,"guid":"106.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":687,"guid":"687.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":11,"guid":"11.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":952,"guid":"952.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":984,"guid":"984.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":750,"guid":"750.smart_tags","index":13,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Nichols","nick_name":"Grant","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Grant","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":101,"law_schools":[],"middle_name":"W.","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"40 \u0026 Under Hot List ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2019, 2018, 2017"},{"title":"Phi Beta Kappa","detail":""},{"title":"Lena Clauve Award","detail":"University of New Mexico"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/grant-nichols-a0308b2/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eGrant Nichols focuses on government investigations, independent investigations, and complex white-collar criminal defense matters. A partner in our Special Matters practice, Grant defends individuals and multinational companies in a variety of their most sensitive matters, including internal investigations and investigations\u0026nbsp;involving federal and state government authorities.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eAmong other things, Grant counsels clients facing cross-border government investigations \u0026ndash;\u0026nbsp;a space in which he has advised clients in the energy, automotive, life sciences, and financial\u0026nbsp;services industries. He advises\u0026nbsp;individuals and corporations\u0026nbsp;in criminal and regulatory matters, including investigations\u0026nbsp;conducted by various divisions of the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorneys' Offices, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as by state agencies, state attorneys general, and investigative committees of the U.S. Congress.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eGrant has particular experience in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance and investigations, False Claims Act matters, fraud investigations, criminal tax matters, data security incident response,\u0026nbsp;and more.\u0026nbsp;He also handles white-collar criminal litigation, independent investigations, and the development of compliance programs.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to becoming a lawyer, Grant worked for the\u0026nbsp;Department of Justice\u0026nbsp;as a Special Assistant to the Attorney General, and for the White House Counsel's Office as Executive Assistant to the Deputy Counsel.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eglobal automobile manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;before Department of Justice, EPA, and California ARB regarding safety and environmental issues.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ea Special Committee of\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean Indonesian-based energy group\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation into anticorruption allegations of payments made to Indonesian authorities. The representation resulted in a declination by the DOJ.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean international financial institution\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a tax investigation conducted by the DOJ, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and its New York Department of Financial Services\u0026ndash;appointed monitor.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresentation of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major oilfield services company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in a multinational investigation (in Africa and the Middle East) into allegations of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted an internal investigation on behalf of\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ean Audit and Risk Committee of a private safety-equipment manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;into allegations of financial misstatements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003ehospital\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in investigation and response to inquiries from Department of Justice for potential violations of the False Claims Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003eToyota\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in connection with House and Senate Committee investigations relating to allegations of unintended acceleration, including preparing individuals for interview sessions with government officials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea major shipping company\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an investigation into possible violations of the False Claims Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eConducted\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ean internal investigation\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;into operations of a Central Asian joint venture, and advising a principal to that same joint venture on potential third-party engagements.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ea medical device manufacturer\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;in an industry-wide criminal and civil inquiry into allegations of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRegularly conducts Foreign Corrupt Practices Act due diligence in mergers and acquisitions in the\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong\u003eenergy and life sciences industries\u003c/strong\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eCounseled\u0026nbsp;\u003cstrong data-redactor-tag=\"strong\"\u003ecompanies\u003c/strong\u003e\u0026nbsp;on compliance issues related to increased enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"40 \u0026 Under Hot List ","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, 2019, 2018, 2017"},{"title":"Phi Beta Kappa","detail":""},{"title":"Lena Clauve Award","detail":"University of New Mexico"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":1084}]},"capability_group_id":2},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:50:35.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:50:35.000Z","searchable_text":"Nichols{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, 2019, 2018, 2017\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Phi Beta Kappa\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Lena Clauve Award\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"University of New Mexico\"}{{ FIELD }}Representation of global automobile manufacturer before Department of Justice, EPA, and California ARB regarding safety and environmental issues.{{ FIELD }}Representation of a Special Committee of an Indonesian-based energy group in an investigation into anticorruption allegations of payments made to Indonesian authorities. The representation resulted in a declination by the DOJ.{{ FIELD }}Representation of an international financial institution in a tax investigation conducted by the DOJ, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and its New York Department of Financial Services–appointed monitor.{{ FIELD }}Representation of a major oilfield services company in a multinational investigation (in Africa and the Middle East) into allegations of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.{{ FIELD }}Conducted an internal investigation on behalf of an Audit and Risk Committee of a private safety-equipment manufacturer into allegations of financial misstatements.{{ FIELD }}Represented a hospital in investigation and response to inquiries from Department of Justice for potential violations of the False Claims Act.{{ FIELD }}Represented Toyota in connection with House and Senate Committee investigations relating to allegations of unintended acceleration, including preparing individuals for interview sessions with government officials.{{ FIELD }}Represented a major shipping company in an investigation into possible violations of the False Claims Act.{{ FIELD }}Conducted an internal investigation into operations of a Central Asian joint venture, and advising a principal to that same joint venture on potential third-party engagements.{{ FIELD }}Represented a medical device manufacturer in an industry-wide criminal and civil inquiry into allegations of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.{{ FIELD }}Regularly conducts Foreign Corrupt Practices Act due diligence in mergers and acquisitions in the energy and life sciences industries.{{ FIELD }}Counseled companies on compliance issues related to increased enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.{{ FIELD }}Grant Nichols focuses on government investigations, independent investigations, and complex white-collar criminal defense matters. A partner in our Special Matters practice, Grant defends individuals and multinational companies in a variety of their most sensitive matters, including internal investigations and investigations involving federal and state government authorities.\nAmong other things, Grant counsels clients facing cross-border government investigations – a space in which he has advised clients in the energy, automotive, life sciences, and financial services industries. He advises individuals and corporations in criminal and regulatory matters, including investigations conducted by various divisions of the Department of Justice, the U.S. Attorneys' Offices, and the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as by state agencies, state attorneys general, and investigative committees of the U.S. Congress.\nGrant has particular experience in Foreign Corrupt Practices Act compliance and investigations, False Claims Act matters, fraud investigations, criminal tax matters, data security incident response, and more. He also handles white-collar criminal litigation, independent investigations, and the development of compliance programs.\nPrior to becoming a lawyer, Grant worked for the Department of Justice as a Special Assistant to the Attorney General, and for the White House Counsel's Office as Executive Assistant to the Deputy Counsel. Partner 40 \u0026amp; Under Hot List  Benchmark Litigation, 2019, 2018, 2017 Phi Beta Kappa  Lena Clauve Award University of New Mexico University of New Mexico University of New Mexico School of Law The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law District of Columbia New Mexico Texas Representation of global automobile manufacturer before Department of Justice, EPA, and California ARB regarding safety and environmental issues. Representation of a Special Committee of an Indonesian-based energy group in an investigation into anticorruption allegations of payments made to Indonesian authorities. The representation resulted in a declination by the DOJ. Representation of an international financial institution in a tax investigation conducted by the DOJ, U.S. Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, and its New York Department of Financial Services–appointed monitor. Representation of a major oilfield services company in a multinational investigation (in Africa and the Middle East) into allegations of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Conducted an internal investigation on behalf of an Audit and Risk Committee of a private safety-equipment manufacturer into allegations of financial misstatements. Represented a hospital in investigation and response to inquiries from Department of Justice for potential violations of the False Claims Act. Represented Toyota in connection with House and Senate Committee investigations relating to allegations of unintended acceleration, including preparing individuals for interview sessions with government officials. Represented a major shipping company in an investigation into possible violations of the False Claims Act. Conducted an internal investigation into operations of a Central Asian joint venture, and advising a principal to that same joint venture on potential third-party engagements. Represented a medical device manufacturer in an industry-wide criminal and civil inquiry into allegations of violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Regularly conducts Foreign Corrupt Practices Act due diligence in mergers and acquisitions in the energy and life sciences industries. Counseled companies on compliance issues related to increased enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.","searchable_name":"Grant W. Nichols","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":426424,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":3445,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePatrick Price\u0026nbsp;is a trial lawyer that has represented clients in tobacco, consumer products, and other industries in high stakes litigation in the most hostile state and federal jurisdictions across the country.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePatrick\u0026nbsp;has significant trial and litigation management experience representing clients including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson, Monsanto, Boehringer Ingelheim,\u0026nbsp;and Coloplast in product liability cases throughout the United States. He has also represented clients including TikTok, Dow Chemical, and U-Haul in tort cases, as well as technology and pharmaceutical companies in intellectual property infringement actions, contractors and suppliers in construction disputes, and employers in nationwide class and collective actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePatrick is frequently found in the courtroom, zealously advocating for his clients before judges and juries alike. He approaches each matter with an eye toward best positioning his clients for a favorable verdict or resolution before trial.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"patrick-price","email":"pprice@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":3204}]},"expertise":[{"id":71,"guid":"71.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":81,"guid":"81.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":17,"guid":"17.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":764,"guid":"764.smart_tags","index":3,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":16,"guid":"16.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":135,"guid":"135.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Price","nick_name":"Patrick","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Patrick","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2055,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"with honors","is_law_school":1,"graduation_date":"2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":null,"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/pprice88/","seodescription":"Patrick Price is a trial lawyer specializing in product liability defense. Read more about him.","primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003ePatrick Price\u0026nbsp;is a trial lawyer that has represented clients in tobacco, consumer products, and other industries in high stakes litigation in the most hostile state and federal jurisdictions across the country.\u0026nbsp;[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePatrick\u0026nbsp;has significant trial and litigation management experience representing clients including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson, Monsanto, Boehringer Ingelheim,\u0026nbsp;and Coloplast in product liability cases throughout the United States. He has also represented clients including TikTok, Dow Chemical, and U-Haul in tort cases, as well as technology and pharmaceutical companies in intellectual property infringement actions, contractors and suppliers in construction disputes, and employers in nationwide class and collective actions.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePatrick is frequently found in the courtroom, zealously advocating for his clients before judges and juries alike. He approaches each matter with an eye toward best positioning his clients for a favorable verdict or resolution before trial.\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":7421}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2025-05-26T04:52:51.000Z","updated_at":"2025-05-26T04:52:51.000Z","searchable_text":"Price{{ FIELD }}Patrick Price is a trial lawyer that has represented clients in tobacco, consumer products, and other industries in high stakes litigation in the most hostile state and federal jurisdictions across the country. \nPatrick has significant trial and litigation management experience representing clients including R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, Johnson \u0026amp; Johnson, Monsanto, Boehringer Ingelheim, and Coloplast in product liability cases throughout the United States. He has also represented clients including TikTok, Dow Chemical, and U-Haul in tort cases, as well as technology and pharmaceutical companies in intellectual property infringement actions, contractors and suppliers in construction disputes, and employers in nationwide class and collective actions.\nPatrick is frequently found in the courtroom, zealously advocating for his clients before judges and juries alike. He approaches each matter with an eye toward best positioning his clients for a favorable verdict or resolution before trial.   Patrick Price lawyer Partner University of Georgia University of Georgia School of Law The University of Texas at Austin The University of Texas School of Law U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida Florida Georgia Texas","searchable_name":"Patrick Price","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":445935,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5250,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eLuke is a commercial litigator and trial lawyer. He focuses his practice on complex domestic and international disputes, particularly those involving energy and technology construction disputes.\u0026nbsp; He has handled high-stakes disputes in state and federal courts across the country, as well as international and domestic arbitral venues under a variety of procedural frameworks (including ICC, ICDR, and AAA). Luke has represented both owners and contractors as the lead attorney on complex construction matters involving combined-cycle power plants, data centers, and renewable power generation (including wind, solar, and hydro). Luke has also been involved in FinTech, cryptocurrencies, and securities disputes.\u0026nbsp;He has handled a number of high-stakes criminal and civil disputes in state and federal courts for individual and corporate clients across the country.\u0026nbsp;Luke has also advised public and privately-held companies on data privacy and cyber security issues and\u0026nbsp;a variety of legal and regulatory issues at the intersection of law and\u0026nbsp;technology. His cross-industry experience has allowed him to advise clients across a broad range of issues, including at the intersection of infrastructure, power generation, and cutting edge technology.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"luke-roniger","email":"lroniger@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":null,"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[]},"expertise":[{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":118,"guid":"118.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":19,"guid":"19.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":6,"guid":"6.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":80,"guid":"80.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":20,"guid":"20.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Roniger","nick_name":"Luke","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Luke","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":485,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","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\u003eLuke is a commercial litigator and trial lawyer. He focuses his practice on complex domestic and international disputes, particularly those involving energy and technology construction disputes.\u0026nbsp; He has handled high-stakes disputes in state and federal courts across the country, as well as international and domestic arbitral venues under a variety of procedural frameworks (including ICC, ICDR, and AAA). Luke has represented both owners and contractors as the lead attorney on complex construction matters involving combined-cycle power plants, data centers, and renewable power generation (including wind, solar, and hydro). Luke has also been involved in FinTech, cryptocurrencies, and securities disputes.\u0026nbsp;He has handled a number of high-stakes criminal and civil disputes in state and federal courts for individual and corporate clients across the country.\u0026nbsp;Luke has also advised public and privately-held companies on data privacy and cyber security issues and\u0026nbsp;a variety of legal and regulatory issues at the intersection of law and\u0026nbsp;technology. His cross-industry experience has allowed him to advise clients across a broad range of issues, including at the intersection of infrastructure, power generation, and cutting edge technology.\u003c/p\u003e"},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":6076}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-02-18T04:56:19.000Z","updated_at":"2026-02-18T04:56:19.000Z","searchable_text":"Roniger{{ FIELD }}Luke is a commercial litigator and trial lawyer. He focuses his practice on complex domestic and international disputes, particularly those involving energy and technology construction disputes.  He has handled high-stakes disputes in state and federal courts across the country, as well as international and domestic arbitral venues under a variety of procedural frameworks (including ICC, ICDR, and AAA). Luke has represented both owners and contractors as the lead attorney on complex construction matters involving combined-cycle power plants, data centers, and renewable power generation (including wind, solar, and hydro). Luke has also been involved in FinTech, cryptocurrencies, and securities disputes. He has handled a number of high-stakes criminal and civil disputes in state and federal courts for individual and corporate clients across the country. Luke has also advised public and privately-held companies on data privacy and cyber security issues and a variety of legal and regulatory issues at the intersection of law and technology. His cross-industry experience has allowed him to advise clients across a broad range of issues, including at the intersection of infrastructure, power generation, and cutting edge technology. Partner University of San Diego University of San Diego School of Law Columbia University Columbia University School of Law Duke University Duke University School of Law U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas New York Texas Austin Bar Association (Oil, Gas, and Mineral Committee) Austin Bar Association (Construction Dispute Committee) Austin Bar Association (International Dispute Committee)","searchable_name":"Luke Roniger","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":447805,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":2379,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike Stenglein specializes in resolving complex business disputes, principally in the construction and private equity space, and splits his time between Texas and New York.\u0026nbsp; He founded and is Managing Partner of our Austin office, as well as chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes\u0026nbsp;practice, chair of\u0026nbsp;the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contingency Fee Committee, and a member of the firm's Diversity Committee. Mike also previously served as head of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contracts and Business Torts group as well as the firm\u0026rsquo;s ten-person Policy Committee.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to construction disputes, during his 30-year career Mike has lead teams in hundreds of complex disputes in courts and arbitral tribunals around the globe. In 2023, Mike was named Law 360 Construction MVP as well as American Lawyer Litigator of the Week for the Reficar victory (discussed below). He has also been recognized as Band 1 in Chambers where he is described as \u0026ldquo;an extraordinary litigator who is highly strategic in his approach and is also excellent at tactical work\u0026rdquo; and that he is \"an extremely skilled advocate and communicator and his level of service is very high.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; Under Mike\u0026rsquo;s leadership, King \u0026amp; Spalding was named Construction Group of the Year by Law360 in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Mike prides himself on being responsive 24/7 and has twice been named a BTI Consulting Group Client Service All-Star.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike represents clients in disputes involving all manner of infrastructure disputes including oil refineries, chemical plants, power generation facilities, LNG facilities, FPSOs, subway and rail failures, data centers, semiconductor manufacturing plants, wind farms, solar and battery plants, and office and retail buildings. By way of example, Mike was lead counsel for Refiner\u0026iacute;a de Cartagena (Reficar) in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery.\u0026nbsp; After a six-week hearing before the International Chamber of Commerce and our client was awarded nearly $1.3 billion in damages despite a contractual cap that appeared to limit damages to a small fraction of that amount.\u0026nbsp; Then, despite efforts by the judgement debtor in UK and Netherlands Courts to extinguish the judgment as an unsecured debt, Mike lead the team that secured important courtroom victories resulting in Reficar obtaining a package worth approximately $900 million.\u0026nbsp; In March 2024, Mike was again recognized by the American Lawyer for this achievement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike\u0026rsquo;s focus is not limited to resolution of formal disputes.\u0026nbsp; For example, he developed the K\u0026amp;S Quarterly Audit \u0026ndash; a process designed to provide early identification of problems on construction projects that can lead to delays and cost overruns, recommend implementation steps to fix those issues, and avoid disputes.\u0026nbsp;He also regularly counsels clients on issues during the progression of construction projects, again with the aim of avoiding formal disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to business disputes, Mike\u0026rsquo;s experience also includes resolution of complex business problems for industry leading clients, including in the private equity space.\u0026nbsp; These matters usually involve complex contract issues for clients in the energy and technology industries, including intellectual property disputes (patent and trademark).\u0026nbsp; Mike\u0026rsquo;s representative clients in this space include, Lotus Infrastructure Partners, D.E. Shaw \u0026amp; Co, D. E Shaw Renewable Investments, Capital Dynamics, Oaktree Capital Management, Arevon Asset Management, Axium Infrastructure, Macquarie Asset Management, Macquarie Capital, Ridgewood Infrastructure, and Instar Asset Management.\u0026nbsp; Mike also has significant experience with very public, high-profile mass tort litigation involving contaminated ground water allegations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to the start of his legal career, Mike worked for five years as a Certified Public Accountant with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand.\u0026nbsp; Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2008, Mike was a partner at Weil, Gotshal \u0026amp; Manges LLP and Dewey Ballantine LLP.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"mike-stenglein","email":"mstenglein@kslaw.com","phone":"+1 512 423 3092","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client \u003c/strong\u003ein AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential\u003c/strong\u003e South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor\u0026rsquo;s technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Trust Company\u003c/strong\u003e in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ethe Rigas Family\u003c/strong\u003e in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePG\u0026amp;E Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation arising out of California\u0026rsquo;s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E\u0026rsquo;s Plan of Reorganization.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eDeutsche Bank\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInfinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGateway Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMichigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eConstellation Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental \u003c/strong\u003einvolving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental Permian Ltd.\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlpharma Inc. v. Wyeth\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eAlpharma Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKing Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003epatent holder\u003c/strong\u003e in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon:\u003c/em\u003e Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeatherford International v. Panalpina\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eWeatherford International\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Contractors\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip\u0026rsquo;s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.ON v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWindstar v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.\u003c/p\u003e"],"taggings":{"tags":[],"meta_tags":[{"id":234}]},"expertise":[{"id":4,"guid":"4.capabilities","index":0,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":5,"guid":"5.capabilities","index":1,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":13,"guid":"13.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":22,"guid":"22.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":104,"guid":"104.capabilities","index":7,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":8,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1114,"guid":"1114.smart_tags","index":9,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":114,"guid":"114.capabilities","index":10,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":1248,"guid":"1248.smart_tags","index":11,"source":"smartTags"},{"id":1434,"guid":"1434.smart_tags","index":12,"source":"smartTags"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Stenglein","nick_name":"Mike","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Mike","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":2197,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"summa cum laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"1994-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"100 Managing Partners You Need to Know","detail":"Lawdragon, 2026"},{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year","detail":"Global Arbitration Review 2021-2024"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, February 7, 2024"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, October 10, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs","detail":"Law 360, October 2, 2023"},{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide","detail":"Legal 500, June 8, 2023"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, June 1, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, January 30, 2023"},{"title":"Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation","detail":"Legal 500 June 8, 2022"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields ","detail":"Chambers USA, June 1, 2022"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, October 13, 2021"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":" Chambers USA, May 20, 2021"}],"linked_in_url":"https://www.linkedin.com/in/mike-stenglein-07796871/","seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":48,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMike Stenglein specializes in resolving complex business disputes, principally in the construction and private equity space, and splits his time between Texas and New York.\u0026nbsp; He founded and is Managing Partner of our Austin office, as well as chair of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes\u0026nbsp;practice, chair of\u0026nbsp;the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contingency Fee Committee, and a member of the firm's Diversity Committee. Mike also previously served as head of the firm\u0026rsquo;s Contracts and Business Torts group as well as the firm\u0026rsquo;s ten-person Policy Committee.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to construction disputes, during his 30-year career Mike has lead teams in hundreds of complex disputes in courts and arbitral tribunals around the globe. In 2023, Mike was named Law 360 Construction MVP as well as American Lawyer Litigator of the Week for the Reficar victory (discussed below). He has also been recognized as Band 1 in Chambers where he is described as \u0026ldquo;an extraordinary litigator who is highly strategic in his approach and is also excellent at tactical work\u0026rdquo; and that he is \"an extremely skilled advocate and communicator and his level of service is very high.\u0026rdquo;\u0026nbsp; Under Mike\u0026rsquo;s leadership, King \u0026amp; Spalding was named Construction Group of the Year by Law360 in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Mike prides himself on being responsive 24/7 and has twice been named a BTI Consulting Group Client Service All-Star.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike represents clients in disputes involving all manner of infrastructure disputes including oil refineries, chemical plants, power generation facilities, LNG facilities, FPSOs, subway and rail failures, data centers, semiconductor manufacturing plants, wind farms, solar and battery plants, and office and retail buildings. By way of example, Mike was lead counsel for Refiner\u0026iacute;a de Cartagena (Reficar) in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery.\u0026nbsp; After a six-week hearing before the International Chamber of Commerce and our client was awarded nearly $1.3 billion in damages despite a contractual cap that appeared to limit damages to a small fraction of that amount.\u0026nbsp; Then, despite efforts by the judgement debtor in UK and Netherlands Courts to extinguish the judgment as an unsecured debt, Mike lead the team that secured important courtroom victories resulting in Reficar obtaining a package worth approximately $900 million.\u0026nbsp; In March 2024, Mike was again recognized by the American Lawyer for this achievement.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMike\u0026rsquo;s focus is not limited to resolution of formal disputes.\u0026nbsp; For example, he developed the K\u0026amp;S Quarterly Audit \u0026ndash; a process designed to provide early identification of problems on construction projects that can lead to delays and cost overruns, recommend implementation steps to fix those issues, and avoid disputes.\u0026nbsp;He also regularly counsels clients on issues during the progression of construction projects, again with the aim of avoiding formal disputes.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith respect to business disputes, Mike\u0026rsquo;s experience also includes resolution of complex business problems for industry leading clients, including in the private equity space.\u0026nbsp; These matters usually involve complex contract issues for clients in the energy and technology industries, including intellectual property disputes (patent and trademark).\u0026nbsp; Mike\u0026rsquo;s representative clients in this space include, Lotus Infrastructure Partners, D.E. Shaw \u0026amp; Co, D. E Shaw Renewable Investments, Capital Dynamics, Oaktree Capital Management, Arevon Asset Management, Axium Infrastructure, Macquarie Asset Management, Macquarie Capital, Ridgewood Infrastructure, and Instar Asset Management.\u0026nbsp; Mike also has significant experience with very public, high-profile mass tort litigation involving contaminated ground water allegations.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003ePrior to the start of his legal career, Mike worked for five years as a Certified Public Accountant with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand.\u0026nbsp; Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2008, Mike was a partner at Weil, Gotshal \u0026amp; Manges LLP and Dewey Ballantine LLP.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long).\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client \u003c/strong\u003ein AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential\u003c/strong\u003e South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresent a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a\u003cstrong\u003e confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a \u003cstrong\u003econfidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor\u0026rsquo;s technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eDavid Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Trust Company\u003c/strong\u003e in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAdelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ethe Rigas Family\u003c/strong\u003e in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eIn Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003ePG\u0026amp;E Corporation\u003c/strong\u003e in litigation arising out of California\u0026rsquo;s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E\u0026rsquo;s Plan of Reorganization.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eDeutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eDeutsche Bank\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eInfinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGateway Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eMichigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eConstellation Energy\u003c/strong\u003e in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eOccidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental \u003c/strong\u003einvolving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eJD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eOccidental Permian Ltd.\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAlpharma Inc. v. Wyeth\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eAlpharma Inc.\u003c/strong\u003e in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eKing Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003epatent holder\u003c/strong\u003e in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eCooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon:\u003c/em\u003e Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCooper Industries\u003c/strong\u003e in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWeatherford International v. Panalpina\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eWeatherford International\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eU. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eU.S. Contractors\u003c/strong\u003e in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip\u0026rsquo;s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eLower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The \u003cem\u003eOsage\u003c/em\u003e cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented \u003cstrong\u003ea confidential client\u003c/strong\u003e in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eE.ON v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eWindstar v. Gamesa\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eGamesa\u003c/strong\u003e in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eAMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC\u003c/em\u003e: Represented \u003cstrong\u003eCEMEX\u003c/strong\u003e in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"100 Managing Partners You Need to Know","detail":"Lawdragon, 2026"},{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year","detail":"Global Arbitration Review 2021-2024"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, February 7, 2024"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, October 10, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs","detail":"Law 360, October 2, 2023"},{"title":"King \u0026 Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide","detail":"Legal 500, June 8, 2023"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":"Chambers USA, June 1, 2023"},{"title":"Law360 Names King \u0026 Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year","detail":"Law 360, January 30, 2023"},{"title":"Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation","detail":"Legal 500 June 8, 2022"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields ","detail":"Chambers USA, June 1, 2022"},{"title":"Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026 Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm","detail":"Benchmark Litigation, October 13, 2021"},{"title":"Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields","detail":" Chambers USA, May 20, 2021"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":10610}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-04-24T13:44:51.000Z","updated_at":"2026-04-24T13:44:51.000Z","searchable_text":"Stenglein{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"100 Managing Partners You Need to Know\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Lawdragon, 2026\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"King \u0026amp; Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Global Arbitration Review 2021-2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, February 7, 2024\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, October 10, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, October 2, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"King \u0026amp; Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500, June 8, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, June 1, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Law 360, January 30, 2023\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Legal 500 June 8, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA, June 1, 2022\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm\", :detail=\u0026gt;\"Benchmark Litigation, October 13, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields\", :detail=\u0026gt;\" Chambers USA, May 20, 2021\"}{{ FIELD }}Representing Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America.{{ FIELD }}Represented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast.{{ FIELD }}Represented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long).{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential client in AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas.{{ FIELD }}Representing a confidential South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania.{{ FIELD }}Represent a confidential client in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption.{{ FIELD }}Represented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand.{{ FIELD }}Represented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany.{{ FIELD }}Represented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA.{{ FIELD }}Represented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals.{{ FIELD }}Represented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States.{{ FIELD }}Represented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor’s technology.{{ FIELD }}David Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.: Represented U.S. Trust Company in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock.{{ FIELD }}Adelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.: Represented the Rigas Family in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court.{{ FIELD }}In Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company: Represented PG\u0026amp;E Corporation in litigation arising out of California’s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E’s Plan of Reorganization.{{ FIELD }}Deutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented Deutsche Bank in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest.{{ FIELD }}Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.: Represented Gateway Energy in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida.{{ FIELD }}Michigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.: Represented Constellation Energy in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation.{{ FIELD }}Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission: Represented Occidental involving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana.{{ FIELD }}JD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.: Represented Occidental Permian Ltd. in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle.{{ FIELD }}Alpharma Inc. v. Wyeth: Represented Alpharma Inc. in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York.{{ FIELD }}King Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.: Represented patent holder in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware.{{ FIELD }}Cameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.: Represented Cooper Industries in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper.{{ FIELD }}Cooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon: Represented Cooper Industries in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement.{{ FIELD }}Weatherford International v. Panalpina: Represented Weatherford International in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq.{{ FIELD }}U. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip: Represented U.S. Contractors in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip’s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety.{{ FIELD }}Lower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant.{{ FIELD }}Represented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the Osage litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The Osage cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.{{ FIELD }}Representing Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store.{{ FIELD }}Representing Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients.{{ FIELD }}Represented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology.{{ FIELD }}E.ON v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing.{{ FIELD }}Windstar v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims.{{ FIELD }}AMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.{{ FIELD }}Mike Stenglein specializes in resolving complex business disputes, principally in the construction and private equity space, and splits his time between Texas and New York.  He founded and is Managing Partner of our Austin office, as well as chair of the firm’s Global Construction and Infrastructure Disputes practice, chair of the firm’s Contingency Fee Committee, and a member of the firm's Diversity Committee. Mike also previously served as head of the firm’s Contracts and Business Torts group as well as the firm’s ten-person Policy Committee.\nWith respect to construction disputes, during his 30-year career Mike has lead teams in hundreds of complex disputes in courts and arbitral tribunals around the globe. In 2023, Mike was named Law 360 Construction MVP as well as American Lawyer Litigator of the Week for the Reficar victory (discussed below). He has also been recognized as Band 1 in Chambers where he is described as “an extraordinary litigator who is highly strategic in his approach and is also excellent at tactical work” and that he is \"an extremely skilled advocate and communicator and his level of service is very high.”  Under Mike’s leadership, King \u0026amp; Spalding was named Construction Group of the Year by Law360 in 2018, 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023. Mike prides himself on being responsive 24/7 and has twice been named a BTI Consulting Group Client Service All-Star.\nMike represents clients in disputes involving all manner of infrastructure disputes including oil refineries, chemical plants, power generation facilities, LNG facilities, FPSOs, subway and rail failures, data centers, semiconductor manufacturing plants, wind farms, solar and battery plants, and office and retail buildings. By way of example, Mike was lead counsel for Refinería de Cartagena (Reficar) in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery.  After a six-week hearing before the International Chamber of Commerce and our client was awarded nearly $1.3 billion in damages despite a contractual cap that appeared to limit damages to a small fraction of that amount.  Then, despite efforts by the judgement debtor in UK and Netherlands Courts to extinguish the judgment as an unsecured debt, Mike lead the team that secured important courtroom victories resulting in Reficar obtaining a package worth approximately $900 million.  In March 2024, Mike was again recognized by the American Lawyer for this achievement.\nMike’s focus is not limited to resolution of formal disputes.  For example, he developed the K\u0026amp;S Quarterly Audit – a process designed to provide early identification of problems on construction projects that can lead to delays and cost overruns, recommend implementation steps to fix those issues, and avoid disputes. He also regularly counsels clients on issues during the progression of construction projects, again with the aim of avoiding formal disputes.\nWith respect to business disputes, Mike’s experience also includes resolution of complex business problems for industry leading clients, including in the private equity space.  These matters usually involve complex contract issues for clients in the energy and technology industries, including intellectual property disputes (patent and trademark).  Mike’s representative clients in this space include, Lotus Infrastructure Partners, D.E. Shaw \u0026amp; Co, D. E Shaw Renewable Investments, Capital Dynamics, Oaktree Capital Management, Arevon Asset Management, Axium Infrastructure, Macquarie Asset Management, Macquarie Capital, Ridgewood Infrastructure, and Instar Asset Management.  Mike also has significant experience with very public, high-profile mass tort litigation involving contaminated ground water allegations.\nPrior to the start of his legal career, Mike worked for five years as a Certified Public Accountant with Coopers \u0026amp; Lybrand.  Prior to joining King \u0026amp; Spalding in 2008, Mike was a partner at Weil, Gotshal \u0026amp; Manges LLP and Dewey Ballantine LLP. Mike Stenglein Partner 100 Managing Partners You Need to Know Lawdragon, 2026 King \u0026amp; Spalding Ranked Number One in International Arbitration For Fourth Year Global Arbitration Review 2021-2024 Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year Law 360, February 7, 2024 Benchmark Litigation Again Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm Benchmark Litigation, October 10, 2023 Law360 Recognizes Mike Stenglein and Reggie Smith as 2023 MVPs Law 360, October 2, 2023 King \u0026amp; Spalding Earns Top-Tier Rankings in Legal 500 United States 2023 Guide Legal 500, June 8, 2023 Chambers USA 2023 Recognizes 186 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 84 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields Chambers USA, June 1, 2023 Law360 Names King \u0026amp; Spalding a Construction Practice Group of the Year Law 360, January 30, 2023 Legal 500 United States 2022 Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding Practices and Lawyers Among the Top in the Nation Legal 500 June 8, 2022 Chambers USA 2022 Recognizes 188 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 75 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields  Chambers USA, June 1, 2022 Benchmark Litigation Recognizes King \u0026amp; Spalding as a Leading Litigation Firm Benchmark Litigation, October 13, 2021 Chambers USA 2021 Names 179 K\u0026amp;S Lawyers and 65 K\u0026amp;S Practice Groups as Leaders in Their Fields  Chambers USA, May 20, 2021 University of Florida Levin College of Law University of Houston University of Houston Law Center U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 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 U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida New York Texas Representing Reficar in a dispute arising from construction of a crude oil refinery. This matter went to hearing over 6 weeks before the International Chamber of Commerce in the summer of 2021 and deals with one of the largest construction projects in South America. Represented Microsoft in a dispute over the construction of a data center that involves claims of cost overruns and schedule delays. Representing a confidential client in matters involving the construction of a large semiconductor facility in Central Texas. Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a multi-billion oil refinery upgrade project in Southeast Asia. Representing a confidential client in a dispute involving the construction of a desalination plant in South America. Representing a confidential client in ICC arbitration involving the construction of an energy facility in North Africa. Representing a confidential client in multiple disputes arising from the construction of a multi-billion dollar subway system in a major metropolitan area in Canada. Represented a confidential client in a matter involving the expansion of a semiconductor facility. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the construction failure at a semiconductor facility that caused a power outage and resulting loss of millions of dollars of wafers that were in progress at the time of the power loss. Represented a confidential client in a power purchase agreement dispute involving a solar and battery facility in Nevada. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar and battery facility in California. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a solar facility in west Texas. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the proper price to charge for gas transmission on a pipeline that runs from Texas to the Northeast. Represented several clients in MDL litigation resulting from Winter Storm Uri centering on ERCOT regulations and complex issues in the energy space. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving an LNG facility in Florida. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. This matter is governed by the ICC. Represented a confidential client in a dispute arising out of the largest public-private water supply agreement in the United States that cost nearly $3 billion to build (142 miles long). Represented a confidential client in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts. Represented a confidential client in arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration arising from a nearly $1 billion construction project in Southern Iraq. Representing a confidential client in AAA arbitration over construction of several power plants in Texas. Representing a confidential South American company in ICC arbitration involving dispute over surplus construction materials. Represented a confidential client over construction of a power plant in Pennsylvania. Represent a confidential client in construction dispute involving electrical failure that forced business disruption. Represented Bass Pro in contract dispute in federal court and secured settlement involving $40+ million in payments and tens of millions in additional future revenue. Represented a confidential client in arbitration over construction of hotel and retail store in Tennessee. Represented a confidential client in dispute over hotel construction in Missouri. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over a gas processing plant in Algeria in an ICC arbitration. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over the expansion of a subway system in Vancouver. Represented a confidential client in a dispute over an oil refinery in Thailand. Represented Iron Mountain in the Southern District of New York in a construction dispute involving a hyper-scale data center in Frankfurt, Germany. Represented Vale Ventures in Delaware Chancery Court over the interpretation of limited partner rights and obligations under a MIPA. Represented JV of private equity in Boston state court over pricing for power generation supplied to Boston hospitals. Represented the City of Denton in Dallas County state court in a dispute over the largest solar field construction project in the United States. Represented Halliburton in a patent infringement lawsuit with a major competitor over fracking technology that involved seven patents and more than 120 claims. Successfully resolved with no payment and receipt of license to use competitor’s technology. David Croucher, et al. v. MidCon Corp Employee Stock Ownership Plan, et al.: Represented U.S. Trust Company in an alleged breach of ERISA fiduciary duties class action involving the valuation of tracking stock. Adelphia Communications Corp. v. John J. Rigas, Timothy J. Rigas, Michael J. Rigas, James P. Rigas, et al.: Represented the Rigas Family in all facets of civil litigation in connection with Adelphia Communications Corp., including more than 60 securities fraud lawsuits, numerous RICO lawsuits and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy court. In Re Pacific Gas and Electric Company: Represented PG\u0026amp;E Corporation in litigation arising out of California’s energy crisis, including trial work confirming PG\u0026amp;E’s Plan of Reorganization. Deutsche Bank tax-related litigation: Represented Deutsche Bank in multiple lawsuits pending in state and federal court throughout Texas and the Southwest. Infinite Energy, Inc. v. Econnergy Energy Company, Inc.: Represented Gateway Energy in a breach of contract action arising from a terminated merger transaction between the companies, filed in the Northern District of Florida. Michigan South Central Power Agency v. Constellation Energy Commodities Group, Inc., f/k/a Constellation Power Source, Inc.: Represented Constellation Energy in breach of contract lawsuit where the plaintiff sought to shift SECA, congestion and other charges to Constellation. Occidental Chemical Corp. v. Entergy Louisiana LLC and the Louisiana Public Service Commission: Represented Occidental involving the proper methodology for calculating avoided cost payments to qualifying facilities under the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act, filed in the Middle District of Louisiana. JD Wind et al. v. Public Utilities Commission of Texas et al.: Represented Occidental Permian Ltd. in multiple regulatory, state and federal litigation involving the appropriate electric rates that must be paid to certain wind-generation facilities in the Texas Panhandle. Alpharma Inc. v. Wyeth: Represented Alpharma Inc. in a breach of a contract and trademark infringement case to seek termination of a competitor's license to one of Alpharma's key trademarks, filed in the Southern District of New York. King Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Meridian Medical Technologies, Inc. v. Intelliject, Inc.: Represented patent holder in Paragraph IV patent infringement lawsuit regarding auto-injector technology, filed in the District of Delaware. Cameron International v. Cooper Industries, LLC.: Represented Cooper Industries in AAA arbitration defending claims of breach of contract and other allegations arising from the creation of Cameron in 1995 via divestiture of assets from Cooper. Cooper Industries v. Wyman Gordon: Represented Cooper Industries in federal court litigation arising out of disputes associated with a 1994 Stock Purchase Agreement. Weatherford International v. Panalpina: Represented Weatherford International in a lawsuit against a freight-forwarding company that failed to facilitate timely transportation of materials and equipment to Iraq. U. S. Contractors v. Parsons/Technip: Represented U.S. Contractors in a construction dispute before a three-person arbitration panel. U.S. Contractors received a judgment of more than $4 million, including attorney's fees. Parsons/Technip’s counterclaims of approximately $6 million were dismissed in their entirety. Lower Colorado River Authority v. Montoya Anderson Construction, Inc., et al.: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Fayette County, Texas, involving a dispute over the construction of an addition to the Fayette County power plant. Represented Haliburton in several federal and state court cases alleging ground water contamination in Duncan, Oklahoma (the Osage litigation). That litigation lasted more than 6 years, involved thousands of claimants, and alleged property value diminution and physical injuries. The Osage cases were also very public with media appearances by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients. Representing Bass Pro in West Virginia state court litigation involving the construction of a retail store. Representing Environmental Resources Management is a Texas-based MDL proceeding that involves the alleged contamination of ground water that has allegedly caused physical injuries and property value diminution of property values. This is a very public matter with media appearance by Erin Brockovich, numerous television news reports, newspaper articles, and several different plaintiff firms advertising for clients. Represented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute. Represented a confidential client in multiple patent infringement litigations over fracking technology. E.ON v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration where plaintiff requested approximately $90 million in damages allegedly caused by design defect in wind turbine blades. Matter proceeded to final confidential hearing in January 2013. Excellent result achieved for client after final hearing. Windstar v. Gamesa: Represented Gamesa in AAA arbitration initially defending allegations of delay and disruption in building a utility-grade wind farm in California. Gamesa asserted counterclaims. Matter proceeded to final hearing, and Gamesa prevailed on all claims. AMEC/Zachry Crushed Stone Contractors Joint Venture, et al. v. CEMEX Construction Materials Florida, LLC: Represented CEMEX in a lawsuit filed in Orlando state court (Business Court Division) involving a dispute over a $60 million cost overrun arising from the construction of a cement plant in Brooksville, Florida.","searchable_name":"Mike Stenglein","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":448295,"version":1,"owner_type":"Person","owner_id":5014,"payload":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatt delivers strategic solutions to clients worldwide facing complex construction and commercial challenges. Known for his responsiveness and keen strategic insight, Matt consistently achieves positive outcomes\u0026mdash;ranging from early dispute resolutions and dismissals to securing landmark awards exceeding in international trials and arbitration hearings.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith a robust background representing owners, contractors, and stakeholders across diverse projects, Matt is adept in all forms of dispute resolution, including domestic and international arbitration, as well as state and federal court litigation. He leads teams through every phase of the dispute process, from pre-litigation investigation to appeals before the highest courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatt routinely leverages\u0026nbsp;his knowledge in the energy sector, handling high-stakes disputes involving power plants and petrochemical facilities, and has seamlessly extended this experience to technology-related matters such as data center construction and renewable energy projects. His track record spans fact-intensive cases involving data centers, solar farms, power plants, refineries, as well as contract and intellectual property disputes unrelated to construction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCommitted to helping clients achieve their objectives and overcome obstacles, Matt earns clients\u0026rsquo; trust through his deep experience, diligent work ethic, and availability to clients. His fluency in Spanish further enhances his ability to advise on cross-border matters, providing added value to multinational engagements.\u003c/p\u003e","slug":"matthew-vandenberg","email":"mvandenberg@kslaw.com","phone":null,"matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruction Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Refiner\u0026iacute;a de Cartagena, S.A.S. in an international arbitration that resulted in an award of more than $1 billion in damages as well as subsequent litigation and arbitration proceedings in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands related to the arbitration award and in pursuit of amounts owed under assigned insurance policies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an owner in a dispute related to the design and construction of a hyperscale data center in Frankfurt, Germany in the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a confidential client in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a confidential client in a construction dispute governed by the ICC involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a municipal utility in a dispute relating to the construction of a solar facility in North Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Microsoft in an arbitration over the construction of a data center involving claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an owner in a confidential AAA arbitration regarding the construction of a data center in Phoenix, Arizona.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an owner in a confidential ICSID arbitration regarding the construction of a refinery in Latin America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a private equity firm in a dispute in Delaware Chancery Court between a portfolio company and third parties regarding required equity contributions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the developer of a highly popular online game in intellectual property disputes in federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a foreign company in federal court related to a dispute about an oral exclusive distributorship agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a municipal utility in a dispute with a company that damaged its property, which presented questions of first impression regarding interlocutory appeal which were addressed twice before the state court of appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented individual clients at the trial and appellate levels in a dispute about consummation of a mixed-use land development deal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting healthcare providers in disputes with insurers regarding reimbursement rates and questions related to contract formation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a power plant in the Business Litigation Session in Massachusetts regarding a pricing term in a 30-year contract.\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":74,"guid":"74.capabilities","index":2,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":14,"guid":"14.capabilities","index":3,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":132,"guid":"132.capabilities","index":4,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":102,"guid":"102.capabilities","index":5,"source":"capabilities"},{"id":107,"guid":"107.capabilities","index":6,"source":"capabilities"}],"is_active":true,"last_name":"Vandenberg","nick_name":"Matt","clerkships":[],"first_name":"Matt","title_rank":9999,"updated_by":202,"law_schools":[{"id":613,"meta":{"degree":"J.D.","honors":"Magna Cum Laude","is_law_school":"1","graduation_date":"2011-01-01 00:00:00"},"order":1,"pin_order":null,"pin_expiration":null}],"middle_name":" ","name_suffix":"","recognitions":[{"title":"Pro Bono College Member ","detail":"State Bar of Texas"}],"linked_in_url":null,"seodescription":null,"primary_title_id":15,"translated_fields":{"en":{"bio":"\u003cp\u003eMatt delivers strategic solutions to clients worldwide facing complex construction and commercial challenges. Known for his responsiveness and keen strategic insight, Matt consistently achieves positive outcomes\u0026mdash;ranging from early dispute resolutions and dismissals to securing landmark awards exceeding in international trials and arbitration hearings.[[--readmore--]]\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWith a robust background representing owners, contractors, and stakeholders across diverse projects, Matt is adept in all forms of dispute resolution, including domestic and international arbitration, as well as state and federal court litigation. He leads teams through every phase of the dispute process, from pre-litigation investigation to appeals before the highest courts.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eMatt routinely leverages\u0026nbsp;his knowledge in the energy sector, handling high-stakes disputes involving power plants and petrochemical facilities, and has seamlessly extended this experience to technology-related matters such as data center construction and renewable energy projects. His track record spans fact-intensive cases involving data centers, solar farms, power plants, refineries, as well as contract and intellectual property disputes unrelated to construction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eCommitted to helping clients achieve their objectives and overcome obstacles, Matt earns clients\u0026rsquo; trust through his deep experience, diligent work ethic, and availability to clients. His fluency in Spanish further enhances his ability to advise on cross-border matters, providing added value to multinational engagements.\u003c/p\u003e","matters":["\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eConstruction Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Refiner\u0026iacute;a de Cartagena, S.A.S. in an international arbitration that resulted in an award of more than $1 billion in damages as well as subsequent litigation and arbitration proceedings in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands related to the arbitration award and in pursuit of amounts owed under assigned insurance policies.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an owner in a dispute related to the design and construction of a hyperscale data center in Frankfurt, Germany in the Southern District of New York.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a confidential client in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a confidential client in a construction dispute governed by the ICC involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a municipal utility in a dispute relating to the construction of a solar facility in North Texas.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Microsoft in an arbitration over the construction of a data center involving claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an owner in a confidential AAA arbitration regarding the construction of a data center in Phoenix, Arizona.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting an owner in a confidential ICSID arbitration regarding the construction of a refinery in Latin America.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eCommercial Disputes\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a private equity firm in a dispute in Delaware Chancery Court between a portfolio company and third parties regarding required equity contributions.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting the developer of a highly popular online game in intellectual property disputes in federal court.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a foreign company in federal court related to a dispute about an oral exclusive distributorship agreement.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented a municipal utility in a dispute with a company that damaged its property, which presented questions of first impression regarding interlocutory appeal which were addressed twice before the state court of appeals.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented individual clients at the trial and appellate levels in a dispute about consummation of a mixed-use land development deal.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting healthcare providers in disputes with insurers regarding reimbursement rates and questions related to contract formation.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.\u003c/p\u003e","\u003cp\u003eRepresenting a power plant in the Business Litigation Session in Massachusetts regarding a pricing term in a 30-year contract.\u003c/p\u003e"],"recognitions":[{"title":"Pro Bono College Member ","detail":"State Bar of Texas"}]},"locales":["en"]},"secondary_title_id":null,"upload_assignments":{"headshot":[{"id":5585}]},"capability_group_id":3},"created_at":"2026-05-15T21:56:42.000Z","updated_at":"2026-05-15T21:56:42.000Z","searchable_text":"Vandenberg{{ FIELD }}{:title=\u0026gt;\"Pro Bono College Member \", :detail=\u0026gt;\"State Bar of Texas\"}{{ FIELD }}Construction Disputes{{ FIELD }}Represented Refinería de Cartagena, S.A.S. in an international arbitration that resulted in an award of more than $1 billion in damages as well as subsequent litigation and arbitration proceedings in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands related to the arbitration award and in pursuit of amounts owed under assigned insurance policies.{{ FIELD }}Representing an owner in a dispute related to the design and construction of a hyperscale data center in Frankfurt, Germany in the Southern District of New York.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts.{{ FIELD }}Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute governed by the ICC involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada.{{ FIELD }}Represented a municipal utility in a dispute relating to the construction of a solar facility in North Texas.{{ FIELD }}Represented Microsoft in an arbitration over the construction of a data center involving claims of cost overruns and schedule delays.{{ FIELD }}Representing an owner in a confidential AAA arbitration regarding the construction of a data center in Phoenix, Arizona.{{ FIELD }}Representing an owner in a confidential ICSID arbitration regarding the construction of a refinery in Latin America.{{ FIELD }}Commercial Disputes{{ FIELD }}Representing a private equity firm in a dispute in Delaware Chancery Court between a portfolio company and third parties regarding required equity contributions.{{ FIELD }}Representing the developer of a highly popular online game in intellectual property disputes in federal court.{{ FIELD }}Represented a foreign company in federal court related to a dispute about an oral exclusive distributorship agreement.{{ FIELD }}Represented a municipal utility in a dispute with a company that damaged its property, which presented questions of first impression regarding interlocutory appeal which were addressed twice before the state court of appeals.{{ FIELD }}Represented individual clients at the trial and appellate levels in a dispute about consummation of a mixed-use land development deal.{{ FIELD }}Representing healthcare providers in disputes with insurers regarding reimbursement rates and questions related to contract formation.{{ FIELD }}Represented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute.{{ FIELD }}Representing a power plant in the Business Litigation Session in Massachusetts regarding a pricing term in a 30-year contract.{{ FIELD }}Matt delivers strategic solutions to clients worldwide facing complex construction and commercial challenges. Known for his responsiveness and keen strategic insight, Matt consistently achieves positive outcomes—ranging from early dispute resolutions and dismissals to securing landmark awards exceeding in international trials and arbitration hearings.\nWith a robust background representing owners, contractors, and stakeholders across diverse projects, Matt is adept in all forms of dispute resolution, including domestic and international arbitration, as well as state and federal court litigation. He leads teams through every phase of the dispute process, from pre-litigation investigation to appeals before the highest courts.\nMatt routinely leverages his knowledge in the energy sector, handling high-stakes disputes involving power plants and petrochemical facilities, and has seamlessly extended this experience to technology-related matters such as data center construction and renewable energy projects. His track record spans fact-intensive cases involving data centers, solar farms, power plants, refineries, as well as contract and intellectual property disputes unrelated to construction.\nCommitted to helping clients achieve their objectives and overcome obstacles, Matt earns clients’ trust through his deep experience, diligent work ethic, and availability to clients. His fluency in Spanish further enhances his ability to advise on cross-border matters, providing added value to multinational engagements. Partner Pro Bono College Member  State Bar of Texas Harvard University Harvard Law School Duke University Duke University School of Law U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York 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 U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado New York Texas Construction Disputes Represented Refinería de Cartagena, S.A.S. in an international arbitration that resulted in an award of more than $1 billion in damages as well as subsequent litigation and arbitration proceedings in the United States, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands related to the arbitration award and in pursuit of amounts owed under assigned insurance policies. Representing an owner in a dispute related to the design and construction of a hyperscale data center in Frankfurt, Germany in the Southern District of New York. Represented a confidential client in an ICDR arbitration involving the construction failures associated with the building of a power plant in Massachusetts. Represented a confidential client in a construction dispute governed by the ICC involving a $4 billion petrochemical plant in Canada. Represented a municipal utility in a dispute relating to the construction of a solar facility in North Texas. Represented Microsoft in an arbitration over the construction of a data center involving claims of cost overruns and schedule delays. Representing an owner in a confidential AAA arbitration regarding the construction of a data center in Phoenix, Arizona. Representing an owner in a confidential ICSID arbitration regarding the construction of a refinery in Latin America. Commercial Disputes Representing a private equity firm in a dispute in Delaware Chancery Court between a portfolio company and third parties regarding required equity contributions. Representing the developer of a highly popular online game in intellectual property disputes in federal court. Represented a foreign company in federal court related to a dispute about an oral exclusive distributorship agreement. Represented a municipal utility in a dispute with a company that damaged its property, which presented questions of first impression regarding interlocutory appeal which were addressed twice before the state court of appeals. Represented individual clients at the trial and appellate levels in a dispute about consummation of a mixed-use land development deal. Representing healthcare providers in disputes with insurers regarding reimbursement rates and questions related to contract formation. Represented Bass Pro in Delaware Chancery Court over purchase price dispute. Representing a power plant in the Business Litigation Session in Massachusetts regarding a pricing term in a 30-year contract.","searchable_name":"Matt Vandenberg","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}]}}