Litigation

Secured dismissal of abuse of process and malicious prosecution claims against our client, a fire origin and cause expert who had been retained by an insurance company to investigate a house fire. Based on the expert’s opinion that the fire was intentionally set, the insurer filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a determination of no insurance coverage. A jury found against the insurer and in favor of the homeowner. Subsequently, the homeowner filed suit against the insurer and expert for actual and punitive damages, alleging the expert “instigated” the declaratory judgment action by providing false information because he did not follow the proper scientific methodology contained in NFPA 921. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri granted the motion to dismiss all claims against the expert based on its finding that the expert did not instigate the declaratory judgment action, the declaratory judgment action presented an actual case or controversy, and the expert’s opinion met the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 702 and NFPA 921.

Served as counsel to lender/servicer in defense of multi-count counterclaim for damages in context of foreclosure action, affirmed on appeal following differing decisions by original and successor trial judge.

Served as lead and trial counsel to lender in federal litigation for breach of contract, fraud, and replevin and for non-dischargeability and defense of lien avoidance in subsequent bankruptcy.

Prevailed in corporate litigation appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court. Shareholders invoked the "substantial benefit" doctrine and demanded that our client, a publicly traded corporation, pay $250,000 in attorney's fees because the corporation took corrective action in response to the Shareholders' demand letter. The Shareholders, however, never filed suit on the corrective action. The Nevada Supreme Court held that the substantial benefit doctrine in Nevada (analogously called the "corporate benefit doctrine" in Delaware) requires predicate litigation before shareholders can recover attorney's fees. This was a case of first impression for a state supreme court and implicates shareholder litigation across the nation.

Served as defense counsel for a mobile advertising platform developer and its former directors in a Delaware Chancery Court action alleging breach of fiduciary duty and disclosure violations arising out of an M&A transaction.

Served as defense counsel for employee retirement investment funds of a Fortune 100 company in two of the largest fraudulent conveyance actions in history, filed in the Southern District of New York.

Represented company and its officers and directors against former officer’s and shareholder’s breach of fiduciary duty claims in arbitration.

Successfully acted for a leading financial institution in a challenge against an application made to the High Court and the Court of Appeal by the International Bank of Azerbaijan (IBA). In accordance with the application, the IBA sought an order from the English Courts for a permanent moratorium against creditor action in England and Wales, following IBA’s voluntary restructuring in Azerbaijan.

Advised on obtaining urgent injunctions to restrain and recover assets arising out of the purchase of PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Advised in complex London Court of International Arbitration and International Chamber of Commerce conjoined arbitrations concerning allegations of bribery and agency in relation to global fertiliser trading.

Advised on numerous committal applications in respect of breaches of interim and permanent injunctions resulting in both custodial and suspended sentences, as well as successfully defending Court of Appeal applications to set aside committal orders.

Acted for international beauty pageant following allegations that the rules of the pageant are discriminatory.  

Secured motion to dismiss with prejudice in Cook County Chancery Court for the client, a pharmaceutical company, in an action brought by the Illinois Attorney General against various manufacturers and distributors. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had created a public nuisance and violated the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and that the distributors had failed to properly examine and report suspicious orders of opioid medications.

Acted for a U.K. company in connection with preference and undervalue transaction claims threatened against it by an administrator.