• PDF
  • Bookmark and Share
  • One client states: “I would 100% recommend them. They all worked in a coordinated and cohesive manner; their teamwork was exemplary, and they were always available and accessible when needed.” – Chambers USA

    Their work has been of extremely high quality, and they have acquired the status of a really trusted adviser - one of the highest compliments you can give to outside counsel. They offer quality lawyering at a reasonable fee, with excellent results.” – Chambers USA

    They are outstanding. They are responsive, efficient and have deep subject matter expertise over a number of different disciplines.” 
    – Chambers USA

    The firm has done an excellent job for this company. The attorneys are responsive and provide outstanding counsel at reasonable rates. The firm is also extremely proactive in pointing out areas we should be concerned about. The attorneys are very professional in every aspect.” – Chambers USA

    They are extremely bright, always well prepared - even on short notice - and extremely personable while being completely professional. These attorneys have the ability to make people feel at ease and comfortable.”
    – Chambers USA

    They have a forward - thinking, constructive approach to dealing with opponents. They are a well - respected and experienced bunch with a huge resource base.” 
    Chambers USA

Business Litigation

Representative Matters

We served as co-counsel in defense of multiple MDL antitrust class actions related to our client’s Hatch-Waxman Act settlements with generic manufacturers. The classes, consisting of end users, distributors and retailers, claimed that settlements with generic manufacturers harmed competition and artificially delayed the entry of a generic bioequivalent. This “pay for delay” case was the first to reach trial since the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in FTC v. Actavis. A jury found that there was no causation between the settlements and no proof that a generic could have entered the market earlier than the date permitted under the settlements.
In a case that made national headlines, we served as co-counsel litigating shareholder challenges to our client’s multibillion-dollar merger with a competitor. After preventing a preliminary injunction, our client agreed not to oppose the plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees on a disclosure-only settlement. The court refused to grant the fee request, holding that the plaintiffs filed non-meritorious litigation merely to harvest a fee at no benefit to the class, likely marking the end of disclosure-only settlements in Delaware M&A litigation.
We secured the complete dismissal with prejudice of a five-count complaint which included claims of fraudulent misrepresentation and unfair trade practices related to allegations that our client orchestrated a scheme to fraudulently acquire the business assets of a competitor.
In a 15-year long “late fee” class action brought in the Southern District of New York involving  a class of approximately 300,000 borrowers, we persuaded the  District Court to overturn a $54 million jury verdict against our client and decertify the class. Decertification was affirmed on appeal. The Opinion by the Second Circuit explores the intersect between the Seventh Amendment and the power of a federal judge to amend a class certification order right up until entry of judgment, an issue of first impression.
We serve as co-counsel in a consolidated class action and several opt-out direct actions alleging violations of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, specifically that our client’s share prices were artificially inflated—and later declined—as a result of its alleged misstatements about its business, operations and prospects. Our motion to dismiss is pending.
Plaintiff, an operator of an online auction site which arranges auctions for the purchase of medical supplies by hospitals and buying organizations, alleges that our client failed to make payments to the auction operator of a portion of any awarded bid, as allegedly required by the auction rules. We contend that the entire auction payment scheme established by the plaintiff violates the federal Anti-Kickback statutes related to medical contracts.
This case arises out of the purported breach of an agreement for the sales, marketing and distribution of condiment products, and alleged fraud during negotiation of the agreement and subsequent attempt to rescind the agreement. At the outset, we successfully moved for and obtained dismissal of third-party claims against our client’s CEO.
Acting for the principals of an independently owned affiliate of a Fortune 500 financial services firm in a dispute involving civil RICO claims, among others, we secured an order that the claimant pay more than $1.1 million, which included punitive damages and attorneys’ fees on our counterclaims.
Filing in the Southern District of New York, our client asserted that a bankrupt law firm’s transfer of an overseas office to the defendant was a fraudulent conveyance under both bankruptcy and New York law. The settlement amount ranks in the top five settlements in law firm bankruptcies.
We brought an action to recover certain sums due under the parties’ lease agreement, including the overcharge of certain tax payments and operating costs. Our client also sought redress for the defendant’s failure to honor audit rights under the lease. The matter was important because it successfully challenged the way one of the largest landlords in Boston had been charging real estate taxes to its tenants.
We prosecuted approximately $8.5 million in claims against an EPC contractor and its subcontractor for construction and design defects in connection with their installation of an extra high voltage cable system at the plant that exploded. We also defended approximately $1.9 million in counterclaims asserted by the EPC contractor. Our team reached a favorable settlement prior to trial.
We acted as lead counsel in a $22 million arbitration over fees owed for services rendered under the contract. Our role – which included handling the media; liaising with the Governor’s Office, the Attorney General’s Office and various state agencies; preparing for arbitration; and pursuing settlement discussions – led to a favorable settlement.
In this dispute over ownership of a medicine potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars, we prevailed after a two-week bench trial.
Serving as lead trial counsel, we recently settled this closely watched case involving brokers of credit derivatives and the impact of the credit crisis on this market.
We persuaded the government not to intervene in an ongoing qui tam action under the False Claims Act and to close its criminal investigation. The matter involves allegedly defective back-up power supply systems for ICBM missiles. Civil FCA litigation continues in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
We represented a preferred stockholder whose shares in a company were extinguished by a merger. Our team secured a declaration permitting our client to tender its shares and receive merger consideration without adopting conditions imposed by the buyer, a significant competitor. The Chancery held that these conditions violated Delaware General Corporation Law; this decision has had significant ramifications for merger transactions under Delaware law.