The Firm’s litigation practice has a broad and national scope.  Its litigators have handled significant matters in more than 25 states in both federal and state courts, in the United States Supreme Court, and in more than half of the United States Courts of Appeals.  Representative matters include the following:

• As the credit markets crisis has deepened, our Firm has been representing financial institutions, funds and institutional investors in the array of litigation emerging among counter-parties.  Many of these disputes present novel issues and situations not contemplated by the documentation of transactions before the crisis emerged.  The Firm’s attorneys bring broad experience in litigation involving these markets and, more generally, in economics and finance. 
• We represented a European software developer that produces the leading product — often listed as the most frequently downloaded software in the world — which affords computer users the ability to rid themselves of “spyware” (unwanted advertising and other data collection mechanisms placed on their computers via the Internet).  Targets of the anti-spyware software have brought claims under various theories in an attempt to take themselves out of the software’s reach.  In one case, we obtained dismissal and an award of attorneys’ fees under a California anti-SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) statute that protects against lawsuits that stifle communication in the public interest, an emerging issue in laws regulating the Internet. 
• The Firm has successfully represented the former owner of the world’s largest international money transmittal company in litigation with the company’s buyers to secure a final payment in the face of breach of warranty claims alleged to be in the millions of dollars, but which, in our litigation, were determined to be baseless. 
• The Firm obtained an ex parte temporary restraining and preliminary injunctive relief on behalf of a public company to secure its right to convert debt obligations into a controlling interest in the debtor companies (interests valued at over $7,000,000), and supervised ancillary litigation in Italy and the Yukon Territory in Canada.   
• We secured a jury verdict in excess of $4 million on behalf of a European investor based upon actual fraud claims against British and American financial services industry professionals, including tracing the proceeds of the fraud into four separate states. 
• In a case involving a $60+ million music property, the Firm prevailed in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in establishing a new precedent in copyright litigation, in a case of first impression, allowing a co-owner of a copyright to pursue its copyright infringement remedies unilaterally, even in the face of a potentially collusive agreement with other co-authors. 
• We secured a $4,050,000 jury verdict (including an award of $1,500,000 in punitive damages) in an actual fraudulent conveyance claim on behalf of the principal lenders to a company which sued its senior management after management used fraudulent means to take control of the company’s assets. 
• We have litigated claims on behalf of heirs of Duke Ellington that royalties from copyrights in a portion of Mr. Ellington’s compositions were unlawfully obtained by a music publishing company in exchange for “advances” that constituted fully secured short-term loans.  We argued that the agreements violated state laws against usury and were void under common law unconscionability principles. 
• We have defeated challenges to the appointments of the Administratrix of the Estate of Duke Ellington and the Executrix of the Estate of his son Mercer Ellington in litigation brought in New York and in Florida by other family members seeking to control the Estates.  
• The Firm has developed an expertise in representing clients in connection with unauthorized exploitation of the name and likeness of celebrities.  The Firm frequently undertakes trademark enforcement cases on behalf of clients including Duke Ellington’s Estate. 
• We represented one of the largest creditors in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy reorganization in its claims for in excess of $7,000,000 that arose from the client’s acquisition of a former subsidiary of the debtor.  The claims included demand for an adjustment to the purchase price in accordance with the acquisition agreement and breach of warranty and misrepresentation with regard to the representations made prior to the acquisition. 
• We represented one of New York’s largest museums in litigation defending substantial breach of contract claims involving major contractors that had been involved in the $60,000,000+ renovation of the museum’s physical plant. 
• We litigated successfully at trial the claims of a minority shareholder in a public company holding convertible preferred stock commonly known as “death-spiral preferred” stock.  The outcome of the case was to increase the client’s stake in the company’s common stock from approximately 15% to approximately 50%, with resulting control of the company. 
• We successfully defended at trial a software provider in a multi-million dollar rescission action.  The client manufactured one of the country’s leading inventory and warehouse management software products. 
• We represented and achieved a positive settlement for seven citizens of Sweden who were defendants in cases alleging insider trading brought by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and its enforcement counterpart in Sweden.  The case was described in Sweden as the most significant of its kind under Sweden’s relatively new laws regulating securities transactions. 
• The Firm has represented one of the largest enterprises in the United States seeking to bring automobiles manufactured in China to the United States, including representation of its principal who has a long term track record of success in this field, in a number of lawsuits involving claims of securities fraud and breach of fiduciary duty, among other issues, and controversies among investors in the enterprise concerning its future directions. 
• The Firm has represented a major insurance company in a number of matters including the investigation of significant fraud by brokerages. 
• We defended the developers of a 250-unit residential real estate development against allegations of Martin Act violations and common law fraud brought by the Attorney General of the State of New York, winning dismissal of those claims by motion. 
• We represented an international fragrance and cosmetics manufacturer against former distributors selling gray market and “knock-off” products, and obtained a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunctive relief to protect the client.  
• We represented successfully the holder of the residual interest in mortgage-backed securities in claims against the financial institutions which acquired those interests, asserting that the valuations used in exercising buy-back rights were grossly understated.  In that litigation, we secured a decision from the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York deciding an important issue of first impression concerning the scope of discovery in federal securities litigation under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.   
• We have served as Special Counsel to a major Hong Kong manufacturing concern to investigate allegations of fraud against members of the management of its partly-owned United States affiliate.  Our representation included assisting the client in effecting an efficient change in management and gaining control of the United States affiliate. 
• We obtained injunctive relief for one of the major suppliers of specialty products to the veterinary research community against a former affiliate that was engaging in sales barred by agreements between the two companies. 
• We have represented in litigation one of New York City’s most unique venture capital firms investing in Internet companies and new media industries located in New York City, as well as a number of companies in which that firm holds an interest.  
• We have worked with one of the largest law firms in Buenos Aires to consult concerning issues arising out of economic crises in Argentina. 
• We represented an owner of $15,000,000 of real estate in the Tribeca area of New York City in a dispute with co-owners concerning investments made between 1943 and 1992 in various loosely-formed partnerships.  The litigation also involved various of the partners’ ventures in real estate development outside New York and manufacturing and service businesses which were created by the partners with others, using profits from the original real estate holdings.  The Firm obtained a settlement at the commencement of trial at a level near the maximum possible recovery. 
• We have represented a former shareholder in one of the nation’s leading manufacturers of specialty brass and bronze fixtures in an arbitration to recover for fraud in the presentation of financial information used to induce our client’s sale of its interest in the company. 
• We have represented the producer for and one of the founding members of the performing and recording artists Wu-Tang Clan in litigation with a former manager. 
• We successfully represented one of the largest independent television production companies in the country through its predecessor company in successful copyright infringement and breach of contract claims against affiliates of the Public Broadcasting System arising out of documentaries the client had developed. 
• We have represented the guardians of most of the severely mentally disabled persons residing in The Southbury Training School (“STS”), the only residential facility housing the disabled in the State of Connecticut and a private Foundation established by past and current guardians to ensure the quality of life at the facility.  STS has been home to its residents for most of their lives.  A central issue in the cases is the belief by many of the guardians that STS is the only viable location for the care of their wards.  In one of the cases, the Firm, in tandem with the State of Connecticut, prosecuted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit an appeal against the Justice Department challenging a finding in the District Court that the State was in contempt of a 1986 Consent Decree and Judgment relating to the operation of the facility.  The Firm presented the argument of first impression that the procedures employed by the Justice Department in winning the contempt order under the Constitutional Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act are not available to seek contempt sanctions in the context of claimed violations of a Consent Decree.  In the second case, a class action brought in the name of the wards of the Firm’s clients but funded by private interest groups, we represented the same guardians in an unprecedented request to the District Court that their wards be permitted to opt out of the class.  Opting out typically is unavailable in class action civil rights litigation.  In excess of 82% of the class members joined the motion to opt out of the class.