Business Litigation

One of the harsh realities of conducting business in today's economy is that companies and individuals often become embroiled in commercial disputes.  In today’s complex and demanding business environment, the outcome of a contract dispute can impact the survival of a company or business unit.  Some businesses appear to view litigation as merely another form of negotiation, while others strive to avoid legal proceedings at all costs.  We have been on every side of this dynamic.  Whatever the bent or risk-tolerance of our clients, it is prudent for all commercial actors to prepare themselves for the possibility of litigation, to review all agreements with an eye towards what might go wrong (and thereby perhaps to avoid litigation), and in the event of a dispute to retain competent and experienced counsel on which they can rely to map out and execute a strategy aimed at resolving the matter in a cost effective and commercially reasonable manner.  

Hine & Ogulluk LLP has a successful track record of developing aggressive case strategies and achieving favorable results for our clients in all kinds of business litigation.  Every year we successfully litigate, settle, or try numerous domestic and international contract disputes in a variety of fields, including real estate, construction, defense, energy, finance, entertainment and media, communications, technology, software, sports, manufacturing, consulting, medical/dental, and biotechnology.  We do so for businesses in all stages of their development (from start-ups to corporate giants).  

Our commercial litigation portfolio includes, among other things, contests for corporate control; “busted deal” cases; partnership and family trust disputes; M&A disputes; breaches of lending facilities and related agreements; securities law violations; common law and statutory fraud and breaches of fiduciary duty; antitrust and bankruptcy-related claims; theft of trade secrets and trademark/copyright infringement; breach of distributorship arrangements; contractual disputes; director and officer liability; insurance coverage; and purchase and sale agreements.  Our business litigation experience runs the gamut of our diverse clients’ commercial activities. 
 
Our firm regularly handles high-stakes matters involving contracts of great significance to our business clients.  We have won “bet the company” contract disputes on both the plaintiff and defense side.  Indeed, we have litigated some of the biggest and high-profile cases in state and federal courts across the country, including New York’s Commercial Division and in Delaware Chancery Court, the nation’s preeminent business law court.  Our clients turn to us not only because of our deep experience, but because we are imaginative problem-solvers who provide sound guidance and advocacy at all stages of the litigation process to help our clients achieve their strategic goals in a cost-effective manner.
 

Representative Matters

• In re Application of Mauricio Mota For An Order To Take Discovery For Use In Foreign Proceedings Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782, No. 19-mc-573 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y.), No. 19-mc-369 (UNA) (D. Del.) – represented Brazilian client seeking discovery of documents located in the United States from several U.S. corporations and financial institutions relating to foreign litigation concerning the alleged expropriation of billions of dollars of public funds by large Brazilian-based meat producer, JBS, and its controlling shareholders.
• North Shore Window & Door, Inc. v. Andersen Corporation and Fenetres MQ Inc., 19-cv-6194 (ENV)(ST) (E.D.N.Y.) – represent plaintiff distributor in cross-border lawsuit against multi-national luxury window manufacturers (from the U.S. and Canada) concerning the enforcement of a multi-state exclusive distributorship agreement and claims under various state franchisee protection statutes.
• In the Matter of Axon Enterprise, Inc. and Safariland, LLC, No. 9389 (F.T.C.) – served as conflicts counsel for manufacturer of body-worn cameras and law enforcement technology in connection with third-party discovery (including third-party depositions) and trial work in litigation before the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.
• In re Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Litigation, No. 16 MD 2704 (PAE) (S.D.N.Y.) – represented eleven international financial institutions as conflicts counsel for third-party discovery, coordinating with several major law firms, in multi-billion dollar antitrust litigation involving claims of an alleged conspiracy to prevent competition in the trading of interest rate swaps. 
• Piroozian v. Homapour, Index Nos. 602091/2018, 608279/2018, 611064/2018, 617286/2018 (Sup. Ct. Nassau County (Commercial Division)) – represented individual member of limited liability company in multiple related cases and appeals asserting claims for, inter alia, LLC dissolution, specific performance and breaches of fiduciary duties against the managing member with respect to commercial warehouse valued at over $20 million. 
• Rubin v. Hodes, Index No. 611503/2018 (Sup. Ct. Nassau County (Commercial Division)) – defended three companies, CEO and COO against claims of common law and securities fraud, breaches of promissory notes and related claims asserted by former investor/lender.
• Honeywell Int’l, Inc. v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., C.A. No. 20434 (Del. Ch. Ct.) – successful opposition in Delaware Chancery Court to application to enjoin pending merger of large chemical companies based on alleged breaches of strategic alliance and related agreements.
• NACCO Indus. Inc. vs. Applica Inc., et al. (Del. Ch.) – represented NACCO in high-profile litigation before Delaware Chancery Court relating to the termination of a merger agreement by small appliance manufacturer Applica in favor of a competing offer from the Harbinger hedge funds.  The case was recognized by the Financial Times as one of the most “innovative litigations.” 
• Spa Week Media Group, Ltd. v. Patel, Index No. 656471/2018 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County) –  investigated and prosecuted fraud, breach of contract and equitable claims on behalf of health/beauty industry clients with respect to nationwide sale and redemption of gift cards by numerous out-of-state companies and individuals.  
• BCP Voyager Master Fund SPC, Ltd. vs. The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) – represented the Royal Bank of Scotland in New York Supreme Court’s Commercial Division in $200 million breach of contract action involving counter-claims of misappropriating and trading on confidential insider information and breaches of fiduciary duty. 
• In re Caesars Entertainment Operating Co., No. 15-01145 (ABG) (Bankr. N.D. Ill.) - represented Noteholder Committee in various litigations relating to claims against bankruptcy casino operating company and high net-worth individuals holding interests in entities related to the debtor.
• Biocon Limited v. Abraxis Bioscience, Inc., No. 16 Civ. 6894 (S.D.N.Y.)(RMB) - defended drug manufacturer against allegations arising from licensing and distribution agreement that manufacturer terminated due to diversion of drugs to black market distributors.  Defeated motion for injunctive relief seeking to prevent termination of agreement. 
• In re Enron (Class Action Litigation, Bankruptcy, Prosecutions and Regulatory Actions) – key members of an international legal team that, for years, defended several financial institutions in the massive and unprecedented securities class action litigation and regulatory actions stemming from the historic collapse of Enron.  Specifically, represented the Royal Bank of Scotland in adversary proceedings, a shareholder class action and related cases, U.S. and foreign criminal investigations and regulatory proceedings arising out of the collapse of Enron, alleging participation in a worldwide scheme to misrepresent Enron’s financial condition via certain structured finance transactions.
• Motorola Credit Corp. v. Uzan et al. (S.D.N.Y.) (N.Y. Ct. of Appeals) – advised and represented the Central Bank of Jordan in civil fraud suit seeking recovery of multi-billion dollar judgment against members of Turkey’s Uzan family.  The suit stemmed from billions in financing provided to the fugitive Uzans and their company, Telsim, Turkey’s second-largest mobile phone company.  Represented the Central Bank in federal court proceedings, as well as on appeal before the New York Court of Appeals regarding New York courts’ powers to seize foreign assets and enforce judgments against international entities and individuals.  
• Goode LAX Holdings LLC v. Lacrosse Unlimited, Inc., et al., No. 650812/2015 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County) - represented lender in proceedings to enforce promissory note and related contracts.  Briefed and argued motion for summary judgment.
• In re Lehman Brothers Holding Company, Inc., No. 08-13555 (JMP) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) - represented bankruptcy estate in complex trial and related proceedings involving multi-billion dollar claims arising out of the bankruptcy court-approved sale of Lehman’s North American broker-dealer business to Barclays Capital.  Briefed and argued multi-million dollar summary judgment motion related thereto.  
• Madison Square Garden, L.P. v. National Hockey League, et al., No. 07 CIV. 8455 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.) – represented Madison Square Garden in antitrust lawsuit against professional sports league concerning, among other things, the rights of teams to exploit internet-related revenue streams.
• In re Soundview Elite Ltd., No. 13-13098 (REG) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) - represented trustee of bankruptcy estate in, inter alia, adversary proceeding concerning redemption of debtor’s investment in complex fund of funds structure.  Successfully briefed and argued motions for preliminary injunction, summary judgment, contempt and in opposition to motion to withdraw the reference and to remove the trustee, as well as a number of appeals related thereto.  Also represented trustee in connection with investigation of fraud and fiduciary breaches and in proceedings related thereto. 
• Relativity Media, LLC vs. RKA Film Financing, LLC (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) – represented largest privately held Hollywood movie studio in multiple lawsuits in New York Supreme Court’s Commercial Division for claims related to breach of contract, tortious interference and other business tort claims regarding financing agreement for the marketing of multiple films, and interference with company’s refinancing plans.
• In re Alpha Natural Resources, Inc., No. 15-33896-KHR, (Bankr. E.D. Va.) — represented debtors in connection with negotiations and potential litigations with state and federal environmental regulators and interest groups with respect to reclamation of surface coal mining activities.  Also, represented debtors in appeals relating to Key Employee Incentive Program (KEIP) issues. 
• Amromco Energy, LLC v. Amromco Holdings LP, JAMS Ref. No. 1425011836 – represented certain sellers in a mediation involving alleged breaches of contract arising from the sale of Romanian oil and gas business and related rights to access state-owned oil and gas reserves.  Successfully negotiated settlement of dispute.
• Wright v. SiriusXM Radio Inc., No. 8:16-cv-01688-JVS-JCG (C.D. Cal.) - represented SiriusXM in connection with putative class action asserting claims related to the sale of “lifetime” subscriptions for satellite radio services.
• Experian Consumer FCRA Litigation (E.D.N.Y.) (S.D.N.Y.) (D. Conn.) (D. Fla.) – defended Experian, one of the three national credit reporting agencies in the United States, in class action and numerous individual consumer litigations brought under the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act.
• In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litig., No. 04 Civ. 9809 (HB) (S.D.N.Y.) - represented former CEO of Canadian building materials company against securities law and other claims in putative U.S. class action.
• Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Houghton Mifflin, et al., No. 7:13-CV-4577 (KMK/ LMS) (S.D.N.Y.) - defended educational testing company (ETS) in putative class action involving claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and related consumer protection statutes. 
• Personnel Dept., Inc. v. CareerBuilder, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-59 (D. Vt.) – represented defendant against allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets and related claims involving internet-based resume writing and evaluation service.
• Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank P.J.S.C. v. Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, et al., Index No. 115417/10 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County) – defended individuals in case involving alleged fraud and other allegations concerning structured investment vehicle.
• Consolidated Edison, Inc. v. Northeast Securities, No. 01 CV 1893 (S.D.N.Y.) – billion dollar litigation involving alleged breach of “material adverse change” provision in merger agreement in utilities industry.
• RGC Int’l Investors, Inc. v. Greka Energy Corp., C.A. No. 17674-NC (Del. Ch. Ct.) – lawsuit and trial involving claims by preferred shareholders of oil company concerning their rights in a corporate merger.
• In re Terex Corp., File No. C-2729 – SEC investigation involving alleged accounting irregularities and securities law violations, including Wells Submission and settlement.
• Richtree Inc. vs. Mövenpick Holding A.G., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (N.Y. App. Div. 1^st Dep’t) – defended Swiss international restaurant franchisor Mövenpick Holding AG in a contract dispute stemming from the planned opening of restaurants in the U.S. and Canada.  Action dismissed on jurisdictional grounds by New York Supreme Court’s Commercial Division, and dismissal affirmed on appeal by New York’s intermediate appellate court. 
• Stephen P. Wald Real Estate Assocs. v. 136 Loft Corp., Index No. 652723/2018 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County (Commercial Division)) – successfully represented real estate broker asserting claim for unpaid commissions in connection with $6 million sale of air rights for commercial development for Manhattan residential building.    
• Wu v. Pindar Vineyards, Index No. 18-cv-05672-ARR-CLP (E.D.N.Y.) – defended several wineries (in this and other cases) against claims under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) concerning accessibility of company websites for blind users.
• Conley vs. R.J. Reynolds (N.D. Calif.) – defended R.J. Reynolds in smoking and health trial that resulted in the first defense verdict in favor of tobacco companies in California since 1985.  After a four week jury trial in California federal court, the court directed a complete defense verdict on all claims.
• Anderson vs. R.J. Reynolds (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) – defended R.J. Reynolds at trial in first smoking and health case tried in New York.  After an two month trial in Brooklyn state court, the jury returned a defense verdict on all claims.