Hine & Ogulluk LLP | Sevan Ogulluk | Representative Matters
A Premier New York LItigation Firm
This links to the home page
Sevan  Ogulluk


New York University School of Law – Juris Doctor – 1999

State University of New York at Binghamton – Bachelor of Arts, Philosophy, Politics and Law (1995)


U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

U.S. District Courts for the Southern, Eastern, Western and Northern Districts of New York

New York State Courts
Sevan Ogulluk
Tel: 212-300-7390 | 516-900-7660
v-card icon V-Card
  • Sevan Ogulluk 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 the Financial Oversight and Management Board for Puerto Rico, No. 17-BK-3283 (LTS) (D.P.R.) – served as conflicts counsel representing a bondholder group in Promesa Title III litigations concerning claims relating to the validity of multi-billion dollar bonds issued by the Employees Retirement System of the Government of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico.
    • 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.
    • Secured Capital Partners, LLC v. Wansdown Properties Corp., N.V., Index No. 150780/2018 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County) – successfully defended foreign owner of historic $20 million Manhattan townhouse against improperly asserted lis pendens and claims of specific performance of sale contract, securing dismissal of entire case, vacatur of lis pendens, and award of attorneys’ fees.
    • Hernandez v. K-W 650 Associates, LLC, Index No. 703835/2020 (Sup. Ct. Queens County) – successfully defended building sponsor sued in personal injury action alleging, among other things, violations of New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241.
    • 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.
    • Rubenstein v. Chin, et al., No. 18-CV-07812 (LAP) (S.D.N.Y.) – successfully defended foreign CEO of publicly-traded U.K. solar energy company and Australian institutional investor against corporate insider short-swing profit claims under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, securing withdrawal of all claims against our clients in response to our motion to dismiss.
    • 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.  
    • National Securities Inc. v. Schiavello, et al., No. 17-02804 (FINRA) (represent registered representative in FINRA arbitration involving contract, tort and failure-to-supervise claims for securities trading losses with respect sixteen client investment accounts, in alleged violation of state and federal securities laws). 
    • BlackRock v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (S.D.N.Y. and N.Y. Sup. Ct.) – defended Wells Fargo in multi-billion dollar derivative and putative class action lawsuits filed by institutional investors in residential mortgage-backed securities trusts alleging that trustee violated federal laws, breached contractual obligations and its fiduciary duties to investors.  Prosecuted third-party contribution actions against investment managers PIMCO, BlackRock, Prudential and TIAA-CREF in New York federal court.
    • 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 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.  
    • Richtree Inc. vs. Mövenpick Holding A.G., et al. (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) – 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, and affirmed on appeal.  
    • Goodwin vs. The Reserve Funds, et al. (S.D.N.Y.) – represented plaintiff investor in securities fraud and breach of fiduciary duties action related to the sale of unsuitable securities. 
    • Smile Train, Inc. v. Mullaney (S.D.N.Y.) – represented co-founder and CEO of international charity and executive producer of Oscar-winning documentary in lawsuit alleging copyright and trademark infringement, breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets. 
    • Kleen Energy Systems, LLC v. ACE American Ins. Co. et al. (Conn. Superior Ct.) and O&G Indus. Inc. et al. v. ACE American Ins. Co., et al. (Conn. Superior Ct.) – represented insurance policyholder Kleen Energy, a 620 megawatt dual-fuel electric generating facility located in Middletown, Connecticut in connection with major losses suffered as a result of a catastrophic explosion at its power facility in 2010.  Represented Kleen Energy in insurance coverage litigation seeking to recover over $50 million in business interruption losses under its builder’s risk property insurance policy for which 11 domestic and foreign insurers had a market share.   
    • Relativity Media, LLC vs. RKA Film Financing, LLC (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County) – represented largest privately held Hollywood movie studio in multiple lawsuits in New York’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 Relativity Media, LLC (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) – represented debtor movie studio in connection with its Chapter 11 restructuring proceedings; reorganization plan was confirmed, reducing its funded debt by over $600 million. 
    • 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. 
    • American Express Marketing & Devel. Corp. vs. Black Card LLC (S.D.N.Y.) – represented Black Card LLC in a trademark action over the use of the name “Black Card” for elite consumer credit cards.   
    • In re Lehman Derivatives Litigation (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) – represented Lehman affiliate in adversary proceeding involving a dispute over the rights to approximately $600 million of collateral posted under several complex derivatives swap agreements.  Under the terms of a very favorable settlement following mediation, the Lehman Estate received a lump sum payment constituting one of the largest recoveries to date for Lehman in the bankruptcy.   
    • In re Supreme Oil Co. Investigations and Litigation (Sup. Ct. N.Y. County) (N.Y. Surrog. Ct.) – represented CEO of a non-public corporation in internal investigations related to allegations of misappropriation of corporate opportunity, waste and embezzlement; also represented client in connection with estate litigation in New York Surrogate’s Court related to allegations of malfeasance and battle over control of company’s voting shares, and in connection with breach of contract lawsuit in Florida.  
    • In re Caesars Entertainment Operating Corp., Inc. (Bankr. N.D. Ill.) (Bankr. W.D. Pa.) (Bankr. D. Nev.) (Bankr. C.D. Calif.) (Bankr. W.D.N.C.) – represented a committee of bondholders of debtor and casino operator Caesars Entertainment Operating Company (“CEOC”).  As part of the Caesars bankruptcy cases, successfully challenged a plan reorganization filed by CEOC, including by pursuing claims that estates had multi-billion dollar claims related to pre-petition transactions that stripped CEOC’s crown-jewel assets.  Numerous proceedings in courts across the U.S. led entities that owned interests in CEOC to revise the economic terms of the distributions included in the plan of reorganization as part of a $3.6 billion settlement that saw creditors recover 66 cents on the dollar, more than six times the recovery provided in Caesar’s initial bankruptcy plan. 
    • NACCO Indus. Inc. vs. Applica Inc., et al. (Del. Ch.) – represented NACCO in high-profile litigation in 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” in 2011.  
    • Lehman Brothers Auction Rate Securities Litigation (FINRA) – defended Lehman and former Leman employees in regulatory investigations and numerous high-profile civil actions and arbitrations nationwide alleging mismanagement of investment accounts, breaches of contractual and fiduciary duties, and misrepresentations to clients invested in auction rate securities.   
    • GSI Commerce vs. Lehman Bros., et al. (FINRA) – lead trial counsel for former Lehman executives in an arbitration alleging that Lehman and its representatives mismanaged an investment account, made various misrepresentations, were negligent, and breached contractual and fiduciary duties, in connection with investments in auction rate securities.  After a two week evidentiary hearing, the arbitration panel returned a defense verdict on all claims.   
    • In re Enron (Class Action Litigation, Bankruptcy, Prosecutions and Regulatory Actions) – key member 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 scheme to misrepresent Enron’s financial condition via certain structured finance transactions. 
    • Experian Consumer FCRA Litigation (E.D.N.Y.) (S.D.N.Y.) (D. Conn.) (D. Fla.) – defend 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. 
    • Citizens Bank Corp. vs. Citizens Financial Group (E.D. Mich.) – successfully defend at a preliminary injunction hearing and subsequent bench trial RBS Citizens (the Royal Bank of Scotland and Citizens Financial Group) in a trademark infringement case involving the rights to the use of the CITIZENS BANK trademark.  After a two week bench trial, the court returned a defense verdict on all claims. 
    • Lucas Oil Products vs. OAO Lukoil, et al. (S.D.N.Y.) – represent Russian oil company Lukoil in trademark infringement action commenced by Lucas Oil Products related to the use of the mark LUCAS OIL, including in connection with the naming rights of the professional football stadium in Indianapolis.   
    • Estate of Souza vs. Bonhams 1793 (S.D.N.Y.) – represented London auction house Bonhams in copyright infringement lawsuit involving claims of the unauthorized publication of works by Indian artist Francis Newton Souza.   
    • SEC v. James McCurdy (SEC Admin.) – defended accountant in SEC administrative proceeding and before the Ohio Accountancy Board in actions involving allegations of professional misconduct stemming from the failed audits of the financial statements of several mutual funds.  
    • SEC vs. David Schick (E.D.N.Y.) – defended CEO of a technology company in multiple investigations and proceedings, including an SEC enforcement action alleging accounting fraud. 
    • In re United Rentals, Inc. Derivatives Litigation (D. Conn.) – represented members of United Rentals, Inc.’s board of directors in shareholder derivative litigation and internal investigation related to restatement of financials and allegations of accounting impropriety. 
    • In re Yahoo! Shareholder Derivative Litigation (N.D. Cal.) – represented special committee of Yahoo!’s board of directors in connection with internal investigations and Congressional hearings related to claims of internet censorship and human rights violations in China. 
    • Honeywell Int’l Inc. vs. Air Products & Chemicals Inc. (Del. Ch.) – represented Air Products in defeating Honeywell’s attempt to block its acquisition of large competitor in the chemicals industry based on alleged breaches of strategic alliance and related agreements. 
    • Air Products & Chemicals Inc. vs. Sandhu (E.D. Pa.) – represented Air Products in obtaining injunction against former employee and his new company in misappropriation of trade secrets action.  
    • Zeiler vs. Three Lincoln Center (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) – defended clients in nuisance, property damage and personal injury action involving residential high-rise building in Manhattan. 
    • 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, the court directed a 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; complete defense verdict.  After an eight week trial in Brooklyn, the jury returned a defense verdict on all claims. 
    • In re Chrysler LLC (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.) – represented debtor car-manufacturer Chrysler in bankruptcy proceedings and related dealer/distributor/franchisor disputes, leading to the sale of substantially all of its assets to a Fiat-led entity, providing the opportunity for its iconic brands and U.S. operations to survive.