Commercial Litigation

We have represented plaintiffs and defendants in commercial disputes involving billions of dollars of damages.

  • Novell, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation, 505 F.3d 302 (4th Cir. 2007).
    We represented Novell in a multi-billion-dollar antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft. Novell alleges that Microsoft engaged in anticompetitive behavior which prevented its WordPerfect and Quattro Pro software from being compatible with Windows 95 and thus inflicted billions of dollars of harm on Novell. We appealed the district court’s dismissal of the suit, and the Fourth Circuit reversed.
  • 216 Jamaica Ave., LLC v. S & R Playhouse Realty Company, 540 F.3d 433 (6th Cir. 2008).
    We successfully represented a commercial property owner in a landmark case involving the enforcement of gold clauses in long-term commercial leases. Gold clauses were a common feature of early twentieth century contacts and allowed landlords to index rental payments to the value of gold. We convinced the Sixth Circuit that transfer of a lessee’s interest constituted a novation and revived gold clauses from the original lease contract. After a favorable ruling from the Sixth Circuit, the case settled.
  • Exxon Mobil Corporation v. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, 986 So.2d 1093 (Al. Sup. Ct. 2007).
    We represented the State of Alabama in connection with its suit against Exxon Mobil for fraud in connection with the extraction of natural gas from Mobile Bay. Exxon was obligated to make royalty payments on the “gross proceeds” of all gas produced under the leases, but instead concealed its practice of paying royalties solely on the net proceeds of a portion of the gas produced. We secured a judgment of more than $100 million against Exxon for breach of contract.
  • Ford Motor Company v. United States, 286 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
    We successfully represented Ford Motor Company in connection with its challenge to the United States Customs Service’s determination that $10 million in import duties and interest were properly assessed. The Federal Circuit held that the trial court’s verdict was clearly erroneous and that Ford was entitled to judgment.
  • Ford Motor Company v. United States, 378 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
    We successfully represented Ford Motor Company in a breach of contract suit against the United States arising from a World War II contract for the manufacture of B-24 Liberation Bombers. Ford seeks to recover the environmental cleanup costs it has incurred in connection with Ford’s performance of the cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract. The Federal Circuit reversed the trial court and ruled in Ford’s favor.
  • Marketing and Management Information, Inc. v. United States, 57 Fed. Cl. 665 (2003).
    We successfully represented EmpowerIT (formerly known as Marketing and Management Information, Inc. (“MMI”)), in a breach of contract action against the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. The lawsuit stemmed from the decision of the Defense Commissary Agency (“DeCA”) (an agency within the Department of Defense) to terminate a sale/exchange contract between MMI and DeCA, pursuant to which DeCA agreed to provide MMI with raw “scanner data” pertaining to sales at commissaries and MMI agreed to process that data and to perform certain category management support services for DeCA. The trial court granted our summary judgment motion on liability. After extensive discovery, the government agreed to settle the case on the eve of trial.
  • Shell Oil Company, et al. v. United States, No. 2017-1695 (Fed. Cir.)
    We represented Shell, Unocal, Atlantic Richfield Co., and Chevron-Texaco in a major contract dispute with the United States government. Our clients sought compensation for environmental remediation costs that they have incurred as a result of their performance of World War II contracts for the federal government. In 2017, the Court of Federal Claims awarded our clients $99.5 million in damages, and in July 2018, the Federal Circuit unanimously affirmed.
  • Fairholme Funds, Inc., et al. v. Federal Housing Finance Agency, et al., No. 14-5254 (D.C. Cir.); No. 13-465C (Fed. Cl.).
    We represent a mutual fund and a number of insurance companies challenging the validity of the nationalization of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The suits challenge the government’s arrogation of 100 percent of the companies’ profits for itself in contravention of FHFA’s and Treasury’s statutory authority, binding contractual commitments, and the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. To date, the government has benefited by over $120 billion from its illegal conduct.
  • Safe Streets Alliance, et al. v. Alternative Holistic Healing, LLC, et al., No. 15-349 (D. Colo.).
    We represented individual Coloradans whose property was injured by the recreational marijuana industry in that state, challenging the legality of the industry under RICO. The Tenth Circuit ruled that federal racketeering claims against marijuana businesses may go forward, and on remand the district court awarded summary judgment to our clients on liability, ruling that the marijuana business that injured their property had violated RICO.
  • Space Exploration Technologies Corporation v. United States, No. 14-354 (Fed. Cl.).
    We successfully represented ULA in a major bid protest brought by SpaceX challenging the award and execution of a five-year contract with the Air Force, valued at $11 billion, for 27 rockets to launch national security satellites into orbit. SpaceX ultimately agreed to dismiss the protest with prejudice under terms that honored all of the Air Force’s contractual obligations to ULA.
  • Baynard et al. v. Commonwealth Investments, Ltd., et al., No. 14-cv-1367 (S.D. Ohio).
    We represented several co-owners of commercial property in Columbus, Ohio, that is subject to a long-term lease that includes a “gold clause.” Gold clauses were a common feature of early twentieth century contracts; they allowed landlords to index rental payments to the value of gold. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio ruled in our favor that the gold clause is currently in force, and we subsequently negotiated a settlement for our clients.
  • AmBase Corporation 111 West 57th Street Litigation
    We represent AmBase Corporation in several lawsuits surrounding its real estate investment in 111 West 57th Street, a luxury residential sky-scraper currently under construction in Manhattan. AmBase has sued the developers for racketeering activity, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and various torts, and the lenders for violations of the Uniform Commercial Code.
  • Alarm.com Holdings, Inc. V. ABS Capital Partners Inc., et al., No. 360, 2018 (Sup. Ct. Del).
    We represent a corporation suing a former shareholder who, shortly after ending its involvement with our client, invested in and is now leading a competitor to our client, alleging that the former shareholder has misappropriated our client’s trade secrets and confidential information. The matter is currently pending before the Supreme Court of Delaware, where we argued the case.
  • National Rifle Association of America v. Lockton Affinity Series, et al., No. 1:18-cv-0639 (E.D.V.A.).
    Our client had a longstanding contractual relationship with a broker of affinity insurance; we represented our client in a suit for breach-of-contract when issues arose with the affinity insurance. Ultimately, the case ended with a settlement.
  • The Boeing Company v. United States, Nos. 17-1969, 17-1981, & 17-1983 (Fed. Cl.).
    We represent The Boeing Company in a series of related cases challenging the Government’s current method of calculating the price adjustment owed by federal contractors when they simultaneously change more than one of their cost-accounting practices. We argue that the Government’s current practice breaches its contracts with Boeing and constitutes an illegal exaction in violation of the Due Process Clause. The matter is currently pending before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, where the parties have briefed and argued dueling dispositive motions.

Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

↑ Top of Page