Cohen & Gresser is pleased to announce that 25 of the firm’s lawyers are included on the 2024 New York Metro Super Lawyers list and 13 lawyers are included on the 2024 New York Metro Rising Stars list across a range of practice areas.

Super Lawyers once again named C&G co­-founder Mark S. Cohen and partner Jonathan S. Abernethy to the Super Lawyers list of the Top 100 lawyers in the New York metropolitan area.

Super Lawyers and Rising Stars are annual lists of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only 5 percent of the lawyers in each state are selected as Super Lawyers, and only 2.5 percent are selected as Rising Stars.

The C&G lawyers recognized on the New York Metro Super Lawyers list are:

• Jonathan S. Abernethy, Criminal Defense: White Collar
• Kwaku Andoh, Mergers & Acquisitions
• Luke Appling, Civil Litigation: Defense
• Elizabeth Bernhardt, Business Litigation
• Karen H. Bromberg, Intellectual Property
• Jason Brown, Criminal Defense: White Collar
• Joanna K. Chan, Securities Litigation
• Mark S. Cohen, Business Litigation
• Gale Dick, Business Litigation
• Christian R. Everdell, Criminal Defense: White Collar
• Robert J. Gavigan, Mergers & Acquisitions
• Lawrence T. Gresser, Business Litigation
• Oliver S. Haker, Business Litigation
• Johannes Jonas, Mergers & Acquisitions
• Nicholas J. Kaiser, Real Estate
• David F. Lisner, Business Litigation
• Ellen Paltiel, General Litigation
• Douglas J. Pepe, Business Litigation
• Matthew V. Povolny, Business Litigation
• Bonnie J. Roe, Securities & Corporate Finance
• Stephen M. Sinaiko, Business Litigation
• Mark Spatz, Civil Litigation: Defense
• Daniel H. Tabak, Business Litigation
• Scott D. Thomson, Business Litigation
• Alexandra Wald, Business Litigation

The C&G lawyers recognized on the New York Metro Rising Stars list are:

• Sharon L. Barbour, Criminal Defense: White Collar
• Randall W. Bryer, Business Litigation
• Shannon A. Daugherty, Business Litigation
• Drew S. Dean, General Litigation
• Christine M. Jordan, General Litigation
• William Kalema, Business Litigation
• Phoebe King, Business Litigation
• Sri Kuehnlenz, Civil Litigation: Defense
• Marvin J. Lowenthal, Criminal Defense: White Collar
• Barbara K. Luse, Criminal Defense: White Collar
• Alexandra Theobald, Business Litigation
• Myia Williams, Mergers & Acquisitions
• Benjamin Zhu, General Litigation

   

Cohen & Gresser has been recognized for excellence in dispute resolution, and lawyers Mark S. Cohen, Douglas J Pepe, John Roberti, and Daniel Tabak have been named “Litigation Stars”, in the 2025 edition of Benchmark Litigation.

The “Stars” featured in the guide are recognized through Benchmark Litigation’s independent research as some of the foremost litigation practitioners in the United States. The selection process involves in-depth interviews with litigators, dispute resolution experts, and their clients, along with a thorough review of significant cases and firm developments. Lawyers named as “Stars” are highly respected by their peers and stand out for their impressive case track records and positive client feedback.

Since its inception in 2008, Benchmark Litigation has been the only publication on the market to focus exclusively on litigation in the United States.

On July 8, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit delivered a significant win to Cohen & Gresser client, Eddystone Rail Co., by reversing a Southern District of New York decision that denied Eddystone’s motion to amend its complaint to assert subsequent transfer claims against lenders to Ferrellgas, the former corporate owner of Bridger Transfer Services, LLC (“BTS”), a contractual counterparty of Eddystone.

With the financial assurance of a multi-year take-or-pay contract that obligated BTS to make minimum monthly payments regardless of the services it used, Eddystone spent about $170 million to build a transloading facility that transferred oil from railcars to boats. Soon after the Eddystone transloading facility went into operation, BTS and many of its corporate affiliates were sold to Ferrellgas. At the time, BTS’s value was well over $200 million. Within months, though, the transloading arrangement became uneconomical for BTS’s corporate affiliates, so Ferrellgas stripped all of BTS’s assets and sold BTS for $10, causing BTS to default on its remaining obligations to pay Eddystone about $140 million. Eddystone brought an action in Philadelphia in 2017 to recover the fraudulent transfers involved in stripping BTS’s assets.

While the Philadelphia initial transfer action was pending, C&G filed an action for Eddystone in the Southern District of New York in 2019 alleging that Ferrellgas used former BTS assets to pay two groups of lenders, making the lenders subsequent transferees of the fraudulently transferred assets. Significantly, a protective order in the Philadelphia action barred Eddystone from using documents produced in that action in drafting its initial complaint against the lenders.

The Southern District granted the lenders’ initial motions to dismiss the complaint, finding that the complaint did not sufficiently demonstrate that the assets used to pay the lenders derived from former BTS assets. However, the court also rejected all of the lenders’ many additional arguments that the complaint was legally insufficient.

Following the dismissal of the initial complaint in September 2021, Eddystone overcame hard-fought opposition to get the protective order in the Philadelphia action modified in March 2022 to permit it to use discovery from that action to amend its Southern District complaint against the lenders. Eddystone then prepared a proposed amended complaint in April 2022 with charts showing specific cash transfers from BTS to one set of lenders through Ferrellgas and its subsidiaries. The proposed amended complaint also detailed how other specific BTS assets were assigned to corporate affiliates for no consideration at all and how the proceeds from later sales of those assets were transferred to another set of Ferrellgas lenders.

The Southern District nevertheless denied Eddystone leave to file the proposed amended complaint, finding that it would be futile because the factual allegations were still insufficient to show that assets from BTS reached the lenders. The court also found that the three years between Eddystone’s filing of its initial complaint and its request to amend was an undue delay that prejudiced the lenders.

Following oral argument that Judge Gerard Lynch of the Second Circuit called “great,” the Second Circuit reversed the District Court on both of its bases for denying Eddystone’s request to file an amended complaint. First, the Second Circuit found that Eddystone had alleged sufficient details to show that it was plausible that BTS’s assets were later transferred to the lenders. Then, the Second Circuit ruled that the District Court had exceeded its discretion in finding that undue delay and prejudice barred Eddystone’s effort to amend its complaint, finding that the District Court had not identified any prejudice to the lenders and that “Eddystone cannot be penalized for waiting until it received the District Court’s decision granting the motions to dismiss before determining what it needed to do to amend its Complaint, including modifying the protective order in the Pennsylvania litigation.”

The victorious C&G team includes Dan Tabak, Steve Sinaiko, Marvin Lowenthal, Ben Zhu, and Camille Delgado. Melissa Maxman was also part of the team that obtained the modification of the Pennsylvania protective order.

The Legal 500 United States 2024 edition has recognized Cohen & Gresser’s New York and Washington, D.C. offices for excellence across multiple categories, including Antitrust Litigation, Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Crime, Commercial Litigation, and Securities Litigation. Testimonials included in the guide praise the firm for being a “litigation powerhouse” and for its “devotion to the needs of the clients, its creativity, and its perseverance.”

Mark Cohen is once again recognized as a Leading Partner in both Securities Litigation and Corporate Investigations & White-Collar Crime: Advice to Individuals.

The 2024 guide also recognizes Lawrence T. Gresser, Jonathan Abernethy, Jason Brown, S. Gale Dick, Christian Everdell, Jeffrey Lang, Alisa Lu, Melissa Maxman, Douglas Pepe, John Roberti, Daniel Tabak, and Ronald Wick as recommended lawyers.

This 17th edition of The Legal 500 United States guide, which identifies the “true superstars of the profession,” involved a detailed assessment of various factors, including work conducted by law firms over the past 12 months and historically; experience and depth of teams; and client feedback.

Founded in 2002, Cohen & Gresser’s New York office serves as the firm’s headquarters. Our New York attorneys are particularly strong in complex litigation, investigations, and transactions. The firm’s Washington, D.C. office handles a range of commercial litigation and regulatory enforcement actions, with a focus on domestic and foreign antitrust issues.

Cohen & Gresser lawyers Mark S. Cohen, John Roberti, and Daniel Tabak have been selected as “Litigation Stars” in the 2024 edition of Benchmark Litigation. The guide’s “Stars” are identified through Benchmark Litigation’s independent research process as among the preeminent litigation practitioners in the United States. The guide conducts extensive interviews with litigators, dispute resolution specialists and their clients, as well as analysis of the market’s most important cases and firm developments, in selecting its “Stars.” Lawyers included on the list are highly regarded by their peers and possess a strong case record and positive client feedback.

Since its inception in 2008, Benchmark Litigation has been the only publication on the market to focus exclusively on litigation in the United States.

Cohen & Gresser is pleased to announce that 29 of the firm's lawyers are included on the 2023 New York Metro Super Lawyers list and 11 lawyers are included on the 2023 New York Metro Rising Stars list across a range of practice areas.

Super Lawyers named C&G co­founder Mark S. Cohen one of the Top 10 lawyers in the New York metropolitan area. Partners Jonathan S. Abernethy and Karen H. Bromberg have also been named to the Super Lawyers list of the Top 100 lawyers in the New York metropolitan area. Additionally, Karen has been recognized as one of the Top 50 women lawyers within the same region.

Super Lawyers and Rising Stars are annual lists of outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only 5 percent of the lawyers in each state are selected as Super Lawyers, and only 2.5 percent are selected as Rising Stars.

The C&G lawyers recognized on the New York Metro Super Lawyers list are:

• Jonathan S. Abernethy, Criminal Defense: White Collar
• Kwaku Andoh, Mergers & Acquisitions
• Luke Appling, Civil Litigation: Defense
• Elizabeth Bernhardt, Business Litigation
• Colin C. Bridge, Criminal Defense: White Collar
• Karen H. Bromberg, Intellectual Property
• Jason Brown, Criminal Defense: White Collar
• Joanna K. Chan, Securities Litigation
• Mark S. Cohen, Business Litigation
• S. Gale Dick, Business Litigation
• Christian R. Everdell, Criminal Defense: White Collar
• Robert J. Gavigan, Mergers & Acquisitions
• Lawrence T. Gresser, Business Litigation
• Oliver S. Haker, Business Litigation
• Johannes Jonas, Mergers & Acquisitions
• Nicholas J. Kaiser, Real Estate
• Jeffrey I. Lang, Civil Litigation: Defense
• David F. Lisner, Business Litigation
• Ellen Paltiel, General Litigation
• Douglas J. Pepe, Business Litigation
• Matthew V. Povolny, Business Litigation
• Nathaniel P. T. Read, Business Litigation
• Bonnie J. Roe, Securities & Corporate Finance
• Stephen M. Sinaiko, Business Litigation
• Mark Spatz, Civil Litigation: Defense
• C. Evan Stewart, Securities Litigation
• Daniel H. Tabak, Business Litigation
• Scott D. Thomson, Business Litigation
• Alexandra Wald, Business Litigation

The C&G lawyers recognized on the New York Metro Rising Stars list are:

• Sharon L. Barbour, Criminal Defense: White Collar
• Randall W. Bryer, Business Litigation
• Shannon A. Daugherty, Business Litigation
• Drew S. Dean, General Litigation
• Jesse Greenwald, Criminal Defense: White Collar
• Christine M. Jordan, General Litigation
• William Kalema, Business Litigation
• Sri Kuehnlenz, Civil Litigation: Defense
• Marvin J. Lowenthal, Criminal Defense: White Collar
• Barbara K. Luse, Criminal Defense: White Collar
• Benjamin Zhu, General Litigation

The Legal 500 United States 2023 edition has recognized Cohen & Gresser’s New York and Washington, D.C. offices for legal excellence in Antitrust Litigation, Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Crime, Commercial Litigation, and Securities Litigation. Partner Mark Cohen received recognition as a Leading Lawyer in Securities Litigation and Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Crime: Advice to Individuals. The 2023 guide also recognized partners Lawrence T. Gresser, Jonathan Abernethy, Jason Brown, S. Gale Dick, Jeffrey Lang, Melissa Maxman, Douglas Pepe, John Roberti, Daniel Tabak, and Ronald Wick as recommended lawyers. This 16th edition of The Legal 500 United States guide involved a detailed assessment of various factors, including work conducted by law firms over the past 12 months and historically; experience and depth of teams; and client feedback. The guide highlights C&G’s “widespread global footprint” as being “crucial on multifaceted disputes work.” It praises the firm’s “ability to handle high-end and top-of-the-line cases” and “strength in bet-the-company litigation, contract disputes, fraud, and the financial services sector.” Founded in 2002, Cohen & Gresser’s New York office serves as the firm’s headquarters. Our New York attorneys are particularly strong in securities litigation and arbitration, international arbitration, regulatory investigations, patent litigation, and M&A transactions. The firm’s Washington, D .C. office handles a range of commercial litigation and regulatory enforcement actions, with a focus on domestic and foreign antitrust issues.

International law firm Cohen & Gresser has been recognized in The Legal 500 United States 2022 guide for “bringing excitement and innovation to the practice of law.” The 2022 guide recognizes more C&G lawyers and practice areas than ever before, including a 58% increase in individual attorney recommendations and new rankings at the practice and “Leading Lawyer” levels.

The guide highlights C&G’s “elite group of practitioners” and use of advanced machine learning techniques and notes that the firm “handle[s] cases that are every bit as complex and challenging as big, national law firms.” Commentators noted that the firm “punches way above its weight” in litigation and investigation matters.

C&G Co-Founder Mark S Cohen is one of only two lawyers in the United States to be recognized as a “Leading Lawyer” in both Securities Litigation: Defense and Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Criminal Defense. Commentary from The Legal 500 recognizes Mark as a “top-tier advocate” who is “at the top of the profession” and “can litigate with the best of them.”

For the first time, C&G’s Antitrust practice has been recognized in Antitrust: Civil Litigation/Class Actions: Defense for its handling of class action cases concerning allegations of cartel behavior, monopolization, and other exclusionary conducts. The Legal 500 cites the leadership of Melissa H Maxman and the addition of “heavyweight” lawyer John Roberti as key reasons for the practice’s recognition.

C&G is again recognized in the Advice to Individuals and Advice to Corporates categories of the Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Criminal Defense section. The Legal 500 commentary notes that the practice is led by “partners with deep experience who obtain excellent results for clients” and is “well placed to handle transatlantic cases” with offices in New York, Paris, and London, and has “particular expertise in financial crime, antitrust enforcement, public corruption, and tax issues.”

The guide has also recognized C&G once again in the General Commercial Disputes category, praising the practice for showing the “discipline and focus necessary to win a case.” Testimonials from the guide highlight the team’s ability to “handle large and complex matters” with “experienced people, good judgment,” and “better use of technology.”

For the 10th consecutive year, C&G has been recognized in the Securities Litigation: Defense category for the firm’s “expertise in the financial services sector” and “recognized trial expertise” in cross-border and domestic securities litigation and enforcement proceedings. The Legal 500 emphasizes the team’s “strong practitioners” and “attentiveness to clients” in the 2022 guide.

Recognized Practices:

• Antitrust: Civil Litigation/Class Actions: Defense
• Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Criminal Defense: Advice to Individuals
• Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Criminal Defense: Advice to Corporates
• General Commercial Disputes
• Securities Litigation: Defense

Recognized Individuals:

Antitrust: Civil Litigation/Class Actions: Defense

• Melissa H Maxman
• John Roberti
• Ronald F Wick

Corporate Investigations and White-Collar Criminal Defense

• Jonathan S Abernethy
• Jason Brown
• Mark S Cohen
• S Gale Dick
• Jeffrey I Lang
• Melissa H Maxman
• Reggie Schafer

General Commercial Disputes

• Mark S Cohen
• S Gale Dick
• Lawrence T Gresser
• Melissa H Maxman
• Daniel H Tabak

Securities Litigation: Defense

• Jonathan S Abernethy
• Mark S Cohen
• S Gale Dick
• Lawrence T Gresser

About The Legal 500:

The Legal 500 analyzes the capabilities of law firms across the world. Its rankings “highlight the practice area teams who are providing the most cutting edge and innovative advice to corporate counsel.”

Reuters covered the recent summary judgment by the New York Supreme Court to dismiss allegations brought against Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC and two other Wall Street banks in a case alleging a boycott in violation of the Donnelly Act, New York’s antitrust statute.

Cohen & Gresser is pleased to announce that 37 of the firm's New York and Washington D.C.­based attorneys have been named to the 2021 Super Lawyers List across a wide range of practice areas. C&G co-­founder Mark S Cohen and partners Jonathan S Abernethy and Daniel H Tabak have also been named to the Super Lawyers list of the top 100 lawyers in the New York metropolitan area, and partner Karen H Bromberg has been recognized as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the New York metropolitan area.

Super Lawyers ranks outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Only five percent of the lawyers in each state are selected as Super Lawyers, and only 2.5 percent are selected as Rising Stars.

Super Lawyers

Jonathan S Abernethy: Criminal Defense: White Collar

Kwaku Andoh: Mergers & Acquisitions

Elizabeth Bernhardt: Business Litigation

Thomas E Bezanson: Personal Injury – Products: Defense

Colin C Bridge: Criminal Defense: White Collar

Karen H Bromberg: Intellectual Property

Jason Brown: Criminal Defense: White Collar

Joanna K Chan: Securities Litigation

Mark S Cohen: Business Litigation

S Gale Dick: Business Litigation

Christian R Everdell: Criminal Defense: White Collar

Lawrence T Gresser: Business Litigation

Oliver S Haker: Business Litigation

Johannes Jonas: Mergers & Acquisitions

Nicholas J Kaiser: Real Estate

Jeffrey I. Lang: Business Litigation

Melissa H Maxman: Antitrust Litigation

Ellen Paltiel: General Litigation

Nathaniel P T Read: Business Litigation

Bonnie J Roe: Securities & Corporate Finance

Stephen M Sinaiko: Business Litigation

C Evan Stewart: Securities Litigation

Daniel H Tabak: Business Litigation

Scott D Thomson: Business Litigation

Alexandra Wald: Business Litigation

Ronald F Wick: Antitrust Litigation

Rising Stars

Luke Appling: Civil Litigation

Sharon L Barbour: Criminal Defense: White Collar

Drew S Dean: General Litigation

William Kalema: Business Litigation

Sri Kuehnlenz: Civil Litigation

Winnifred A Lewis: Securities Litigation

Marvin J Lowenthal: Criminal Defense: White Collar

Barbara K Luse: Criminal Defense: White Collar

Matthew V Povolny: Business Litigation

Benjamin Zhu: Criminal Defense: White Collar

C&G successfully obtained the First Department’s affirmance of an order dismissing all claims against our client Fidelity Brokerage Services in a dispute stemming from the acts of convicted fraudster Andrew Caspersen, who allegedly deposited the proceeds of a fraudulent scheme into his trading accounts at Fidelity.

Andrew Caspersen was a prominent and wealthy investment banker who used his position at a reputable private equity firm to lure friends and family to invest in shell entities that he created purportedly to make investments in profitable, risk-free opportunities. In reality, Caspersen funneled the stolen funds from the shell entities to a personal trading account that he held at Fidelity. The brokerage firm ultimately terminated Caspersen’s account several months before Caspersen was arrested and charged with securities and wire fraud. After Caspersen’s guilty plea, his defrauded friends and family brought this suit, claiming that Caspersen’s deposits of their money from the shell entities to his personal trading account constituted fraudulent conveyances under New York’s Debtor and Creditor Law and that Fidelity was therefore liable for the funds that Caspersen stole.

The First Department held that Fidelity did not have dominion and control over the assets in Caspersen’s account so there were no conveyances subject to recovery under fraudulent conveyance law.  In addition, it held that Caspersen’s lack of good faith in deceiving his victims did not constitute a lack of good faith for purposes of fraudulent conveyance law. The First Department’s decision reaffirmed important principles of fraudulent conveyance law that protect financial institutions and, in turn, their innocent customers from the costs of unrelated frauds.

The C&G team consisted of Daniel H Tabak, David F Lisner, Nicole Dhir, Alexandra K Theobald, and Jeffrey Sherman.

Cohen & Gresser is pleased to announce that 35 of the firm's New York and Washington D.C.­based attorneys have been named to the 2020 Super Lawyers List across a wide range of practice areas. C&G co-­founder Mark S Cohen and partners Jonathan S Abernethy and Daniel H Tabak have also been named to the Super Lawyers list of the top 100 lawyers in the New York metropolitan area, and partner Karen H Bromberg has been recognized as one of the top 50 women lawyers in the New York metropolitan area.

The Legal 500 has once again recognized Cohen & Gresser in its United States guide. The firm is recognized for its excellence in the following categories:

• Corporate Investigations and White Collar Criminal Defense: Advice to Individuals
• Corporate Investigations and White Collar Criminal Defense: Advice to Corporates
• General Commercial Disputes
• Securities Litigation: Defense

Mark S Cohen is ranked as a “Leading Lawyer” for Securities Litigation: Defense and is described as “an outstanding trial lawyer and strategist who has excellent judgment.” The Legal 500 also notes that “[t]he Cohen & Gresser team does extremely high quality work” and that C&G is “a go-to firm for managing complex disputes.”

A C&G team consisting of Daniel H Tabak, David F Lisner, and Lauren J Salamon achieved a complete dismissal of all claims against our client Fidelity Brokerages Services in a dispute stemming from the acts of convicted fraudster Andrew Caspersen, who allegedly deposited the proceeds of his fraudulent scheme into his trading accounts at Fidelity.

For the eighth consecutive year, Cohen & Gresser has been ranked as a recommended New York law firm by Benchmark Litigation. In addition to the firm’s ranking, firm co-founder Mark S Cohen and partner Daniel H Tabak were individually recognized as Litigation Stars in the publication’s 2020 guide.

We are pleased to announce that 33 of our New York and Washington D.C.-based C&G attorneys have been recognized by Super Lawyers this year across a wide range of practice areas. Super Lawyers also selected C&G co-founder Mark S Cohen and partners Jonathan S Abernethy and Daniel H Tabak to its list of the top 100 lawyers in the New York metropolitan area, and partner Karen H Bromberg to its list of the top 50 women lawyers in the New York metropolitan area.

The Legal 500 has once again recognized Cohen & Gresser in its United States guide. The firm is recognized for its excellence in the following categories:

• Corporate Investigations/White Collar
• Corporate Investigations/White Collar – Advice to Individuals
• General Commercial Disputes
• Securities Litigation Defense

The Legal 500 notes that C&G has “impressive cross border capabilities and is often retained by clients in multijurisdictional disputes” and that our disputes team members are “true litigators, focused, and thoughtful - no stone is left unturned.”

For the seventh consecutive year, Cohen & Gresser has been ranked as a recommended New York law firm by Benchmark Litigation. In addition to the firm’s ranking, Mark S Cohen, Lawrence T Gresser, and Daniel H Tabak were all individually recognized in the publication’s 2019 guide.

We are pleased to announce that thirty of our New York and Washington, D.C.-based C&G attorneys have been recognized by Super Lawyers this year across a wide range of practice areas. Super Lawyers also selected C&G co-founders Mark S Cohen and Lawrence T Gresser to its list of the top 100 lawyers in the New York metropolitan area, and partners Karen H Bromberg and Alexandra Wald as two of its top 50 women lawyers in New York. Super Lawyers ranks outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Fewer than five percent of all lawyers in the U.S. receive this honor.

Daniel H Tabak is quoted in The Wall Street Journal regarding client, Hulk Hogan, and the sale of Gawker.com to Bustle owner Bryan Goldberg.  Dan led Hogan's legal team in the Gawker bankruptcy, which resulted in a settlement entitling Hogan to $31 million plus 45% of the proceeds of the Gawker.com sale.  The gossip news site filed for bankruptcy in June 2016  after a Florida jury awarded Hogan $140 million in his invasion of privacy suit. Photo: Hulk Hogan and Daniel H Tabak

The Legal 500 has once again recognized Cohen & Gresser in its United States guide. The firm is recognized for its achievements in the following categories:

• Corporate Investigations/White Collar – Advice to Corporates
• Corporate Investigations/White Collar – Advice to Individuals
• General Commercial Disputes
• Securities Litigation Defense

The Legal 500 notes that C&G has “an excellent group of sophisticated lawyers” and "has the ability to explain complex structures in plain English.” Nine C&G partners were individually recognized in the guide.

For the sixth consecutive year, Cohen & Gresser has been ranked as a recommended New York law firm by Benchmark Litigation. In addition to the firm’s ranking, partners Mark S Cohen, Lawrence T Gresser, and Daniel H Tabak were all individually recognized in the publication’s 2018 guide. 

Twenty-eight of our New York and Washington D.C.-based Cohen & Gresser attorneys have been recognized by Super Lawyers this year across a wide range of practice areas. Super Lawyers also named C&G co-founding partner Mark S Cohen to its list of the top 100 lawyers in the New York metropolitan area, and partners Karen H Bromberg and Alexandra Wald to its top 50 women lawyers in New York list. Super Lawyers ranks outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Fewer than five percent of all lawyers in the U.S. receive this honor.

Chambers USA and The Legal 500's United States guides have recognized Cohen & Gresser and a number of the firm's lawyers for outstanding achievements during the past year in the categories of Commercial Litigation, Securities Litigation, Patents, and Corporate Investigations and White Collar Defense.

Defunct gossip website Gawker will soon start paying $20 million it owes to shareholders — including founder Nick Denton — court proceedings revealed Wednesday. This action follows a jury's decision last March to award Hulk Hogan $140 million in his invasion of privacy suit against Gawker. C&G's Daniel H Tabak was counsel for Mr. Hogan during these proceedings. 

• "Gawker to Start Paying $20M Owed to Shareholders, Founder Nick Denton," New York Daily News.
• "Gawker Founder Nick Denton to Leave Bankruptcy," The Wall Street Journal.

Twenty-two of our New York and Washington, D.C.-based attorneys have been recognized by Super Lawyers this year across a wide range of practice areas. Super Lawyers also named C&G co-founding partners Mark S Cohen and Lawrence T Gresser to its list of the top 100 lawyers in the New York metropolitan area, and partner Karen H Bromberg to both its list of top 50 women lawyers and top 100 lawyers in the New York metropolitan area.

Daniel H Tabak is leading the team representing Hulk Hogan in the bankruptcy case against Gawker and Nick Denton. The following news outlets provided coverage:

• "Gawker Founder Denied Lease Deal After Hogan Objects," Law360.
• "Nick Denton Hoping Hollywood Will Come to His Rescue," NY Post.

Gawker Media chief Nick Denton will likely be forced to file for personal bankruptcy after a New York judge on denied the company’s request to temporarily shield him from Hulk Hogan’s $140 million sex tape judgment.  Dan Tabak is leading the team representing Hogan in the bankruptcy.

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to establish a narrow interpretation of “actual fraud” in determining whether debts can be discharged through bankruptcy, overturning the Fifth Circuit and endorsing a broader view of a provision that bars parties from shedding debts obtained under false pretenses. In this article, Dan Tabak along with other top attorneys from across the city tell Law360 why the Husky International Electronics Inc. v. Ritz decision is significant.

We are pleased to announce that twenty-two of our New York-based C&G attorneys have been recognized by Super Lawyers this year across a wide range of practice areas. Super Lawyers ranks outstanding lawyers who have attained a high degree of peer recognition and professional achievement. Fewer than five percent of all lawyers in New York receive this honor.

The Legal 500 United States ranked Cohen & Gresser for its achievements in securities litigation in its recently released 2015 guide.  The guide notes Cohen & Gresser’s “extraordinary team of attorneys, who present cases in the best and most efficient manner practicable.”  Partners Mark S. Cohen, Lawrence T Gresser, S Gale Dick, C Evan Stewart, and Daniel H Tabak were also noted as “impressive” attorneys in this field.  The Legal 500 offers nationwide rankings by reviewing the strengths and strategies of law firms across the country.  Founded in 1987, Legalease, publisher of the Legal 500 directories, is a leader in the provision of legal market information, offering authoritative and in-depth analysis and commentary across a broad portfolio of publications, spanning directories, magazines, journals, textbooks, and online. The Legal 500 U.S. 2015 Guide offers nationwide rankings by reviewing the strengths and strategies of law firms across the country. 

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations and individuals do not have an absolute right to immediately appeal the rejection of a bankruptcy plan. C&G Partner, Daniel H Tabak, speaks to Law360 about why the decision is significant.

- Mark S Cohen, Partner:  White Collar Advisory Board - Robert J Gavigan, Partner: Mergers & Acquisitions Advisory Board - Bonnie J Roe, Partner:  Private Equity Advisory Board - Daniel H Tabak, Partner: Legal Ethics Advisory Board - Christopher M P Jackson, Counsel: Life Sciences Advisory Board

The Legal 500 United States ranked Cohen & Gresser for its achievements in securities litigation in its recently released 2014 guide. Legal 500 noted that the firm is "young and nimble," naming Mark S Cohen as the leader of a team of "experienced lawyers who work at a more palatable price than competing firms."  Lawrence T Gresser and Daniel H Tabak are also recommended in light of their successful dismissal of a short swing profits case for Goldman Sachs, and C Evan Stewart was highlighted in the report as an "incredible trial lawyer with big case experience."

Law360's coverage of the recent Second Circuit ruling which affirmed Wednesday that Goldman Sachs Group Inc. won't have to disgorge nearly $2 million in short-swing trade profits of Leap Wireless International Inc. derivatives, finding Goldman wasn't a statutory Leap insider when it purchased the options in question.

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decided Packer ex rel. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. v. Raging Capital Management, LLC, reversing a district court decision that had held that a shareholder plaintiff bringing short-swing profits claims under Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 did not have constitutional standing as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez.^[1]

In the year since the Packer district court decision was issued, a consensus of other district courts had come out the opposite way and concluded that TransUnion did not abrogate Second Circuit precedent on the requirements for Article III standing in the Section 16(b) context. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) appeared as an amicus curiae in the Packer appeal to argue that affirming the Packer district court “would eviscerate Section 16(b)” because “few, if any plaintiffs, would be able to demonstrate standing, contrary to Congress’s intent to create a broad cause of action.”^[2]

The Second Circuit’s reversal settles uncertainty in Section 16(b) cases that had emerged since the initial Packer decision and gives Section 16(b) plaintiffs the green light to pursue claims (at least in the Second Circuit) unless and until the Supreme Court takes up the question.

Section 16(b) Short-Swing Liability

Congress enacted Section 16(b) in 1934 in response to widespread concern that insiders who “may have [had] access to information about their corporations not available to the rest of the investing public” were able to move quickly in and out of that corporation’s securities and “reap profits at the expense of less well informed investors.”^[3]

Once enacted, Section 16(b) created a pathway to require statutory insiders to disgorge the profits they made from short-swing trading. The statute defines insiders as officers, directors and 10% beneficial owners of the corporation.^[4] And it defines short-swing trading as the purchase and sale of securities of the corporation at issue when such purchase and sale were made within a six-month period.^[5]

One feature of Section 16(b) is particularly relevant here: Section 16(b) does not confer enforcement authority on the SEC but instead “recruits the issuer” or “its security holders” as its “policemen.”^[6] Specifically, Section 16(b) permits two types of plaintiffs to pursue relief: (1) the issuer of the security that was traded and (2) a shareholder of that issuer, but only in the event that the issuer fails or refuses to bring the suit within 60 days of a request by that shareholder.^[7] Permitting a shareholder plaintiff to bring a Section 16(b) claim in these circumstances recognizes that a company may be conflicted in pursuing claims against its own insiders.

Article III Standing in Section 16(b) Actions

Article III of the Constitution limits federal courts to the adjudication of “cases” and “controversies.” To meet the Article III requirement of a case or controversy, a plaintiff must demonstrate standing by showing “(i) that he suffered an injury in fact that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; (ii) that the injury was likely caused by the defendant; and (iii) that the injury would likely be redressed by judicial relief.”^[8] The first requirement of Article III standing—concrete injury-in-fact—ensures that “a litigant [has] a direct stake in the controversy and prevents the [federal] judicial process from becoming no more than a vehicle for the vindication of the value interests of concerned bystanders.”^[9]

Congress conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the federal courts to hear Section 16(b) claims.^[10] Accordingly, if a federal court holds that a Section 16(b) plaintiff does not have Article III standing for failure to show an injury-in-fact (or otherwise), that plaintiff could not then bring the same claim in state court.

          A. Second Circuit Law Under Bulldog

The Second Circuit’s leading case on assessing Article III standing and its injury-in-fact requirement for Section 16(b) claims—which predates the Supreme Court’s TransUnion decision—had been Donoghue v. Bulldog Investors General Partnership.^[11]

The Second Circuit in Bulldog affirmed a judgment in favor of the shareholder plaintiff, rejecting the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff could not demonstrate any injury to the issuer resulting from that trading.^[12] Bulldog explained that Section 16(b)

confer[s] on securities issuers a legal right, one that makes 10% beneficial owners constructive trustees of the corporation with a fiduciary duty not to engage in short-swing trading of the issuer’s stock …. It is the invasion of this legal right, without regard to whether the trading was based on inside information, that causes an issuer injury in fact and that compels our recognition of plaintiff’s standing to pursue a § 16(b) claim here.^[13]

Bulldog acknowledged that “[w]hile this particular legal right might not have existed but for the enactment of § 16(b), Congress’s legislative authority to broaden the injuries that can support constitutional standing is beyond dispute.”^[14] With this in mind, the Second Circuit drew upon an analogy developed by Judge Learned Hand in a 1951 Second Circuit decision between the harm redressed by Section 16(b) and that redressed by the claim of breach of trusts at common law:

Judge Hand observed that “[n]obody is obliged to become a director, an officer, or a ‘beneficial owner’; just as nobody is obliged to become the trustee of a private trust; but, as soon as he does so, he accepts whatever are the limitations, obligations and conditions attached to the position, and any default in fulfilling them is as much a ‘violation’ of law as though it were attended by the sanction of imprisonment.”

Thus, pursuant to § 16(b), when a stock purchaser chooses to acquire a 10% beneficial ownership stake in an issuer, he becomes a corporate insider and thereby accepts “the limitation[]” that attaches to his fiduciary status: not to engage in any short-swing trading in the issuer’s stock. At that point, injury depends not on whether the § 16(b) fiduciary traded on inside information but on whether he traded at all.^[15]

          B. The TransUnion Decision

In 2021, TransUnion expanded on prior Supreme Court precedent that had rejected the theory that Article III standing automatically exists where a statute provides for the plaintiff’s standing. As the Supreme Court explained, “we cannot treat an injury as ‘concrete’ for Article III purposes based only on Congress’s say-so.”^[16] Congress may “‘elevate’ harms that ‘exist’ in the real world before Congress recognized them to actionable legal status, [but] it may not simply enact an injury into existence.”^[17]

Under TransUnion (and certain of its predecessor decisions), federal courts have an independent obligation to decide whether a plaintiff has suffered a concrete harm under Article III even if that plaintiff has statutory standing to sue. ^[18] What that inquiry requires depends on the type of harm at issue. “[T]raditional tangible harms,” such as when “a defendant has caused physical or monetary injury to the plaintiff”—will “readily qualify.”^[19] On the other hand, TransUnion explained, “[v]arious intangible harms can also be concrete. Chief among them are injuries with a close relationship to harms traditionally recognized as providing a basis for lawsuits in American courts. Those include, for example, reputational harms, disclosure of private information, and intrusion upon seclusion.”^[20]

The Supreme Court’s application of this principle to the allegations of intangible harm in TransUnion is illustrative: The plaintiffs had brought a class action under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, with some plaintiffs asserting that misleading versions of their credit reports were provided to third-party businesses and others asserting that their credit files contained misleading alerts that were not disseminated to any third parties.^[21] The Court held that the first category of plaintiffs, those whose misleading reports were disclosed, had Article III standing because they alleged a concrete injury analogous to the harm associated with the tort of defamation.^[22] The second category of plaintiffs, whose credit files were not disseminated to third parties, lacked Article III standing because their claims based on the “retention of information lawfully obtained, without further disclosure” were not analogous to traditional harms.^[23]

          C. The District Court’s Decision in Packer

The complaint in Packer alleges that the defendants were 10% beneficial owners of a class of 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. (“1-800-Flowers”) common stock and that they made both purchases and sales of 1-800-Flowers within a six-month period. ^[24] Packer, another holder of 1-800-Flowers common stock, brought suit on behalf 1-800-Flowers seeking disgorgement of the short-swing profits.^[25]

The district court in Packer held that Bulldog did not survive TransUnion, reasoning that

the notion in Bulldog that a violation of Section 16(b) alone sufficiently confers Article III standing upon the issuing corporation or derivative shareholder without more, cannot co-exist with TransUnion’s pronouncement that a statutory violation and a cause of action alone are insufficient to support Article III standing without a showing of concrete harm to the plaintiff. In that respect, Bulldog cannot be squared with TransUnion and TransUnion controls.^[26]

The district court acknowledged that for “intangible harms,” the “bedrock of the concrete injury inquiry is whether the alleged injury has a close relationship to a harm ‘traditionally’ recognized as providing a basis for a lawsuit in American court.”^[27]

As to Packer’s claim, the court concluded that because Packer failed “to point to or articulate any actual reputational harm” or other “actual injury allegations” accruing to 1-800-Flowers, Packer lacked Article III standing under TransUnion.^[28]

The Second Circuit’s Decision in Packer

Packer appealed the district court decision. In addition to the parties’ briefs, the SEC filed an amicus brief in support of plaintiff’s position that standing exists. The Second Circuit heard argument on May 6, 2024, and defendants-appellees conceded at the argument that they would necessarily lose if TransUnion did not abrogate Bulldog.

The Second Circuit issued its decision reversing the district court on June 24, 2024. The Second Circuit identified “several errors” with the district court’s decision.^[29]

First, the Second Circuit held TransUnion did not abrogate Bulldog because Bulldog’s analysis of the harm in Section 16(b) cases correctly identified, as TransUnion and its predecessors required, “‘a close historical or common-law analogue for the[] asserted injury’ to support constitutional standing.”^[30] As the Second Circuit explained:

Just as a common-law fiduciary who deals with the trust estate for his own personal profit must account to the beneficiary for all the gain which he has made, a statutory fiduciary who engages in short-swing trading owes its gains to the corporation under Section 16(b). The deprivation of these profits inflicts an injury sufficiently concrete to confer constitutional standing.^[31]

Second, although both the Second Circuit and district court acknowledged that plaintiff Packer did “not base his standing argument on a risk of harm,”^[32] the district court suggested that “some courts have framed the concrete harm associated with a Section 16(b) violation as grounded in the risk of harm,” which, in its view, was insufficient under TransUnion.^[33] The Second Circuit dispelled any notion that Section 16(b) standing was dependent on a risk of harm theory, explaining that the “concrete injury that confers standing on Packer is, as we recognized in [Bulldog], ‘the breach by a statutory insider of a fiduciary duty owed to the issuer not to engage in and profit from any short-swing trading of its stock.’”^[34]

The Second Circuit noted that defendants-appellees’ remaining arguments attacked Bulldog itself, which the Circuit was bound to follow unless vacated en banc or by the Supreme Court. It nonetheless addressed a few of those arguments, including the argument that the defendants-appellees in the Packer case specifically could not be fiduciaries “because they did not exercise control over [the issuer], sit on its board of directors, or trade on inside information.”^[35] The Second Circuit in Packer embraced Bulldog’s response to this argument: While Section 16(b) may have been enacted to combat trading on inside information, the legal right enacted to remedy that wrong—imposing a fiduciary duty on 10% shareholders, irrespective of their actual access to information, to eschew any short swing trading—was broader.^[36]

Takeaways from the Second Circuit’s Packer Ruling

The Second Circuit’s ruling in Packer should not cause shockwaves among federal courts, particularly because the vast majority of courts addressing the standing issue in the year since the district court decision in Packer have held that TransUnion and Bulldog are reconcilable and that plaintiffs have constitutional standing to assert Section 16(b) claims.^[37] However, as the SEC noted, the ramifications of the potential adoption of the Packer district court’s conclusion were possibly huge because requiring a plaintiff to allege “actual reputational harm” flowing from a Section 16(b) breach (as the district court in Packer had) “would undercut Congress’s purpose by making actions to recover short-swing profits almost impossible.”^[38]

For Section 16(b) plaintiffs, the Second Circuit will remain a popular venue to file their claims, as they will be assured of getting past the standing question (absent an en banc hearing or Supreme Court intervention) and venue is often present as a result of listing on a New York-based exchange. For Section 16(b) defendants, while the standing argument will not work in the Second Circuit (again, absent en banc or Supreme Court intervention), the remaining toolkit for the procedural and merits-based defense against Section 16(b) claims is otherwise unchanged.

Endnotes:

[1] Packer ex rel. 1-800-Flowers.Com, Inc. v. Raging Cap. Mgmt., LLC, No. 23-367, --- F.4th ----, 2024 WL 3092561 (2d Cir. June 24, 2024) (“Packer Appellate Decision”) (citing TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413 (2021)).

[2] Br. of the SEC, Amicus Curiae, in Supp. of Pl.-Appellant at 9, Packer ex rel. 1-800 Flowers.com, Inc. v. Raging Cap. Mgmt., LLC, No. 23-367 (2d. Cir. filed June 29, 2023) (ECF No. 50) (“SEC Amicus Br.”).

[3] Foremost-McKesson, Inc. v. Provident Sec. Co., 423 U.S. 232, 243 (1976); see also Kern Cnty. Land Co. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 411 U.S. 582, 608 (1973) (“The congressional investigations that led to the enactment of the Securities Exchange Act revealed widespread use of confidential information by corporate insiders to gain an unfair advantage in trading their corporations’ securities.”).

[4] 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b).

[5] Id.

[6] Donoghue v. Bulldog Invs. Gen. P’ship, 696 F.3d 170, 174 (2d Cir. 2012) (citing 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b)).

[7] 15 U.S.C. § 78p(b).

[8] TransUnion, 594 U.S. at 423.

[9] United States v. Students Challenging Regul. Agency Procs. (SCRAP), 412 U.S. 669, 687 (1973).

[10] 15 U.S.C. § 78aa(a).

[11] 696 F.3d 170 (2d Cir. 2012).

[12] Id. at 172.

[13] Id. at 179 (cleaned up).

[14] Id.

[15] Id. at 177 (quoting Gratz v. Claughton, 187 F.2d 46, 49 (2d Cir. 1951)) (emphasis and alterations in original).

[16] TransUnion, 594 U.S. at 426 (internal citation omitted).

[17] Id. (internal citation omitted).

[18] Id.

[19] Id. at 425.

[20] Id. (internal citations omitted).

[21] Id. at 432–34.

[22] Id. at 432–33.

[23] Id. at 433–39.

[24] Packer District Court Decision, 661 F. Supp. 3d at 8.

[25] Id. at 8 & 13 n.10

[26] Id. at 17 (emphasis in original).

[27] Id. at 10.

[28] Id. at 14.

[29] Packer Appellate Decision, 2024 WL 3092561, at *4-7. In addition to its substantive analysis, the Second Circuit held that it was error for the district court in Packer to “preemptively declar[e] that our caselaw has been abrogated by intervening Supreme Court decisions,” rather than follow binding precedent until it has been overturned, except in “rare case[s]” unlike the one at hand. Id. at *4-5 & n.36. The Second Circuit further noted that TransUnion’s requirement of a concrete injury for constitutional standing even in the context of a statutory violation derived from an earlier Supreme Court decision, Spokeo Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 340-41 (2016), and that the Second Circuit had already reaffirmed Bulldog after Spokeo, in Klein v. Qlik Technologies, Inc., 906 F.3d 215, 220 (2d Cir. 2018). Packer Appellate Decision, 2024 WL 3092561, at *5.

[30] Id. at *5 (quoting TransUnion, 594 U.S. at 424) (alteration in original).

[31] Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).

[32] Id. at *6; Packer District Court Decision, 661 F. Supp. 3d at 15 n.13.

[33] Packer District Court Decision, 661 F. Supp. 3d at 13.

[34] Packer Appellate Decision, 2024 WL 3092561, at *6.

[35] Id. at *6 n.55.

[36] Id. The Second Circuit also noted that TransUnion did not require that the statutory right “exact[ly] duplicate” its common-law analogue, so this broadening was not improper. Id. (quoting TransUnion, 594 U.S. at 433).

[37] See, e.g., Roth v. Armistice Cap., LLC, No. 1:20-CV-08872 (JLR), 2024 WL 1313817, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2024) (Rochon, J.) (holding that plaintiff has standing because “breach of trust, by itself, is a concrete intangible injury”); Augenbaum v. Anson Invs. Master Fund LP, No. 22-CV-249 (AS), 2024 WL 263208, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 24, 2024) (Subramanian, J.) (holding that Section 16(b) violations “are breaches of trust, which satisfies TransUnion’s search for a traditional injury” (cleaned up)); Microbot Med., Inc. v. Mona, No. 19-CV-3782 (GBD)(RWL), 2024 WL 564176, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2024) (Lehrburger, M.J.) (“Microbot incurs a concrete injury while deprived of the constructive trust’s holdings. Microbot therefore has Article III standing.”), report and recommendation adopted, No. 19-CV-3782 (GBD)(RWL), 2024 WL 964594 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 5, 2024) (Daniels, J.) (“Because Bulldog determined that § 16(b) plaintiffs suffer concrete harm analogous to the common law injury of breach of trust, Bulldog is compatible with TransUnion’s requirement that a plaintiff has suffered a harm with “a close historical or common-law analogue.” (cleaned up)); Avalon Holdings Corp. v. Gentile, No. 18-CV-7291 (DLC), 2023 WL 4744072, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. July 25, 2023) (Cote, J.) (“[T]he Second Circuit in Bulldog analyzed the harm suffered by a § 16(b) plaintiff and reasoned that it was akin to the common law injury of breach of trust arising from the 10% beneficial owner’s fiduciary duty to the issuer.”); Safe & Green Holdings Corp. v. Shaw, No. 23-CV-2244 (DLC), 2023 WL 5509319, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2023) (Cote, J.) (incorporating Avalon); Revive Investing LLC v. Armistice Cap. Master Fund, Ltd., No. 20-CV-02849 (CMA)(SKC), 2023 WL 5333768, at *8 (D. Colo. Aug. 18, 2023) (“The Court finds that a harm suffered by a Section 16(b) plaintiff is analogous to the common law injury of breach of trust.”).

One decision, Avalon Holdings Corp. v. Gentile, noted that the plaintiff’s “pleadings describe dramatic fluctuations in stock prices caused by the defendants’ trading and illegally obtained profits accruing to the defendants in the millions of dollars,” which established “the concrete harm that Congress elevated to a legally cognizable injury.” 2023 WL 4744072, at *6.

We identified only one decision that followed the Packer district court and concluded that a Section 16(b) plaintiff had no standing. Forte Biosciences, Inc. v. Camac Fund, LP, No. 3:23-CV-2399-N, 2024 WL 2946584, at *3 (N.D. Tex. June 11, 2024). This decision from outside of the Second Circuit (where Bulldog is not binding) did not contain any reasoning, stating only that “Forte does not plead any injury to itself from the alleged section 16(b) violation.” Id. (citing the Packer District Court Decision and TransUnion).

[38] SEC Amicus Br. at 25.

Since Congress amended the preference section of the Bankruptcy Code in 2019, bankruptcy courts have grappled with how to interpret the due diligence requirement added by the amendment and what burden it imposes on plaintiffs before they bring preference claims. In particular, courts are divided on whether the 2019 amendment adds an affirmative pleading requirement and, if so, how that pleading requirement can be met.

In this C&G Client Alert, Daniel H Tabak, Randall W Bryer and Christine M Jordan explore the background of the amendment and the recent case law interpreting the revised Bankruptcy Code section. The authors conclude with practical advice for defendants amid the continued uncertainty.

The corporate bankruptcy & insolvency litigation landscape has drastically changed as a result of COVID-19. With government relief packages winding down, the financial impact of the pandemic will increasingly be playing out in bankruptcy and insolvency proceedings. As this picture becomes clear, businesses should understand the key questions and answers necessary to prepare for resulting disputes.

• What are the common issues arising in the corporate bankruptcy and insolvency process in today’s market, and how will those issues complicate bankruptcy litigation?
• How have recent court rulings impacted the corporate bankruptcy litigation space, and how are these issues likely to affect parties going forward?
• What are the most significant factors in reaching as positive an outcome as possible for all parties involved in a bankruptcy dispute?

In this roundtable feature published by Financier Worldwide, Daniel H Tabak joins other bankruptcy and litigation experts from the United States and United Kingdom to answer these questions and more. The panelists discuss recent trends and examine what’s next for businesses that may find themselves navigating bankruptcy and insolvency disputes and what they need to know going forward.

Daniel H Tabak and Drew S Dean discuss the opinion of Magistrate Judge Gorenstein of the Southern District of New York in Revive Investing LLC v. FBC Holdings S.A.R.L. After finding that a prior settlement agreement between the defendant and different plaintiffs was valid and contained a release that precluded the claim at issue, Judge Gorenstein recommended the grant of summary judgment to the defendant in a Section 16(b) “short-swing profit” action. Dan and Drew go on to explore the future implications of Judge Gorenstein’s opinion and explain what this will mean for Section 16(b) litigants going forward.

Daniel H Tabak and Lauren J Salamon discuss the first case addressing force majeure in the context of government-ordered closures to halt the spread of COVID-19.

Daniel H Tabak and Drew S Dean discuss the Second Circuit's dismissal of the Section 16 "short-swing profit" claims against the client of an investment advisory firm that was itself subject to Section 16(b) liability in Rubenstein v. Int’l Value Advisers, LLC. They go on to examine the question of whether a family of hedge funds with a combined holding of over 10% of an issuer may similarly avoid short-swing trading liability under Section 16 even if the funds are all managed by the same advisor.

Over the past few years, forum selection bylaws have become an established part of corporate governance. This trend has gained momentum during the past few months as such provisions have gained both judicial and legislative support. On the judicial side, most courts have enforced such bylaws. And, on the legislative side, recent amendments to Delaware law now provide statutory support for some uses of forum selection bylaws. This update provides more detail on these key developments and explores how companies should think about forum selection bylaws going forward.

Two hot topics in client conflicts have been client affiliate conflicts and advance conflict waivers.   A recent decision in the Western District of Pennsylvania addressed the intersection of these two topics using a novel approach, construing a law firm’s advance waiver provision as an agreement that created client conflicts that would not otherwise exist.  This article discusses the decision and provides suggestions on how law firms can insulate themselves from suffering  similar unintended results.

Published by Bloomberg BNA, the treatise covers all aspects of the FINRA arbitration process, including prehearing matters, motion practice, hearings, and awards, and also provides a detailed guide to FINRA investigations and enforcement actions.

The Delaware Court of Chancery has again affirmed the validity of exclusive forum bylaws.  This time the bylaw selected North Carolina, and not Delaware, as the forum.  By honoring a choice of forum outside of Delaware, the case helps pave the way for a wider acceptance of exclusive forum bylaws.  The case also suggests that an exclusive forum bylaw may be adopted on the eve of a merger, thus increasing the usefulness of these bylaws as a defense against multijurisdictional litigation in connection with a change of control transaction. Read more

Conflicts of interest is an ethical area that poses many challenges for practicing lawyers. These challenges are particularly acute for lawyers who practice in transnational and international law firms. The authors address one of the most prickly of them in the foregoing article.

Parties often opt for arbitration to obtain confidentiality that is unavailable in court proceedings. This alert addresses two recent decisions that address the confidentiality of proceedings before the Delaware Court of Chancery.  In these cases even the Delaware legislature, the agreement of the parties, and genuine confidentiality concerns could not trump the presumption of open public proceedings.

As we have previously noted, exclusive forum bylaws potentially offer protection from the risks of multi-jurisdictional litigation.  Recent developments include the withdrawal of an appeal from a Delaware Court of Chancery decision that found such bylaws facially valid and additional feedback from proxy advisory firms.  This alert provides an overview of questions that remain unresolved and provides guidance to companies and stockholders considering exclusive forum bylaws.

Delving into how exclusive forum charter and bylaw provisions limit certain types of shareholder litigation to the corporation’s jurisdiction of incorporation, this article outlines the potential to reduce or eliminate the cost and strategic difficulties of multijurisdictional challenges to corporate action.

C&G partner Daniel Tabak served as a panelist in a webinar for the IPO IP Chat Channel, discussing the status of conflict waivers under legal and ethical rules, the various types of advance waivers, and how courts have evaluated the text of the waiver and the surrounding facts in a number of decisions. The panelists will also offer tips for how to negotiate and draft advance waivers that can best serve the needs of both clients and law firms.

The faculty presenting this program covered all aspects of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) arbitration process, including prehearing matters, motion practice, hearings, and awards, and also provided a detailed guide to FINRA investigations and enforcement actions. Leveraging outcomes from recent cases and investigations, the aim of this presentation was to arm participants with the tools and knowledge needed to effectively litigate for their clients who may find themselves as parties in these types of proceedings.

Each year, the New York State Bar Association (NYSBA) hosts its Ethics for Corporate Counsel program, which covers ethical issues facing attorneys and other business entities. This year, C&G partner Daniel H. Tabak sat on the Current Issues & Best Practices panel.

"Bankruptcy Basics" provided an introduction to fundamental bankruptcy concepts. The presentation outlined the basic bankruptcy process, the different chapters of bankruptcy, how claims are filed, adjudicated, and paid, and how court proceedings function.