loader
Page is loading...
OVERVIEW

Commercial Litigation WHEN IT COUNTS

Barnes & Thornburg is a national “commercial litigation powerhouse” that “represents an impressive national client base and has the depth to handle complex, high-profile national disputes.” (Chambers USA: A Guide to America’s Leading Lawyers in Business)

As one of the 100 largest law firms in the country with more than 600 legal professionals in 14 offices across the country including Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis and Atlanta, we can serve your commercial litigation needs wherever they arise. We have the geographic, personnel and technological resources - in addition to the skill and experience - to handle -bet the company- litigation. Because of our geography and goal-oriented approach, we can do so more efficiently than other national litigation firms.

Our successful trial practice and comprehensive trial resources distinguish us. Our lawyers have tried - not just litigated - hundreds of cases in a wide range of commercial, securities, antitrust, corporate governance, construction, intellectual property, and insurance coverage cases. Our work in national class actions has been widely recognized by our clients as innovative on certification and merits issues.

As a result, we have increasingly been selected as trial counsel in one-of-a kind disputes by a number of the country's largest corporations in a variety of industries. In addition, the firm has represented our clients in every state in the nation, including the most challenging venues, and serves as national or regional litigation counsel for some of the most recognizable names in corporate America, such as The Valspar Corporation, Beazer Homes USA Inc., 3M Company, Whirlpool Corporation, and TASER International, Inc.

Our trial resources are unique. We are one of the only full-service firms in the country with a trial consulting and jury research affiliate, ThemeVision LLC. ThemeVision's professionals include graphic artists and animators, as well as Ph.D. psychologists with national reputations in the study of jury decision making, judicial decision making, and courtroom persuasion. ThemeVision conducts empirical research, including focus groups, mock jury trials, mock bench trials, mock ADR, telephone surveys, and Internet-based survey research on a national basis. With that empirical data, ThemeVision works collaboratively with our trial teams, to evaluate cases, develop winning case themes and presentation strategies, and, overall, to bring increased predictability to the litigation process.

We also understand the complexity and burdens associated with litigation in the world of electronically stored information and have nationwide experience and resources to help our clients manage ESI issues. Our lawyers and staff have developed cutting-edge tools and processes to ascertain and recommend effective and cost efficient ESI strategies before responding to requests. We have implemented ESI strategies in virtually every state that help our clients cost-effectively gather, analyze and produce ESI. We work together with vendors to provide document review resources at reduced prices. Our thorough understanding of this continually-emerging legal landscape allows us to aggressively pursue and protect our clients- interests.

As Chambers USA has recognized, Barnes & Thornburg is a -litigation powerhouse- with national reach. We have the resources and the passion, skill and experience to handle sophisticated litigation efficiently and effectively anywhere in the country.

Practice Leaders

Tab 4
Tab 5
EXPERIENCE
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a medical equipment finance company in a commercial litigation case that arose out of a deal between our client and a hospital to install highly sophisticated medical treatment equipment in its surgical facilities. The hospital breached the agreement and our client brought suit to enforce the agreement. This high stakes case settled on very favorable terms for our client with the hospital purchasing our client's interest in the contract after a year of litigation.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney successfully defended firm client, Eric Kus, the former CEO of a tier-two automotive supplier, Eagle Trim, Inc., from an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax assessment in excess of $1 million. The lengthy case lasted more than 13 years and included two trips to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit and to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. The complicated matter, resolved in 2017, involved trust fund tax liability, alleged fraud by parties other than Kus, and alleged failure to pay employee withholding taxes in 2000. After reversing the district court on two separate occasions, the Sixth Circuit remanded the case back to the district court to conduct proceedings on the appellants' right to recover the assets that were seized by the IRS over the past 10 years in satisfaction of the original judgment.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney defended a major scrap metal dealer against predatory pricing claims brought in El Paso, Texas. The client prevailed after a one-week jury trial. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a heavy equipment manufacturer who secured favorable jury findings following a jury trial of a commercial dispute involving breach of contract, breach of warranty and fraud in Starr County, Texas (The Valley). (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornbug attorney represented a plaintiff in an action brought to enforce the collection of two promissory notes. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant. Client appealed and the appellate court reversed. On remand we tried the cases and collected the full judgment on the two notes.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney a defended Texas electrical cooperative against class action claims. The trial court denied a class seeking monetary relief and certified a class seeking non-monetary relief. The Barnes & Thornburg attorney successfully argued in the Court of Appeals that neither class should have been certified. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney acted as co-counsel for an auto finance company in the defense of two putative class actions alleging Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) violations. The United States district court dismissed the claims for lack of standing.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney acted as co-counsel for Merrill Lynch & Co.. The Court affirmed the dismissal of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Merrill Lynch brought by former directors arising out of a limited fairness opinion issued in connection with a proposed acquisition. Massey v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., 464 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 2006).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney defended a broker-dealer in a class action alleging that its sales training caused its registered representatives to fraudulently minimize risk on mutual fund and limited partnership investments. After partial verdicts for only three out of over 35 named plaintiffs, plaintiffs voluntarily decertified class.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney defended a data aggregator in class actions alleging violations of federal privacy statutes in Texas and Missouri. Both courts granted motions to dismiss on behalf of the data aggregator. The Fifth and Sixth Circuits affirmed both dismissals. The Barnes & Thornburg attorney successfully argued the case on behalf of all defendants in the Sixth Circuit. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney defended a major international supplier of specialty steel pipe against class action claims brought in the Southern District of Texas. The case was settled for a nominal sum. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney defended a major U.S. charity against class action conspiracy claims brought in the Northern District of Texas. The case was dismissed. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney defended a majority shareholder of privately held radio station in lawsuit brought by dissident minority shareholder premised on minority oppression. Defended oppression claim and prosecuted counterclaim against minority shareholder for converting corporate assets. Case settled with buyout of minority shareholder on favorable terms.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney defended a national restaurant chain in a class action alleging violations of a federal privacy statute. The case was settled for a nominal sum. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney defended a professional employment recruiting company, in a suit brought by the former company president against parent company, parent’s majority owner, and general counsel. The suit involved a complex contract dispute over former president’s claim that his employment compensation agreements included ownership interest in the company. The suit was successfully mediated early in the litigation process.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney defended a regional supermarket chain against claims of attempted monopolization and conspiracy to restrain trade brought in the Western District of Texas. The case was settled shortly before trial. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney defended an agricultural cooperative against claims of fraud and violations of the Commodity Exchange Act asserted on behalf of putative classes in two cases regarding hedge-to-arrive contracts.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney defended disinterested directors who approved a going private transaction against claims of breach of fiduciary duty and violation of section 14(d)(4) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. After a request for preliminary injunction was defeated in Indiana state court, that action and the other seven that had been filed in state and federal court were dismissed.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney defended Keystone RV on a breach of warranty claim, obtained summary judgment from the trial court and then defended that summary judgment on appeal; appellate court affirmed lower court's decision. Williams v. Keystone RV, No. 20A05-0609-CV-525 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney defended Stellhorn against America's Directories' claim of breach of contract, and brought a counterclaim for fraud. Following trial, jury found in favor of Stelhorn on original claim and on counterclaim, awarding Stelhorn its damages, attorney fees and punitive damages. On appeal of jury’s verdict for Stellhorn; appellate court affirmed lower court's ruling. America's Directories, Inc. v. Stellhorn One Hour Photo, Inc., 833 N.E.2d 1059 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney defended two major companies in multibillion dollar class action suits alleging a conspiracy to fix prices in 17 states. The attorney served on the executive committee that coordinated the defense of all defendants in each case. After the defendants defeated class certification motions in five states, the plaintiffs agreed to a nominal settlement. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney has served as lead arbitration counsel in defense of a $30 million dealer-distributor termination brought against an electronics company. The claimant alleged breach of contract and conspiracy to terminate its national distributorship of surge suppression products. Claimant was awarded nothing and ordered to pay on EFI's trademark infringement counterclaim.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented investment representative in “forgivable” loan matter. The Court of Appeals affirmed vacating cognovit note judgment against brokerage firm employee based upon a “forgivable” loan. The court held that by making the arbitration provision of the National Association of Securities Dealers a prerequisite for employment, the brokerage firm was barred from seeking a cognovit judgment in court when the broker terminated his employment. McDonald Investments, Inc. v. Fearn, 2002 WL 334882, 2002-Ohio-898, Ohio App., 5th Dist. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a broker-dealer in a putative class action alleging that the client had sold non-exempt securities that were not registered as required under the Indiana Securities Act and obtained a voluntary dismissal of those claims.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a broker-dealer in connection with investigations conducted by SEC, NASD, NYSE and several state securities regulators in connection with multiple claims of churning and unsuitable and unauthorized trades against registered representative. No action was taken against broker-dealer.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a broker-dealer in federal court proceeding brought by customers seeking to vacate an arbitration award rendered in NASD (National Association of Securities Dealers) arbitration proceedings. Worthington Venture Fund, Inc. v. Public Securities, Inc., Case No. C-2-02-CVH-505 (S.D. Ohio 2004). (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a cash advance lender in a putative class action, obtaining an order compelling arbitration of the claims despite a challenge that the arbitration clauses were illegal, unconscionable and unenforceable. Furgason v. McKenzie Check Advance of Indiana, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2725 (S.D. Ind. 2001).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a chemical product manufacturer in overcoming lost-policy issues and other challenging coverage issues to confirm obligations of liability insurer for investigation expenses incurred following policyholder’s enrollment of manufacturing site in the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s Voluntary Remediation Program. The case involved significant conflict of laws and coverage issues, but through negotiation the client manufacturer obtained almost complete recovery of legal, investigative, and remediation expenses.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a coal mining company in an action under Federal Act to compel defendant to international arbitration in coal supply contract dispute. PT Kaltim Prima Coal v. Intergen Servs., No. 1:03cv10573 (D. Mass., filed Mar. 28, 2003).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a coal supplier in litigation enforcing a long-term coal supply agreement following declaration of force majeure by supplier and buyer’s subsequent refusal to accept delivery. PT Kaltim Prima Coal v. AES Barbers Point, Inc., No. 00 Civ. 7196 (AKH) (S.D.N.Y. 2001).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a Commodity Futures Trading (CFTC) Receiver in implementing a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) from the court and assisted with seizure of Melrose Asset Management’s and John Loftgren’s assets.

    http://www.cftc.gov/opa/enf02/opa4695-02.htm. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a computer leasing company in an arbitration resulting in substantial payment under private company directors and officers (D&O) policy liability for litigation costs arising from underlying business dispute. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a construction trade association in a case involving prevailing party attorney fees award in connection with a successful equal protection challenge to a construction set-aside statute. This case decided two issues of first impression in the Sixth Circuit. First, attorney fees awarded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, accrue post judgment interest under 28 U.S.C. § 1981, and second, interest accrues from the date of judgment that the prevailing party is found to be unconditionally entitled to an award of attorney fees. Associated General Contractors of Ohio, Inc. v. Drabik, 250 F.3d 482 (6th Cir. 2001). (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a credit union in a putative class action suit in which the plaintiffs challenged the validity of a merger between firm client and another credit union. The plaintiffs alleged that their financial interests had been harmed as a result of the merger. Firm client prevailed, obtaining a dismissal of the suit.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a distributor in a dispute against the plaintiff, a former dealer, who alleged a newly enacted statute applied to its prior relationship with the snowmobile manufacturer. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff’s original complaint on the grounds that the retroactive application of the new statute was an unconstitutional impairment of contract. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80147.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a financial advisor in a state enforcement action brought against broker-dealer and several of its financial advisors. The State of Missouri voluntarily dismissed actions against the Firm’s client.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a financial advisory services corporation in usury analysis of previous contracts, as well as usury corrective activities. The attorney analyzed previously executed loan agreements and devised a strategy to allow for enforcement of those agreements without exposing the client to liability for the usurious contracts. The client ultimately received a judgment for the amount it sought under the agreements. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a former CFO in securities fraud class action brought against issuer and its officers.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a former controller in derivative litigation brought against officers of corporation for allegedly causing or allowing corporation to violate the securities laws.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a former corporate officer in the formation of a sophisticated trust established by client’s former employer and its insurance carriers following insurer’s threatened rescission of directors and officers liability policies. Firm attorney further represented client in making successful claim against the trust to fund a settlement of claims asserted against client and payment of the client’s defense costs.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a former executive in a million-dollar breach of contract action. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment in the amount of $1.3 million for breach of employment contract. In addition, the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s finding that the former employer waived its right to arbitrate the claim under the employment agreement. Stoll v. United Magazine Co., 2004 WL 1109718, 2004-Ohio-2523, Ohio App., 10th Dist. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a global electronics manufacturer in the defense of a consumer class action assigned to the Complex Case Division of the Superior Court. The claims related to allegations of fraud in the conduct of product rebates offered by client. A very favorable, class-wide settlement was reached after the Court’s hearing on class certification indicated that the class certification for trial would be denied. Luis Ho v. Samsung Electronics of America, Case No. 03AS03429, Superior Court for the County of Sacramento. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a global electronics manufacturer in the defense of consumer class action assigned to the Complex Case Division of the Superior Court. The Plaintiffs alleged that client misrepresented the storage capacity of the memory on cell phones by stating the memory capacity in bytes. This was one of among several identical suits filed across the United States. The court granted client’s motion to dismiss based on the Metric Treaty, which permitted the unit of measurement used by client. This defense was later taken and applied in the cases pending in other States. Barbara Johnson, et al. v. Samsung Telecommunications of America, Case No. BC 323004, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a government contractor in an antitrust case in the Southern District of California. Our client obtained a full dismissal after the Plaintiff alleged that the government contractor participated in a group boycott and bid rigging conspiracy which excluded plaintiff from winning lucrative federal contracts. The client asserted defenses of no antitrust injury, implausibility under Twombly, and a novel Rothery defense that the bidding scheme actually accomplished a more competitive market.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a group of investors in the prosecution of a breach of contract claim and obtained summary judgment on promissory note. Collected full amount owed through citation to discover assets on behalf of clients.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a health care company and company chairman/CEO who secured a take-nothing jury verdict against civil fraud and contract claims arising from a hospital asset purchase transaction. The client also secured a favorable jury verdict on a civil wiretapping counterclaim. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a health care company in a case involving complex employment and business disputes in a Texas county court on claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of noncompetition covenants, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference, conspiracy and statutory theft. The health care company client prevailed, securing a multimillion-dollar jury verdict. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a large auction house in the arbitration of a breach of contract dispute with the owner of a company acquired by the auction house. The arbitrator issued an award in favor of the client and the Barnes & Thornburg attorney successfully argued in the Fifth Circuit that the award should be confirmed. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a large technology and defense contractor in a breach of contract arbitration with a food irradiation company. The issue boiled down to the defense contractor’s expertise and ability to create a cutting edge nuclear technology, which the food irradiation company claimed could not be done. After a week-long arbitration hearing, including detailed testimony on nuclear technology, the client received an award for the full amount it was seeking. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a major agricultural chemical distributor in multiple class actions involving the herbicide atrazine, which was allegedly present in surface water of multiple municipal water districts. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a major German bank in relation to securities issued through various Delaware entities. The bank was sued by investors claiming that the securities were to be given certain preferential treatment by the bank. The attorney devised a strategy to combat the claims and was successful in ultimately reducing the bank’s exposure. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a major healthcare product manufacturer in various product liability cases involving claims of infant formula product contamination by enterobacter sakazakii. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a major homebuilder and won reversal and a summary judgment on appeal in a dispute about the meaning of terms in a developer’s agreement to build a residential subdivision. Beazer Homes Indiana, LLP v. Carriage Courts Homeowners Ass'n, Inc., 905 N.E.2d 20 (Ind. Appl. 2009).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a major real estate investor in the defense of an injunctive relief action related to transaction concerning long term care facilities. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a major retailer in arbitration involving consumer complaints. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment referring consumer complaints to arbitration and holding that consumers were not entitled to a jury trial on the issues of making the arbitration agreement or failure to perform it. Cheney v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 2005 WL 1515388, 2005-Ohio-3283, Ohio App. 10th Dist. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a major tobacco manufacturer, which sued a retail chain of discount tobacco stores for trademark infringement and prevailed against Sherman Act and Robinson-Patman counterclaims alleging that the manufacturer conspired with other retailers to provide discounts to those retailers, but not to the defendant retailer, and engaged in price discrimination in violation of the Robinson-Patman Act. The manufacturer client obtained summary judgment prior to trial on the Section 1 claim and prevailed on the remaining claim after a six-week long trial in late 2004. The defendant appealed the decision and in August 2006, the Seventh Circuit unanimously affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on the Sherman Act claim and rejected the retail chain's challenges to certain of the trial court's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions on the Robinson-Patman claim. On February 20, 2007, the United States Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition for certiorari without comment or elaboration. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. v. Premium Tobacco Stores, No. 99 C 1174, 2005 WL 293512 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 15, 2004), aff'd, 462 F.3d 690 (7th Cir. 2006), cert. denied, No. 06-848, 2007 U.S. LEXIS 2142 (Feb. 20, 2007).

    (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a media company and founder in coverage and bad faith litigation resulting in seven-figure recovery under aviation policy after seizure of private jet by governmental agency. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a medical equipment manufacturer and home care service provider in a suit involving the failure to deliver a Falcon Dassault private jet to the intended buyer. On behalf of client, we successfully defended lawsuit based on buyer’s failure to properly mitigate its damages and lawsuit settled favorably.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a medical practice in litigation to establish liability insurer’s duty to defend personal injury claim. A favorable resolution was reached.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a metal castings manufacturer client whose former employee improperly sued the third party administrator of client’s ERISA health care plan. The suit was filed because the TPA would not pay former employee’s health expenses, because his attorney failed to present the necessary documentation of employee’s medical care within deadlines established by health plan. The Barnes & Thornburg attorney provided counsel to client on insurance coverage and ramifications of decision to pay or not to pay medical benefits under plan.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a multinational energy company who obtained a consent judgment affording nationwide protection against business disruptions caused by illegal and tortious conduct, after securing a landmark temporary injunction provided nationwide protection (Greenpeace, Inc. v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 133 S.W.3d 804, Tex. App.–Dallas). (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a national bank in a case in the Ninth Circuit in which the court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the bank, holding that bank could not be liable for tortious interference with contract to which it was a party.

    Calstar LLC v. First Union National Bank, 111 Fed. Appx. 454 (9th Cir. 2004). (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a national bank in a complex trial of a tortious interference claim brought against the bank by a borrower in a bankruptcy adversary proceeding. The bank secured a defense judgment. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a national bank who secured a defense judgment after a week-long trial of a dispute involving a borrower’s claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, deceptive trade practices and other alleged statutory violations concerning the marketing and sale of a complex interest-rate swap. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a national bank who secured a judgment in favor of lender and its syndicate in a $250 million dispute with the owner of a natural gas storage facility. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a national homebuilder who secured a defense verdict from a federal court jury following a two-week jury trial of an employment dispute involving allegations of non-compete violations, misappropriation of trade secrets and defamation. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a prominent Chicago law firm in a legal malpractice case involving claims of underlying alleged malpractice involving advice concerning interpretation of certain educational laws. The case was tried resulting in a not guilty jury verdict. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a property owner in substantial recovery under a first-party property policy for fire and water damage to premises and contents. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a public utility in the defense of a multi-million dollar dispute with municipality over termination of 35-year lease of electric distribution/transmission system. As part of representation, Mr. Brown guided client through state court and agency litigation while managing media relations in widely publicized dispute and successfully achieved settlement of claim once valued at over $100 million at de minimis cost to company.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a publicly traded apparel company in the substantial recovery of defense fees and costs in connection with trademark and related claims in the U.S. and Europe under general liability policies. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a publicly traded Chinese company in obtaining recovery of substantial defense fees and costs arising from multiple class actions, derivative action and governmental investigations. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a publicly traded company in the health care industry in a seven-figure recovery of settlement payment and defense costs in derivative action under general liability and directors and officers policies. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a publicly traded company in the recovery of defense costs and settlement payments in connection with a securities class action and derivative action. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a real estate investment entity in litigation against the operating partners of a profitable oil and gas servicing company. The investors suspected foul play on the part of the operating partners and brought suit. The Barnes & Thornburg attorney successfully procured a temporary restraining order on behalf of the investors, giving them control over the companies’ funds and, following the depositions of the operating partners by the attorney, procured a favorable settlement that resulted in the departure and replacement of the operating partners. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a real estate management company in a dispute over whether condominium association’s bylaws permitted the company’s secretary to run for the association’s board. Park Hoover Vill. Condo. Ass'n v. Ardsley/Park Hoover L.P., No. 49A04-0106-CV-268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a regional power and energy company in a class action involving tariff violation claims. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a relief defendant in injunctive action brought by Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with a Ponzi scheme. Securities and Exchange Commission v. Cummings, Case No. C2-02-629 (S.D. Ohio 2004). (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a restaurant and recreational facility in the defense of alleged violation of Federal Statute for unauthorized broadcast of professional fight. Rule 11 Motion was filed against Plaintiff broadcaster of professional fight as it could not substantiate claims of illegal display by commercial establishment in face of Rule 11 Motion. Joe Hand Promotions, Inc. v. O'Brien, No. 1:09cv1170 (N.D. Ill., filed Feb. 24, 2009).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a shareholder in an action of unpaid wages brought by former employees against shareholders of the corporate employer. Both the trial court and the Seventh Circuit on appeal held that, while New York law under certain circumstances allows former employees to recover against the largest shareholders of a New York corporation, penalties authorized under Indiana law cannot be recovered from shareholders using that statute. Whitely v. Moravec, 635 F.3d 308 (7th Cir. 2011).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a single-purpose investment venture who secured a revocation of discharge judgment and a monetary award of $5.8 million after a week-long trial of a bankruptcy adversary proceeding involving a complex fraud, claims of alter ego and veil piercing theories. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a student transportation company and successfully prosecuted breach of contract action for improper termination against school district on behalf of client.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a supplier of CT scanning equipment in a case filed in the Southern District of Ohio to enforce the terms of an equipment agreement for the installation and operation of a CT machine in a regional hospital. The case settled on favorable terms for our client.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a Taiwanese client who manufactures graphic cards for video games and brought suit against US company for breach of contract and RICO claims for nonpayment for delivered product. Info-Tek Corp. v. Visiontek Prods., LLC, No. 1:09cv2955 (N.D. Ill., filed May 14, 2009).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a wholesale supply company and obtained injunction, without noncompete agreements, against former employees who left company to compete with former employer.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a will beneficiary in physician/patient privilege dispute. On behalf of client, Mr. McDermott obtained reversal of the trial court’s refusal to produce medical records of deceased in will contest pursuant to the physician/patient privilege contained in R.C. § 2317.02. The Court of Appeals held that when the executor filed the application to probate the decedent’s will the executor waived his privilege to assert the physician/patient privilege for the decedent. Janes v Janes, 2001 WK 704456, Ohio App. 5th Dist. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented an insurance company in a case involving alleged failure to register securities and failure to deliver prospectuses. The Illinois Securities Department voluntarily dismissed the claims.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented an international ingredient manufacturer in a breach of contract dispute. Ms. Lazar tried the case, resulting in victory for ingredient manufacturer. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented an international inspection company in a case involving an alleged breach of contract related to inspection in Spain of metal castings used in commercial furnace in Canada.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented an internet domain registry company in the defense of multiple cases coordinated in the Complex Case Division of the Superior Court. The claim involved allegations of consumer fraud and violation of the Penal Code arising out of the launch of a new Internet domain name registry (.biz). The class action was defeated and the case settled thereafter. Smiley, et al v. NeuLevel, Inc., et al., Case No. Case No. BC 254659 and ePrize, LLC v. NeuLevel, Inc., et al., Case No. BC 257632, Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented an oil company in obtaining multi-million dollar payment of defense fees under multiple directors and officers liability policies. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented appellant DVD copy protection organization in the successful appeal from a bench trial judgment dismissing its lawsuit for breach of license agreement covering use of decryption technology intended to prevent unauthorized copying of DVD content. The Court of Appeal reversed and remanded for new trial. DVD Copy Control Association v. Kaleidescape, Inc., 176 Cal. App. 4th 697 (2009). (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented commercial furniture products manufacturer, successfully securing a trial verdict in an action seeking to enforce contractual right of first refusal related to sale of business.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented customers in arbitration. An arbitration award of $368,000 was granted to investors against broker and broker-dealer based upon claims of suitability, churning, negligence, and breach of fiduciary duty.Collins v. SG Cowan Securites Corp., NASD Case No. 01-01873. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented defendant, a Chinese OEM of after-market automobile amplifiers, in a commercial dispute brought by a US distributor. The case was governed by the United Nations Convention for the International Sale of Goods (“CISG”). Maxxsonics, USA, Inc. v. Fengshun Peiying Electro Acoustic Company, Ltd.,Case No. 10 C 01174 (N. D. Ill., Eastern Div. ).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented interstate trucking company in cases involving claims due to trucking accidents, cargo recovery, premises liability, and broker disputes.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented Juno Lighting, a leading manufacturer of lighting products in a dealer distributor dispute. Juno Lighting, LLC v. Lighting Solutions, Inc ., No. 1:11cv1528 (N.D. Ill., March 4, 2011).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented Kaken Pharmaceutical in its legal malpractice action against its former patent counsel, Oblon Spivak. Successfully resolved complex malpractice claim concerning biological patent. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented large global chemical solutions company in a breach of supplier agreement. Stepan Company sued its former customers for breach of contract and breach of warranty. Stepan Company v. Burlington Chemical Co, LLC, No. 1:09cv6175, (N.D. Ill., October 2, 2009).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented nursing home client in contractual dispute with vendors and obtained favorable settlement on behalf of client.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented one of the world’s largest banks in suits in Texas and New York state court to recover funds loaned to hedge funds through standard form contracts and complex derivatives vehicles. The funds claimed that the bank could not recover as a result of the financial crisis, rendering any damage claim moot. After discovery and a favorable summary judgment ruling, the bank received a favorable settlement on the eve of trial. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented over fifty agricultural chemical retailers relative to the atrazine litigation.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented real estate developer in a third party action brought in connection with a housing development built on a former shooting range. Claims were brought under CERCLA and various state law statutes. Ryland Group, Inc. v. Payne Firm, Inc., 492 F.Supp.2d 790; 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45376. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented Stepan in product contamination case involving breach of warranty claims where the supplier provided non-conforming goods that caused business interruption and property damage. Stepan Company v. Summit Resource Group, Inc, No. 1:11cv7019 (N.D. Ill., October 5, 2011).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented the audit committee of a large financial institution in proceedings brought by a litigation trust following the bankruptcy of that institution. The trust alleged that the audit committee breached its fiduciary duties by not disclosing certain deals to investors and to the public. Within eight months of the case being filed, it was settled with a favorable outcome for the members of the audit committee. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented the officers and directors of a hospitality company in a multi-million dollar recovery under a directors and officers liability policy in connection with a derivative action. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented the Plaintiff, a medical equipment manufacturer’s representative, for wrongful termination of a sales representative agreement for a sophisticated and technologically advanced medical device for managing surgical instruments in operating rooms. The case was favorably settled after an early hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented the Receiver for MedResorts, a time share vacation company, in an Federal Trade Commission (FTC) case involving the seizure of business assets pursuant to Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) issued by the court. Ms. Lazar also represented the Receiver relative to operation of company until sale. Press release re: settlement: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2001/11/medresorts.shtm. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented the utility in bankruptcy adversary proceeding and defeated a motion for summary judgment that asserted that client's claims for asbestos property damage were barred by a statute of repose.

    Babcock and Wilcox Co. designed, constructed, and installed boilers for Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Co. (SIGCO) more than 20 years before this case was heard by the court. SIGCO filed a claim for damages for diminution of value or economic loss caused by the presence of asbestos in those boilers. Babcock argued that the claim was barred by the 10-year construction statute of repose and moved for summary judgment.

    The district court applied a more specific statute of repose which provided that an action for property damage resulting from asbestos had to be brought within two years of the date the injured party knew that property damage had resulted from asbestos. The court held that summary judgment was not appropriate because there was no evidence as to when SIGCO knew or should have known that it could have suffered property damage resulting from the asbestos in the boilers. The court also held that no summary judgment evidence had been presented that demonstrated co-liability of Babcock and SIGCO for any environmental cleanup costs, necessary to disallow the claim as an indirect, contingent claim for reimbursement under the United States Code. Therefore, the district court denied Babcock's motion for summary judgment. Babcock & Wilcox Co. v. S. Ind. Gas and Elec. Co. (In re Babcock & Wilcox Co., et al., Debtors), Nos. 00-10992 through 00-10995 (E.D. La. 2003).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented United Food Group in a contract dispute involving the purchase of frozen beef. United Food Group was based in California and the case was litigated in Minnesota. The case involved disputes regarding UCC forms issues as well as questions about timing of deliveries.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented various companies in obtaining recoveries under fidelity and crime policies for employee embezzlement and other defalcations. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented world-renowned musical artists in recoveries under tour interruption policies. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represents and counsels real estate brokerages and other settlement service providers regarding the Real Estate Settlement and Procedures Act (RESPA), disputes with the Department of Housing Development and the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, compliance matters, internal investigations, antitrust, consumer protection, consumer fees and charges and copyright protection.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represents clients in the medical device and electrical distribution industries in channel management counseling, including dealer, distributor and franchise litigation.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represents condo association and owners in an injunction proceeding followed by two-week jury trial against developers of a residential condominium project. Issues of first impression under the Ohio Condominium Act included rights of the unit owners to assume control of the Board, the standing of the Board and unit owners, respectively, to pursue various types of claims against the developers and the proper parties entitled to recover for numerous construction defects against the developers. Mansions Condominium Unit Owners Ass’n v. Talbott, et al, Franklin County Common Pleas Ct. Case No. 88 CV 007525. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney represents real estate clients, including Real Estate Investment Trusts (REIT), real estate developers, contractors, architects, commercial landlords, property owners and homebuilders, in wide-ranging complex commercial litigation, dispute resolution and counseling.  The attorney’s experience includes litigating, arbitrating and advising real estate clients in construction disputes, real-estate related disputes, development agreements, joint venture arrangements, operating agreements, lease agreements and tenant/landlord disputes.

    An example of the attorney’s experience includes representing a commercial real estate company and obtaining preliminary injunction preventing tenants from ceasing operations at a shopping center. Glendale Centre, LLC v. The Limited, Inc. et al., Cause No. 49D11-0206-PL-000994 (Marion Superior Court, Indiana).
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney secured a summary judgment in favor of the seller of a chain of hospitals against a private equity company that claimed it should have been the successful bidder for the chain. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney served as co-counsel for underwriter defendants in a series of securities fraud class actions filed in 2000. In re Conseco, Inc. Sec. Litigation., No. IP 00-585-C-Y/S, IP 00-655-C-Y/S (S.D. Ind. 2000)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney served as counsel in a $20 million health care arbitration dispute concerning breach of contract and various business tort claims. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney served as Counsel in a patent infringement case that settled favorably less than twenty-four hours prior to trial in Marshall, Texas. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney served as counsel in several multi-million dollar bankruptcy adversarial proceedings pertaining to oblique statutory provisions, complex accounting, and commercial contract disputes. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney served as lead Counsel in a commercial dispute involving accounting, trade libel, and interference with prospective business expectancy issues. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney served as lead counsel in defense of an electrical product manufacturer in a multi-week arbitration brought by a former distributor alleging conspiracy in violation of the Sherman Act, price discrimination, violation of the Robinson¬Patman Act, wrongful termination of the distributorship, deceptive conduct in violation of Illinois and Tennessee Consumer Protection Statutes, and other common law tort claims. The claimant sought more than $10 million in damages, was awarded nothing, and was ordered to pay all costs of the arbitration.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney serves as lead counsel in an $8 million commercial contract dispute that involves several complex interrelated contracts and carve-out provisions pertaining to license agreements and royalty payments.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney successfully defended a Fortune 100 corporation against RICO claims. The District Court granted the client’s motion to dismiss the claims. (*This matter occurred prior to joining Barnes & Thornburg.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney successfully defended a major magazine shareholder and director and obtained the dismissal of a fraudulent conveyance and preference transfer action that was brought against several directors and shareholders of a magazine and periodical wholesaler. The plaintiffs had sought a multi-million dollar judgment against these directors and shareholders. TV Guide Distribution, Inc. et al., v. Scherer, et al., Case No. 02-CVH-09-9819 (Franklin Co. C.P.). (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney successfully defended a mortgage company and obtained summary judgment in favor of the client declaring that the client’s recorded mortgage securing a $225,000 loan had first priority despite the existence of a prior unrecorded mortgage. The decision granting summary judgment was affirmed on appeal. The Guarantee Title & Trust Co. v. American Mortgage Solutions, Inc., et al., Case No. 00CAE12036, 2001 Ohio App. LEXIS 3690. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney successfully defended a self-directed IRA custodian in in an administrative enforcement action filed by the State Securities Commissioner, in which the client was alleged to be operating as an unregistered broker-dealer. The client's motion for summary judgment was granted and all claims were dismissed.
  • A Barnes & Thornburg attorney successfully represented a guardian against challenge to the appointment brought by a daughter of the ward. The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed the holding of the Court of Appeals that Appellant lacked standing to appeal. In Re: Guardianship of Santrucek, 120 Ohio St. 3rd 67, 2008-Ohio-4915 (2008). (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • A California Superior Court denied a motion for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin the merger of an Indiana publicly held company. The court later dismissed damage claims against the company’s directors. In connection with both actions, the court determined that Indiana’s Business Corporation Law prohibits shareholder litigation challenging mergers.
  • A jury awarded client Schneider Electric a verdict of $1,087,500 plus interest dating back to December 7, 2009, in a federal case filed by Schneider Electric’s predecessor, Square D Company, involving the sale of Square D circuit breakers and panel boxes to the defendants in violation of defendants’ agreement to purchase the products at deeply discounted prices in exchange for their promise to install the products only in homes where they were acting as the electrical contractor, not to resell them on the open market.

    Our client sued the defendants, House of Power (a residential electrical contractor based in Houston) and its owner, Albert Chlouber, for breach of contract and fraud upon discovering defendants’ unauthorized resale of nearly four thousand of Square D’s products on eBay and nearly 70,000 Square D products to a reseller of counterfeit Square D products. Square D Company v. House of Power Electric, L.C. and Albert Chlouber, Civil Action No. H-09-3917 (Southern District of Texas).
  • Acacia brought a series of patent infringement actions against defendants in the cable, satellite, and adult entertainment industries related to patents it held covering the transmission of audio and video content, including internet streaming. Barnes and Thornburg represented Cox in this litigation, which was consolidated as a Multi-District Litigation matter in the Northern District of California. The court held that the asserted patents were invalid for indefiniteness, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in October 2010. Acacia Research Group v. Cox Communications, Inc.
  • Advised client regarding insurance and indemnification terms to include in contract with automobile safety test company to protect company from future liability for accidents caused by test drivers.
  • An Indianapolis, Indiana, jury reached a unanimous verdict in favor of firm client, a life insurance company, in a trial in which the company was accused of improperly applying an exclusion on a life insurance policy. The six-day trial included wide-ranging scientific evidence and testimony related to the insured’s activities and death. The verdict saved the company more than $1 million.
  • Barnes & Thornburg assisted one of the parties to a $2 billion acquisition in successfully resolving claims that the acquirers had aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty by the directors of the company to be acquired. The settlement provided for certain additional disclosures in the proxy statement of the acquired company and a payment of attorneys’ fees that were set by the Delaware Court of Chancery, and allowed the acquisition to close on time.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorney Jim Leonard represented a former high-profile outside director of a failed Georgia bank. When the bank failed, the FDIC brought suit against firm client and the other bank directors and officers seeking more than $20 million in damages. Travelers Insurance Company had issued a directors and officers liability (D&O) policy to the bank insuring up to $5 million in losses, including all defense expenses. Travelers initially refused to settle with the FDIC once it demanded the policy limits to settle, which then caused the FDIC to withdraw its demand. Following contentious negotiations with the FDIC and Travelers (including multiple bad faith demands to settle), Travelers agreed to pay, and the FDIC agreed to accept, the policy limits to settle--thereby protecting our client’s personal assets.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys assisted Sanyo Laser Products, Inc., in obtaining a ruling that confirmed the existence of a claim for bad faith breach of the duty to defend under a liability policy and that a policyholder may be entitled to recover its attorney fees if it prevails on a bad faith claim. Sanyo Laser Prods., Inc. v. Royal Ins. Co. of Am., No. 1:03cv1151 (S.D. Ind., filed Aug. 7, 2003).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys defended a building products manufacturer who prevailed in a significant case before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The case arose from allegations about the performance of an insulated glass (IG) component product. An IG fabricator alleged the product was defective and asserted contract, warranty and fraud claims. The defense addressed complex issues of expert disqualification, spoliation, causation, choice of law, and a host of others. The District Court granted summary judgment for our client, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed in all respects. Thompson I.G. v. Edgetech I.G., Inc., 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20913 (6th Cir. 2014).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys defended an original equipment manufacturer (OEM) against warranty, fraud, and misrepresentation claims asserted by purchaser. Purchaser claimed more than $4 million in damages, but ultimately dismissed suit without any payment of damages or settlement.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys defended client in competing class actions brought on behalf of landowners adjoining railroad rights-of-way abandoned by Penn Central. The ten years of litigation led to several appeals to the Indiana Court of Appeals, an appeal to the Indiana Supreme Court, and a writ of mandamus to the Indiana Supreme Court. Ultimately, a class action settlement was reached in which the client, a defendant, received payment from the co-defendant.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys defended directors of an Indiana corporation in derivative suit brought in New York state court. On behalf of client, the firm obtained dismissal of the action on grounds of forum non conveniens.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys defended Fortune 500 company with a diversified product portfolio, against third-party vendor claims alleging breach of contract, intentional interferance with business relationship, and fraud. Potential damages escalated into the multi-millions and plaintiff's allegations of fraud threatened to significantly harm the client's brand. After more than 1.5 years of contentious litigation (which included obtaining helpful admissions from plaintiff in deposition), the matter was settled on extremely favorable terms to the client inclusive of the protection and preservation of the company brand.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys defended JET Credit Union against criminal conversion claim; court reversed lower court's summary judgment order for Loudermilk, holding that Loudermilk could not recover for criminal conversion and remanded the case for entry of summary judgment in favor of firm client, JET. JET Credit Union v. Loudermilk, No. 49A04-0608-CV-475 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys defended the successor of a policyholder against a lawsuit in federal court in Connecticut in which an insurance company alleged that the indemnity provision of a claim services agreement required the policyholder to reimburse the entire amount of a product liability settlement and defense costs. The client only had to pay its deductible, and the 1980s occurrence-based CGL policies remain in place.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys have represented Mercedes-Benz USA in over 20 cases taken to trial in Illinois, Indiana and Ohio, where plaintiffs sought compensatory and other damages for breach of warranty, state Lemon Laws and violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. These cases were litigated through trial and post-trial appeals.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys have represented several multi-unit residential home builders in connection with residential water intrusion claims, subcontractor disputes, warranty issues and construction defect claims.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys obtained reversal of order, dismissing case for lack of personal jurisdiction in a commercial dispute regarding unlawful debts from a bank account by two casinos.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys obtained voluntary dismissal of class action allegations, and pursued successful summary judgment motion on merits of Equal Credit Opportunity Act claims on behalf of bank client.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys prosecuted a $25 million breach of contract claim on behalf of an auto finance company who acquired and securitized automobile retail installment loan contracts. The lawsuit sought damages as a result of the defendants’ failures to properly service the securitized loans as required by the parties’ contracts. Our client prevailed achieving a favorable settlement prior to trial.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys pursued a series of claims, in the Delaware Chancery Court, on behalf of a common shareholder client whose ownership was being eliminated through a $300 million merger that benefitted only the preferred shareholders and the directors they controlled. Although the merger was not able to be blocked, the firm assisted the client in obtaining a substantial settlement.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represent a steel manufacturer in a breach of contract matter involving the destruction of a bridge crane at Severstal Steel. On behalf of the plaintiff, we are seeking in excess of $25,000,000 for defendant’s negligence, which caused the collapse and destruction of a crane during a heavy wind event. Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC v. Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals, Inc., No. 1:09cv1668 (Maryland, June 24,2009).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represent defendant Knauf Insulation GmbH, a leading manufacturer of fiberglass insulation, in three related antitrust actions concerning allegations of price fixing and price differentials to a major customer. The direct purchaser plaintiffs, on behalf of a class of contractors who purchased residential fiberglass insulation, alleged that the five largest producers of fiberglass insulation engaged in price-fixing by agreeing with a large, common customer (Masco) to maintain a "price spread" between insulation sold to the customer and that sold to other contractors. Plaintiffs alleged damages in the action exceeding $750 million. After three manufacturers had already entered settlements in the direct purchaser case, Knauf negotiated a cost-of-litigation settlement that was less than half the settlement of any other defendant, and only 10% of one of the manufacturer's settlements. Masco settled on the eve of the trial in the summer of 2012.

    Two groups of indirect purchasers also filed suit. Barnes & Thornburg negotiated dismissal with prejudice on behalf of all defendants in one case in exchange for an agreement not to seek sanctions (Lummis). Motions to dismiss the second case are still pending in the Northern District of Georgia (Von Der Werth).

    Columbus Drywall & Insulation, Inc. et al v. Masco Corp., et. al., Case No. 1:04-cv-3066-JEC (N.D. Ga 2004) (Direct Purchaser Class Action); Von Der Werth v. Johns Manville Corporation, et al., Case No. 1:07-cv-2012-JEC (N.D. Ga 2007) (Indirect Purchaser Class Action); Lummis v. Johns Manville Corporation, 2:05-CV-298-FTM-29SPC, (M.D. Fla 2005) (Indirect Purchaser Class Action)
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represent Valspar, a paint and coatings manufacturer, in a case involving two of Valspar’s historical general liability insurers disputing the contribution of defense expenses in long-tail toxic tort exposure cases. The suit includes claims that the second insurer’s policies that are subject to a large self-insured retention or a fronting arrangement are obligated to contribute to defense costs paid by the first insurer as part of its first-dollar defense obligation.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a bank and successfully defended claim against bank for fraud brought by subsequent lender concerning alleged overvalued property.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a bank suing in Illinois state court under a financial institutions bond for coverage of losses on a $10 million loan that was issued to refinance a hotel. After defeating a dispositive motion filed by the insurance company, the bank obtained a settlement of its claim.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a chemical manufacturer allegedly supplying defective technology to a toll manufacturer in a chemical plant explosion case involving personal injury and property damage; pursued counterclaim through lengthy jury trial resulting in pre-verdict settlement.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a Chinese technology company and brought suit against patent licensor for recovery of improper double royalty payments it paid for hard disk drive products it had manufactured for third party.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a corporation, its directors and its investment banker and were obtained summary judgment in a class action alleging breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with cash out merger and subsequent sale of Michigan Corporation. The court rejected use of Delaware’s entire fairness test, holding that appraisal was the sole remedy available to dissatisfied minority shareholders, even in an alleged conflict transaction and found claims of failures to disclose/misrepresentations to be unwarranted. Krieger v. Gast, 179 F. Supp 2d 762 (W.D. Mich. 2001). See also Krieger v. Gast, 122 F. Supp. 2d 836 (W.D. Mich. 2001) (discussing appraisal remedy and burden of proof), and Krieger v. Gast, 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15422 (N.D. Ill. 1998)(dismissing securities fraud claims).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a debt collection company in a dispute involving Plaintiffs claims that our client violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and committed Indiana state law torts for the manner in which they were contacted in attempting to collect a debt. The federal district court granted a motion to compel arbitration and no arbitration was filed.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a dry cleaning business in an insurance coverage lawsuit to confirm a liability insurer’s defense and indemnity obligations of more than $1 million in investigation and remediation expenses incurred following policyholder’s enrollment of dry cleaning sites in the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s Voluntary Remediation Program. Subsequently, the client obtained virtually complete defense and indemnity coverage valued at more than $3 million for other environmental sites and an environmental liability lawsuit.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a financial advisor in a case brought by a state Securities Commissioner, alleging securities fraud. The claims were dismissed for failure to state a claim.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a global crane component manufacturer in a case involving plaintiff’s claims seeking recovery for property damage and lost profits. The case included allegations that a 425-ton overhead crane at the plaintiff’s facility malfunctioned, causing 220 tons of hot iron to spill onto the floor of plaintiff’s steel-making facility, resulting in a fire which destroyed facility equipment. The facility was unable to produce steel for several weeks as a result of the damage, and the plaintiff sought over $40 million in damages against our client and two other defendants. After extensive and complicated discovery, the court granted our client’s motion for summary judgment on all claims in the lawsuit. Five weeks later, a jury returned a verdict against the remaining defendant for $39 million dollars.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a global printing ink company in the prosecution of a breach of contract claim based on buyer’s failure to honor requirements contract. Case settled favorably for plaintiff client.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a Global Recruiting Concern in the successful bet the company international arbitration of a commercial dispute which was on fast track with streamlined discovery and included a full factual hearing on dispositive issue 3 months after initial filing of arbitration demand. (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a Japanese automobile parts manufacturer and its U.S. and Canadian subsidiaries in a global investigation of possible bid-rigging and price-fixing in the sale of auto parts to automobile manufacturers. The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division, the Japan Fair Trade Commission, European Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau were all involved in this investigation. After conducting a thorough internal investigation of relevant employees in the United States and Japan, and cooperating with the DOJ for more than two years, the DOJ closed its investigation of our clients in April 2013. The DOJ has obtained more than $2.4 billion in criminal fines as part of its auto parts investigations to date, and the clients successfully avoided paying any fines.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a Japanese automobile parts manufacturer and its U.S. subsidiary in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Antitrust Division’s ongoing investigation of possible bid rigging and price fixing in the sale of auto parts to global automobile manufacturers. After conducting a thorough internal investigation of relevant employees in both the United States and Japan, and cooperating with the DOJ for more than a year, the DOJ closed its investigation of our clients in November 2014. The DOJ has obtained more than $2.4 billion in criminal fines as part of its auto parts investigations to date, and the clients successfully avoided paying any fines.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a large national homebuilder in litigation in Kentucky and successfully pursued claims against more than 20 subcontractors seeking to recover millions of dollars spent remediating defective construction work in residential homes. Beazer Homes Investments LLC v. Stephens, No. 06-CI-0345 (Fayette Cir. Ct. 2006).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a large residential real estate brokerage firm in a certified class action seeking over $600 million in damages for alleged illegal price-fixing under the Sherman Act. Plaintiffs alleged that real estate brokers conspired to fix the price of broker commissions in violation of Section One of the Sherman Act. The District Court granted our client’s Motion for Summary Judgment dismissing Plaintiffs' claims with prejudice on the grounds that Plaintiffs had not come forward with evidence sufficient to go to a jury on the existence of a conspiracy or sufficient to rule out legal market behavior. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a major bank in a case involving the prosecution of an internet scheme involving altered checks in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Obtained an ex parte Temporary Restraining Order freezing Globe Source’s bank accounts and then a favorable settlement of the lawsuit.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a major consumer and commercial lock manufacturer in a dispute over a contract for custom-made machinery. The Plaintiff sued client alleging breach of contract, the intentional interference with contract and business relationships and seeking multiple-millions of dollars in damages. After protracted, contentious litigation, the matter was resolved favorably for the client in settlement.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a major industrial coatings manufacturer in lawsuit against its liability insurance carrier to establish coverage for mass tort claims asserted against client.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a major life insurance company in lawsuit to establish coverage under a broker’s errors and omissions policy. The life insurance company client brought suit to get coverage from its E&O carrier after the carrier breached the contract of insurance when firm client was involved in a suit alleging deceptive sales practices. The case settled on favorable terms for client. Lincoln Nat'l Corp. v. Steadfast Ins. Co., No. 1:06cv58 (N.D. Ind., filed Mar. 1, 2006).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a major plastics manufacturer in a federal court action involving insurance coverage claims against its insurance carrier. When the insurance carrier refused to pay all of our client’s business income losses covered under its policy to cover costs from a devastating roof collapse at a manufacturing facility, our client sued the carrier for breach of insurance contract and insurance bad faith. Before deposition discovery began, the insurance carrier sought mediation and on behalf of client, we obtained a favorable seven-figure settlement.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a mechanical contractor in litigation against its liability insurance carrier to establish existence and terms of “lost policies” providing over $100 million in coverage for potential asbestos liabilities. The policies at issue dated back to the 1950s and 1960s and had been lost or destroyed.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a mechanical contractor in litigation involving insurance coverage for a $1 million verdict against plaintiff chemical company for a personal injury claim from firm client’s injured employee. The plaintiff brought suit against firm client and its own insurance carrier. After extensive litigation, the case was resolved favorably for our client.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a medical doctor, obtaining a dismissal of a complaint against him in the Northern District of Illinois. The physician had been named as a defendant in a qui tam action under the federal False Claims Act that alleged he had illegally referred patients to a local nursing and rehab facility in exchange for compensation received under a consultant agreement with the facility. The complaint alleged that the physician’s consultant arrangement with the facility was in violation of the Stark law and the Anti-kickback Statutes, as well as the federal and Illinois False Claims Acts. On behalf of the doctor, firm attorneys successfully argued that the complaint failed to state a plausible claim for relief or provide the necessary particularity under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a national home builder in multi-form litigation arising from a joint venture to develop a $1.2 billion residential community in southern Las Vegas, including suits filed in arbitration among the joint venture members and suits filed in federal court and federal bankruptcy court by the lenders. In arbitration, one of the joint venture members sought specific performance of obligations totaling more than $300 million and asked, in the alternative, for more than $300 million in damages. After two weeks of arbitration, the arbitration panel rejected the claim for specific performance and rejected nearly all of the damages claim. The lenders’ claims were ultimately resolved favorably.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a national residential real estate brokerage firm in a class action seeking $15 million in damages for alleged RESPA violations related to purported receipt of unlawful kickbacks in the real estate settlement process. Achieved favorable pre-trial resolution of claims.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a national residential real estate brokerage firm in a consent action in connection with a larger class action matter involving claims of $15 million in damages for alleged Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) violations related to purported receipt of unlawful kickbacks in the real estate settlement process. The matter was successfully settled.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a natural gas company in a $30 million coverage case that arose after the defendant refused to provide coverage for a large judgment entered against client in a prior proceeding. The case settled favorably for client.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a promotional products company in the defense of breach of contract claims and prosecuted counterclaim for fraud in California. After defeated motion to dismiss counterclaim, lawsuit settled favorably.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a promotional services company involved in a commercial dispute related to an alleged kickback scheme. Our client was responsible for executing the Plaintiff's "points" incentive program and the Plaintiff brought suit, alleging that our client had given kickback payments to one of Plaintiff's employees in exchange for the employee steering business toward the client's incentive program. The Plaintiff also alleged that our client had billed Plaintiff for entirely fictitious point redemptions. The case settled on very favorable terms for our client.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a publicly traded REIT in the Business Court in Raleigh, North Carolina. The court entered an order in favor of firm client dismissing an approximate $7 million claim against our client alleging tortious interference with prospective economic advantage. The REIT and a neighboring landowner had entered into an agreement regarding the sharing of costs to construct a roadway project adjacent to their respective properties. The neighboring landowner and its principals alleged that our client tortiously interfered with their prospective joint venture with a third party by breaching the roadway development contract. Our client’s argument addressed an unsettled issue under North Carolina law as to whether the REIT had "induced" the third party to abandon the proposed joint venture. The court agreed with our client, holding that the element of having "induced" an interference requires more specific proof than simple causation, as the claimants had argued. In so holding, the court stated that the claimants' position "would make every contracting party potentially liable for the types of damages available for intentional torts . . . whenever the failure to fulfill a contract for any reason caused" the loss of a prospective business opportunity. The ruling could be precedent-setting in many states given the absence of clear precedent on what must be pleaded and proven to establish an interference.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a publishing company in the successful prosecution of trade secret and conversion claims against a client’s former employee, who became a competitor. The publisher obtained an agreed injunction order permanently enjoining the individual from making use of misappropriated trade secret information.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a road construction contractor in a dispute against the Village of Lombard. The circuit court found for our client after a bench trial, holding that it was entitled to payment for its work at a higher rate than claimed by the Village. The lower court did not, however, award the client prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the verdict in favor of client and reversed the lower court on the issue of prejudgment interest, holding that our client was entitled to the interest. Fortech, L.L.C. v. R.W. Dunteman Co., Inc., 306 Ill. App. 3d 804, 852 N.E.2d 451 (2006).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a steel manufacturer in a breach of contract case involving the purchase of silicomanganese from a raw material supplier. Defendant was the only supplier of silicomanganese in North America and refused to honor a blanket purchase order issued by the Plaintiff after the silicomanganese market crashed and caused the price to escalate. On behalf of the Plaintiff, firm attorneys persuaded the district court to reject the Defendant’s argument that it never accepted the purchase order pursuant to the Uniform Commercial Code. After a bench trial, the district court awarded the firm client approximately $600,000, which reflected the damages incurred by the client when it had to cover at a higher price. MacSteel, Inc. v. Eramet N. Am., No. 2:05cv74566 (E.D. Mich., filed Dec. 1, 2005)
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a subcontractor defendant in a construction accident case, including a third-party claim against the general contractor for contractual defense and indemnity. The client appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, where the client won complete indemnification and attorneys’ fees.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a supplier of automobile filtration products in an action brought under the Lanham Act, Illinois common law, and Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices Act seeking injunction, compensatory and punitive damages related to a false advertising campaign. Fram Group Operations, LLC V. Purolator Filters Na, LLC, No. 1:12cv3040, (N.D. Ill., April 24, 2012).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a utility company in construction dispute with contractor involving claims of cost-overruns and details beyond the scope of the project. The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled in favor of client. Atlas Excavating v. Indiana-American Water Co., Inc., No. 41 A 01-0407-cv-3327.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a watersport boat manufacturer in a dealer distributor dispute involving the termination of dealer.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented a workers’ compensation self-insurers trust fund in a breach of contract case against the fund’s third-party administrator (TPA). The client alleged that the TPA committed widespread mishandling, causing excessive losses and expenses among more than 3,000 self-insured workers’ compensation claims. The client obtained a favorable $2.35 million judgment following a bench trial in federal court in Atlanta and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit affirmed.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented an administrator of a trust for promoting home ownership for the underprivileged residents of Fort Wayne. The suit arose after a series of defaults by the homebuyers caused the Housing Authority to run out of money. This lawsuit was a putative class action filed against the Housing Authority by a group of low-income homebuyers alleging that they had been fraudulently induced to purchase homes that were worth much less than they had paid. After aggressive discovery and a successful effort to defeat class certification the case was settled on very favorable terms for the client.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented an aerospace and defense products company in a case that arose out of a drunk driving accident wherein the Plaintiff, an off duty police officer, was injured by our client’s employee. The employee had become inebriated at a work party before getting into the accident, so the plaintiff brought suit against our client under a theory of respondeat superior. The Plaintiff alleged that our client was directly responsible for the employee's negligence because it had served him the alcohol at the company event. The court disagreed, and granted our client's motion for summary judgment. Following reversal on appeal, the case settled favorably for our client.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented an engine bearings manufacturer in negotiating coverage for an environmental remediation under both the client’s own policies and the historical policies of prior owner/operators. The firm client prevailed, obtaining almost complete recovery of all legal, investigation, and remediation expenses incurred following policyholder’s enrollment of manufacturing site in the Indiana Department of Environmental Management’s Voluntary Remediation Program.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented an Indiana manufacturer of component mirrors for RV industry, in a suit brought by California distributor who sued client’s subsidiary and majority owner. The suit was filed in Los Angeles County and the claims included a breach of contract by company whose assets had been acquired by the client. All but one of the Distributor’s claims were defeated early in the litigation, after which the remaining claim was resolved.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented anesthesiologists in a direct and derivative lawsuit against the head of their medical group for usurping corporate opportunities and diverting corporate revenue for himself. Lawsuit settled with significant payment to plaintiffs.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented Centerplate, Inc. in in its successful defense of a multi million dollar claim brought by nationally renowned event producer Barton G. Centerplate obtained summary judgment and also prevailed on a Daubert challenge to plaintiff's expert that led to the expert being barred from testifying and negating plaintiff's damages claim. BGW Design Limited, Inc. v. Service America Corporation Case No. 10-6833 (S.D. Fla. 2011); BGW Design Limited, Inc. v Service America Corporation, No. 10-20730-Civ. (S.D. Fla. Dec. 3, 2010).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented Champion in an unfair competition action against its competitor Parker-Hannifin Corp. and an affiliate of Parker. Employing the doctrine of the Sherman Act, Champion contended that Parker falsely marked its oil filter and made design changes to other components of the filtration system that prevented use of Champion’s lower-priced filter and thwarted competition from Champion and other suppliers in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52853.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented client in defense against fraudulent conveyance and conversion claims involving $350 million asset sale. The trial court dismissed the claims against client and the other defendants. Following the dismissal, the Plaintiff appealed and the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision. Angelopoulos v. Angelopoulos, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 538 (Ind. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2013).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented client in three NASD arbitrations which involved allegations of securities fraud and damages of over $4.25 million. The claims were dismissed prior to hearing and the motion to vacate those dismissals was denied by the district court. Berkley v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27107 (S.D. Ohio 2008).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented Crown Packaging International, a bottle packaging, manufacturing and distribution company, in a case involving a salesmen who started a secret, competing business while still employed by Crown and ran it for two-and-a-half years. During that time, he stole business which should have gone to our client and severely defamed Crown in an effort to alienate customers. Crown discovered the salesman's actions and brought suit,and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order against the salesman that remained in place during the seven months it took to have 9 days of a preliminary injunction hearing Most of the hearing dates concerned the salesman’s claim that Crown committed a prior material breach of his contract - and thus, his restrictive covenants - by alleged underpayment of commissions. The salesman’s defense was rejected and instead, Crown's restrictive covenant was enforced and Crown was granted preliminary injunction.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented GasAmerica Services in a case where plaintiff, Tammy M. Goods, individually and on behalf of a class, alleged that our client printed credit card receipts in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1681c(g), exposing Goods and other members of the class to identity theft and credit card and debit card fraud. After initial discovery showing plaintiff’s inability to 1) define a class, or 2) prove damages, Plaintiff dismissed all claims, including the alleged claims of the class, with prejudice. Goods v. GasAmerica Services, Inc., No. 2:07-cv-00181 (N.D. Ind. 2008).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented landlord/university in copy center/tenant’s appeal of partial dismissal of action pertaining to lease dispute. Tenant alleged that lease provided it with the right to unilaterally elect unlimited 5 year extensions of the lease. Appellate Court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in our client’s favor. Copy Servs. v. Univ. of Notre Dame Du Lac, No. 71A03-0606-CV-271 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented life insurance company in a case involving RICO, fraud and ERISA claims regarding a life insurance product. After a three-day trial, the jury entered a verdict for our client on the fraud and RICO claims and the trial court found in its favor on the ERISA claims. The Third Circuit then affirmed the district court. Faulman v. Sec. Mut. Fin. Life Ins. Co., No. 3:04-cv-05083 (D.N.J. 2008)
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented life insurance company in a dispute where the Plaintiff claimed fraud and breach of contract theories by alleging that she was told there would be no tax impact on a rollover of two annuities into a variable annuity. The federal district court granted summary judgment in client’s favor.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented major pharmaceutical company in a case involving a fraudulent scheme by defendants, a coterie of women in New York, to purchase client's products at a large discount for a purported "promotional program." The phony promotional program was sold to Client as a plan to distribute its diabetes care products through independent pharmacies. Once client agreed to sell the products to defendant for the program, defendant secretly diverted the products to wholesalers and pocketed the discount. When Client brought suit to enjoin the scheme, defendant produced fabricated documents to prove that the Client knew the products would be diverted from the beginning. The court granted Client's motion for a TRO and the case settled. The individual defendants were later prosecuted criminally.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented Marathon Petroleum Co. LLC and its subsidiary, Speedway SuperAmerica LLC, in obtaining dismissal in a class action brought before the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Indiana. The class action was brought on behalf of more than 5,000 service station dealers who alleged violations of the federal antitrust statutes and multiple state laws. Plaintiffs alleged that Marathon illegally tied credit card processing fee services to the contracts that granted plaintiffs the right to operate a Marathon-branded service station, and that it conspired with banks to fix the cost of processing fees. The Court rejected both claims. The 7th Circuit affirmed in an opinion written by Judge Posner, holding that plaintiffs' tying claim failed because Marathon did not have market power in an adequately defined product market, and because there was no "tie" between two products. Judge Posner rejected plaintiff's conspiracy claim "for failure to plead a plausible theory of antitrust illegality under Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Sheridan v. Marathon Petroleum Co., LLC, 2007 WL 290056 (S.D. Ind. 2007), aff’d 530 F.3d 590 (7th Cir. 2008).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented MetLife Securities in a case that involved a claim that the insured was misinformed that a whole life insurance policy he purchased included a rider that would waive premiums if he became disabled. He subsequently suffered a disabling injury. He brought an arbitration before the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) claiming fraud and breach of contract. The panel unanimously rejected all of his claims.
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented National Laser Technology (NLT), a seller of used dental lasers and dental laser support services, in a nationwide antitrust suit against Biolase, the country's largest manufacturer of dental lasers. NLT alleged Biolase had monopoly power in the national market for the sale of hard tissue dental lasers and used that power to coerce dentists to purchase products from it rather than from NLT in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the Lanham Act and the California Unfair Competition Law. Obtained an early favorable settlement for client. National Laser Technology, Inc. v. Biolase Technology, Inc., Case No. 1:08-cv-1123 (S.D. Ind. 2009).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented pharmaceutical drug manufacturer in a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration from the district court that defendant had a common law duty to indemnity manufacturer from product liability claims. Although the contract between the parties contained an indemnification provision which required the manufacturer to indemnify the defendant for its own negligence, the court held that such a provision was unenforceable under Michigan law and granted manufacturer’s motion for summary judgment on its claim for common law indemnification. JB Labs., Inc. v. Zee Med., Inc., No. 1:03cv630 (W.D. Mich., filed Sept. 29, 2003).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented Simon in appeal involving lease dispute; lower court granted summary judgment for Simon, and granted Michigan Sporting Goods' (tenant's) motion to correct error; court upheld lower court's decision to grant motion to correct error. Simon Prop. Group, L.P. v. Michigan Sporting Goods Distribs., No. 79A02-0411-CV-989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys serve as Indiana counsel in defense of a leading automotive manufacturer involved in multi-district litigation resulting from consumer class actions alleging incidents of unintended acceleration. Complaints include allegations of breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment, constructive fraud, negligence, and product liability.
  • Barnes & Thornburg defended a specialty laminating company in a case involving breach of contract and UCC warranty claims arising from foil lamination services. Artistic Carton Co. v. thelamco, Inc., Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2009 WL 3060205, 70 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 621, N.D.Ind., September 22, 2009 (NO. 1:06-CV-316-TS).
  • Barnes & Thornburg LLP attorneys Trace Schmeltz, Kevin Rising, Katie Matsoukas and Jacob Zipfel represented Robert B. Leckie, an outside director of A-Power Energy Generations Systems, Ltd. ("A-Power"), in his successful defense of both shareholder derivative litigation and a securities fraud class action. A-Power is a Chinese company that, through a reverse merger with a company from the British Virgin Islands that was listed on the NASDAQ, became publicly traded. After being unable to successfully file its annual report with the Securities and Exchange Commission on Form 20-F, the company, its directors, and its officers were sued in shareholder derivative suits and securities fraud class actions that were consolidated before Judge Wu in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

    In the shareholder derivative suit, the plaintiff's counsel dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice after receiving the firm's motion to dismiss the case based on the plaintiff’s lack of standing under the law of the British Virgin Islands to bring such a lawsuit. Barnes & Thornburg was assisted by lawyers from Stuarts, Walker, Hersant in the Cayman Islands. More recently, Mr. Leckie obtained a dismissal from the securities fraud class action, in an opinion found here. Although the Court granted the plaintiff leave to amend, the Court expressed skepticism as to whether the plaintiff could successfully re-plead a claim against Mr. Leckie, finding it “reasonable to conclude that Plaintiff has nothing else to add to its allegations” against Mr. Leckie. Taking their cue from the Court, the Plaintiffs dropped Mr. Leckie from the suit altogether.
  • Barnes & Thornburg represented a Fortune 500 company in connection with claims against its warehouse service provider arising out of the collapse of a roof at a facility located in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. Our investigation revealed that a large amount of snow and ice had accumulated on the roof, and that this was a concurrent cause of the roof collapse. On behalf of our client, firm attorneys persuaded the arbitrator to reject the service provider’s argument that it was not liable because the roof collapse was also caused by a defect in the steel girder and truss connections supporting the roof. The arbitrator awarded our client approximately $2.4 million, which was the majority of the damages sought.
  • Barnes & Thornburg represented a homebuilding company in a multimillion dollar class action settlement by asserting claims against subcontractors. Colon v. Trinity Homes, LLC, No 29D02-0404-PL-374 (Hamilton Superior Court No. 2).
  • Barnes & Thornburg represented a major managed health care company and obtained reversal of summary judgment as to insurance coverage for claims against client in complex, multiple-layer insurance arrangement.
  • Barnes & Thornburg represented an automotive fuel pump manufacturer that was named in a suit involving a fuel pump that was modified and installed by other companies in a small aircraft that crashed. On behalf of our client we filed an insurance coverage case and obtained summary judgment against the insurer’s denial under an aircraft products exclusion. Airtex Products, LP et al v. American Home Assurance Co., Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case No.: RIC 1111153.
  • Barnes & Thornburg represented as lead counsel Alliance 3PL Corp., a third-party logistics provider in the trucking industry, in its successful breach of contract action against a Missouri trucking company that had solicited business from one of Alliance’s largest customers in violation of the contract between the two companies. After a week-long jury trial in federal court, Alliance obtained a $2.1 million jury verdict in its favor with assistance from Barnes & Thornburg. Alliance Logistics, Inc. v. New Prime, Inc., No. 1:07cv4944 (N.D. Ill., filed Aug. 31, 2007).
  • Barnes & Thornburg represented client, Airport Authority/landlord, in suit with tenant for breach of lease. The tenant sought more than $1.1 million in damages, including lost profits, while the client sought $300,000+ in unpaid rents. After a bench trial, the judge entered a judgment for client for the entire amount of the rent, and against tenant on its claims for damages and lost profits.
  • Barnes & Thornburg represented manufactured home roof vent supplier in UCC breach of warranty suit and successfully resolved case in mediation. Four Seasons Housing Inc. v. Amerimax Bldg. Prods. Inc., No. 3:06cv136 (N.D. Ind., filed Feb. 17, 2006).
  • Firm client, Louisville Gas & Electric (LG&E), was sued by Cedar Farm for breach of contract and ejectment, seeking to terminate the parties’ amended oil and gas lease. LG&E’s leasehold interest in Cedar Farm’s property dated back to the 1940s, and Cedar Farm’s land was part of LG&E’s vast underground gas storage field (spanning portions of southern Indiana and northern Kentucky). The court granted partial summary judgment on June 30, 2009. This case was a significant victory for our client, as terminating the lease would have had multi-million dollar consequences for LG&E and would have had a dire impact on its underground gas storage operations.
  • In a $40 million dispute over the purchase of a software company, Barnes & Thornburg helped Roche obtain a TRO and a preliminary injunction in the district court and the court of appeals to prevent the sale of the target company pending arbitration. Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Medical Automation Sys., Inc., 771 F. Supp.2d 936 (S.D. Ind. 2011), aff'd as modified, Roche Diagnostics Corp. v. Medical Automation Sys., Inc., 646 F.3d 424 (7th Cir. 2011).
  • In one of the very first suits brought under the Minnesota Health Records Act, a Barnes & Thornburg attorney represented a health benefit provider in a case involving allegations of a private health data breach and claims that the Plaintiff’s information was used in the company’s marketing materials. The case proceeded through discovery and the parties reached a confidential settlement.
  • In Teamsters Affiliates Pension Plan et ano v. Walgreen Co., 08 C. 2162, 2010 WL 3894149 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 29, 2010), the plaintiffs alleged that Walgreen Co. had withheld material information from the market concerning its anticipated future revenue and expenses when reporting its historic earnings. After the court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint (because there is no duty to make projections and the historical data was complete and accurate), plaintiff came forward with an analyst report that purported to show that Walgreen Co. was making affirmative, positive statements about its future prospects that were at odds with the undisclosed data. The court disagreed and dismissed again, finding that the plaintiffs had not adequately identified that “Walgreen Co.” source for the information in the analyst report.
  • Mint farmers alleged that their use of Goal® herbicide severely damaged their crops and sued for breach of contract, breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose, breach of oral guarantees, negligent verbal instructions on the use of the product, negligent research, violation of various state and federal statutes and regulations, gross negligence, and strict liability. The court granted Dow AgroSciences’ motion for summary judgment, holding that plaintiffs’ breach of contract and warranty claims were barred by the product label’s UCC-compliant disclaimers and that plaintiffs’ own expert evidence proved that the statute of limitations had expired on all other remaining claims. Starr v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, 339 F. Supp. 2d 1097 (D. Or. 2004).
  • Mr. Gorenberg serves as National Coordinating Counsel for several defendants in asbestos personal injury litigation. He represents clients in various industries including automotive parts, plumbing equipment, and petroleum refining technology. Each client has different types of litigation risks and defenses. Mr. Gorenberg regularly works with each client to develop creative strategies suited to the particular circumstances of each specific client and every case.
  • Mr. McDermott represented a large real estate firm before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio and the Ohio Supreme Court. After agreeing to an order to perform construction work at a railroad crossing in the Columbus, Ohio Arena District, a railroad later tried to avoid its obligations by arguing the Commission lacked jurisdiction over the crossing. The real estate firm moved to intervene in the proceedings before the Commission and, working in cooperation with the City of Columbus, helped convince the Commission that its jurisdiction was proper. When the railroad brought two separate actions before the Ohio Supreme Court seeking to overturn the Commission’s decision, Mr. McDermott again moved on the real estate firm’s behalf to intervene and dismiss. The Ohio Supreme Court dismissed both actions. State ex rel. Norfolk Southern Railroad Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm’n of Ohio, Ohio Su. Ct. Case No. 06-291; Norfolk Southern Railway Co v. Pub. Util. Comm’ of Ohio, Ohio Su. Ct. Case No. 06-521 (Appeal fromPUCO Case NO. 05-297-RR-FED). (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • Newspaper client retained Barnes & Thornburg to assist insurance defense counsel in suit brought by Plaintiff seriously injured in an auto accident when newspaper carrier crossed the center line. We obtained summary judgment for the newspaper on the ground that the carrier was an independent contractor. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment in an unpublicized opinion.
  • On behalf of a national special servicer, Barnes & Thornburg attorneys pursued recovery of misappropriated funds from borrower and guarantors. After roughly 2.5 years of contentious litigation and aggressive discovery, on August 15, 2012, secured an overall winning decision from the Indiana Court of Appeals whereby judgment was entered in favor of the client and against the guarantors in the amount of $1,950,200. This recovery was in addition to a $13,264,506.61 foreclosure judgment, plus costs, accruing interest and attorneys' fees, obtained on behalf of the client in December of 2011. See JPMCC 2006-CIBC14 Eads Parkway, LLC v. DBL Axel, LLC, --- N.E.2d ---, 2012 WL 3332383 (Ind. Ct. App. Aug. 15, 2012) rehearing denied.
  • On behalf of client, Barnes & Thornburg attorneys obtained summary judgment in lawsuit brought by trade show exhibit consultant for tortious interference with a contract, tortious interference with a business relationship and defamation.
  • On behalf of client, Barnes & Thornburg attorneys successfully defended a non-compete and tortious interference claim. Through vigorous prosecution of counterclaims, we were able to secure a favorable settlement for our client.
  • On behalf of construction trade association, a Barnes & Thornburg attorney successfully filed an equal protection constitutional challenge to 20-year-old construction racial set-aside statute. A permanent injunction issued by the District Court was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Associated General Contractors of Ohio, Inc. v. Drabik, 214 F.3d 730 (6th Cir. 2000). (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • On behalf of firm client, Barnes & Thornburg attorneys defeated attempts by shopping plaza landlord to evict sublessor box store from space after original tenant failed to pay all amounts due under original lease.
  • On behalf of global manufacturer of electrical products, prosecute civil actions under the Lanham Act against known manufacturers and distributors of counterfeit circuit breakers. Related work included investigations, inspections and collaborating with federal authorities. In addition to putting a dent in the growing industry of counterfeiting of electrical products, these civil efforts helped lead to the first criminal conviction of a distributor of counterfeit circuit breakers.
  • On behalf of plastics manufacturing client, defeated opponent’s summary judgment motion and obtained favorable settlement for client in action involving defense of non-conforming goods under UCC.
  • On behalf of securities agent client, a Barnes & Thornburg attorney obtained voluntary dismissal by state securities division of its administrative complaint seeking to revocation of the agent's license.
  • Plaintiffs were investors who allegedly suffered a multi-million dollar loss in their investment in a high-technology limited partnership. They sought class certification alleging fraud and breach of contract claims on behalf of similarly-situated investors. The district court dismissed plaintiffs’ fraud claim against Goldman in 2012. In 2013, the court granted summary judgment on plaintiffs’ contract claim. Kruse et al. v. Goldman Sachs & Co. et al., 897 F. Supp.2d 769 (N.D. Ind. Sept. 19, 2012); 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47918 (N.D. Ind. Apr. 2, 2013); Case No. 1:10-cv-00323 (Northern District of Indiana).
  • Represented anesthesia group in lawsuit for breach of restrictive covenant and breach of fiduciary duty against former member doctor. Following jury trial, obtained jury verdict in favor of anesthesia group on all counts, enforced restrictive covenant, and obtained disgorgement of over a half million dollars for wages and benefits earned during breach of fiduciary duty.
  • Represented Dr. Dennis Mangano in Mangano v. PeriCor Therapeutics, Inc., in the Court of Chancery, State of Delaware, to obtain control of his stock from a voting trust. Obtained summary judgment in favor of Dr. Mangano that the voting trust had terminated and that he is the owner of the stock. Mangano v. PeriCor Therapeutics, Inc., No. 3777-VCN (Del. Ct. of Chancery 2009).
  • Represented Fortune 500 companies and financial institutions in informal investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission, many of which have been successfully guided away from further, formal, action against our clients.
  • Represented Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., which obtained summary judgment in defending a nationwide antitrust action brought in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania concerning exclusive dealing with sports sanctioning bodies.

    Plaintiff Specialty Tires of America (STA), a producer of racing tires, alleged that defendant Hoosier Racing Tire (Hoosier), a rival tire producer, violated the antitrust laws by entering exclusive agreements with organizations that sanction races on dirt oval tracks in the United States and Canada. The agreements at issue specified that the sanctioning body must require racers to use Hoosier-branded tires, and that Hoosier would pay the sanctioning body a specified amount of sponsorship or promotional money. STA alleged these exclusive agreements violated Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act because Hoosier had a more than 70 percent share of sales in the alleged market for "dirt oval track tires," and precluded STA from competing for the sale of such tires to racers. STA also sued DIRT Motor Sports, one of the sanctioning bodies with a Hoosier-only tire rule.

    Hoosier filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that STA could not maintain its case because did not suffer an "antitrust injury," as any loss of tire sales it suffered flowed from the competition for exclusive contracts, and injury resulting from the competitive process cannot be compensated by the antitrust laws. Hoosier also argued that, as a matter of law, a sports sanctioning body can decide whether to require its participants to use a particular manufacturer's products without violating the antitrust laws. Hoosier objected to STA's definition of the relevant market and Hoosier's share in that market, but assumed the allegations as true for purposes of the motion.

    The Court agreed with Hoosier and granted summary judgment, holding that “there is no antitrust injury to STA when it loses the competitive battle to be the exclusive supplier,’” and that any injury when it loses a bid is "the inevitable result of competition for exclusive contracts." The Court also held that where "a sanctioning body freely decided to adopt a single tire rule, and then freely selects a supplier, no antitrust violation is present as a matter of law -- either under Section 1 or Section 2 of the Sherman Act," regardless of market share, and that STA had not submitted any evidence that Hoosier used coercive measures to prevent STA from entering into its own exclusive single tire contracts.

    On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed, in a precedential decision, noting that sports sanctioning bodies "deserve a bright-line rule to follow so they can avoid potential antitrust liability as well as time-consuming and expensive antitrust litigation," and holding that where an organization in good faith has "freely adopted their own equipment rules and then freely entered into exclusive contracts with the respective suppliers," the resulting agreement does not violate the antitrust laws, even if the supplier has a high market share and pays for the exclusivity.

    Race Tires of America, Inc. v. Hoosier Racing Tire Corp., et al., 2009 WL 2998138 (W.D. Pa, Sept. 15, 2009); aff’d 614 F.3d 57 (3d Cir. July 23, 2010); costs awarded 2011 WL1748620 (W.D. Pa, May 6, 2011).
  • Represented International House of Pancakes, Inc. against a restaurant for trademark and trade dress infringement in IHOP v. Langley, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. Assisted client in obtaining a Temporary Restraining Order and then a Permanent Injunction and Judgment against the restaurant causing it to be renamed and repainted and from any further infringement of IHOP’s rights. IHOP Corp. v. Langley, No. 5:08cv168 (E.D.N.C., filed Apr. 3, 2008).
  • Represented officer of a national telecommunications company, in SEC investigation and against multi-million dollar federal and state securities fraud, RICO and related fraud-based civil claims in lawsuits filed in multiple state and federal jurisdiction across the country, including Colorado, Florida and Illinois. Obtained complete dismissal with prejudice and award of attorney fees from in federal lawsuit, which was affirmed on appeal, based on the statute of limitations and failure to state a claim; obtained dismissal of federal securities claims in two other federal lawsuits based on the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act; obtained voluntary dismissal in state action after motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; and otherwise obtained favorable pre-trial resolutions on remaining claims and cases.

    Shriners Hospitals for Children v. Qwest Communs. Int’l, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40044 (D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2005); Teachers Ret. Sys. of La. v. Qwest Communs. Int’l, Inc., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44756 (D. Colo. Sept. 23, 2005); Rogers v. Nacchio, 241 Fed. Appx. 602 (11th Cir. 2007); State Universities Retirement System, et al. v. Qwest Comms, Inc., Cause No. 03-CH-508(Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois).
  • Represented shareholders of the J.R. Simplot Company in a derivative lawsuit against certain members of the Board of Directors and Offices of the J.R. Simplot Company, one of the largest privately held companies in the U.S., for improperly using company assets for their personal benefit to the detriment of the company and its shareholders. After defeating multiple motions to dismiss and for summary judgment brought by the Directors, Officers, and the Company, the lawsuit was settled to the satisfaction of the plaintiff shareholders.
  • Represented the plaintiff, Mr. Honea, in obtaining a favorable judgment from Cook County Chancery Court that ordered the corporate defendant to pay Mr. Honea more than $3.5 million for the fair value of his minority interest in the company after a fair value hearing. Mr. Honea filed a lawsuit against the company he founded and his two fellow shareholders, claiming that the company and his fellow shareholders removed him from the company in violation of a shareholders agreement and engaged in oppressive conduct in an attempt to freeze him out of the company. Lance Honea v. Access One, Inc., et al., Case No. 08 CH 41120.
  • Sixty-three Arkansas and Missouri cotton farmers sued more than a dozen national and regional formulators/distributors of 2,4-D-based herbicides and the 2,4-D active ingredients used in them alleging, inter alia, that due to the unique geological and meterological features of Northeastern Arkansas and Southeastern Missouri, those herbicides as customarily applied to rice fields had moved from the target application sites and had redeposited on plaintiffs’ cotton crops, causing many millions of dollars in crop losses. Plaintiffs sued under strict products liability, for violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and under theories of negligence in design, testing, and warning and instructions for use, misbranding under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, breach of the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and for punitive damages.

    A group of the defendant formulators/distributors filed third-party complaints against Dow AgroSciences as the alleged supplier of the 2,4-D manufacturing-grade active ingredients used in their products, and asserted claims for negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, contribution, and costs of defense. The trial court granted Dow AgroSciences’ motions and dismissed the third-party claims against it.

    Burns, et al. v. Universal Crop Protection Alliance, et al./Nufarm Americas Inc. & Albaugh, Inc. v. Dow AgroSciences LLC, No. CV-2009-51 (Ark. Cir. Ct. Aug. 13, 2010).
  • The 7th Circuit affirmed summary judgment granted for America's Servicing Company, an affiliate of Wells Fargo Bank. The case involved alleged "pyramiding" of late fees on a home loan after the Plaintiff failed to make his required monthly payments. The 7th Circuit affirmed the granting of summary judgment on Plaintiff's RESPA, breach of contract and Indiana Home Loan Practices Act claims.

    Of note for clients is the discussion of the Indiana Lender Liability Act and its prohibition of oral modifications of written loan agreements. This concludes litigation that included a putative national class action for all borrowers serviced by ASC that were charged late fees. Plaintiff's motion for class certification was denied, and the 7th Circuit ruling affirms summary judgment on the Plaintiff's individual claims. Collins v. America's Servicing Co., 652 F.3d 711 (7th Cir. 2011).
  • The Barnes & Thornburg Construction Law Practice Group attorneys have represented several prominent real estate developers in connection with litigation arising out of alleged defective construction at residential condominium and townhome developments. Our representation included defense of construction defect claims asserted in litigation, the pursuit of claims against subcontractors, and the pursuit of insurance coverage for the claims. We have successfully obtained insurance company provided defenses, and negotiated favorable settlement agreements for our clients, often funded by insurance.
  • The Barnes & Thornburg Construction Law Practice Group defended a Vermont general contractor against significant construction defect claims arising out of a large commercial office building located in Bourbonnais, Illinois that was leased by a nationally prominent tenant. Our attorneys also handled all of insurance aspects of these claims. After a period of full blown litigation, we successfully resolved the claims by compromise and settlement on very favorable terms for our client. Among other things, most of our clients’ defense costs were paid by insurance carriers, and the settlement amount was paid in full by insurance carriers as well.
  • The Barnes & Thornburg Construction Law Practice Group represent a 300 unit, high-rise building condominium association in connection with various construction claims against the developer, including claims related to the entire exterior window-wall system. The matter involves several parties including the condominium association, the developer, the general contractor, the subcontractor that installed the exterior cladding and the company that manufactured the window system. The parties are currently involved in a creative settlement process that includes the use of a “neutral” expert’s evaluation of building conditions.
  • The Barnes & Thornburg Construction Law Practice Group represented a Chicago area real estate developer to handle all insurance coverage issues arising out of construction defect lawsuits filed by multi-building, mid-rise condominium associations. Services included seeking defense and indemnity from numerous insurance companies, and the defense of several declaratory judgment actions filed by insurance companies. We successfully obtained insurance payments for the defense of the construction defect lawsuits, and also obtained payments from several insurance companies to help settle the construction defect claims.
  • The Barnes & Thornburg Construction Law Practice Group represented a Florida contractor that designs and installs window-wall products on high-rise buildings. The complex case involved breach of contract, acceleration and disruption claims arising out of the construction of a 28-story apartment building in downtown Chicago. The matter also involved insurance coverage disputes related to these claims, including litigation filed by on of the insurance carriers in Florida.

    With respect to the construction claims, two separate lawsuits were filed and after resolving complex procedural hurdles before the courts, the matter proceeded to arbitration involving the project owner, general contractor and our client before the American Arbitration Association. During those proceedings, we were able to negotiate a favorable settlement for our client, including a significant payment. We then also resolved the insurance litigation pending in Florida on favorable terms for our client.
  • The Barnes & Thornburg Construction Law Practice Group represented a large municipality in connection with claims arising out of an $8 billion runway expansion project at an international airport. On behalf of client, firm attorneys handled large claims against more than 15 program management and design professionals that provided services for the project. Through a creative mediated alternative dispute resolution process that included the exchange of substantive information, mediation presentations and negotiations during the course of approximately one year, our team was able to successfully resolve all claims on favorable terms for our municipal client by pursuing insurance and utilizing mediation process without litigation.
  • The Barnes & Thornburg Construction Law Practice Group represented a large steel company to address construction claims arising out of the purchase and installation of a sand cooling system at a foundry. We investigated the matter and developed several counterclaims on behalf of our client worth more than $2 million. After these counterclaims were asserted, the parties were able to negotiate a very favorable settlement for our client.
  • The Barnes & Thornburg Construction Law Practice Group represented a luxury brand automobile dealership in connection with litigation involving mechanic's lien claims, construction defect claims and claims arising out of the insolvency of the general contractor during a project to construct a new automobile dealership and sales facility in Naperville, Illinois. We successfully resolved the claims at issue through negotiation.
  • The Barnes & Thornburg Construction Law Practice Group represented a national general contractor in construction defect litigation involving a university dormitory building located in Chicago and more than $8 million of claimed damages. This significant matter involved more than 15 parties. Our attorneys handled the construction defect litigation as well as all insurance coverage aspects of the case (including ancillary insurance coverage litigation). We successfully obtained defense payments from several insurance carriers while we pursued claims against our client’s subcontractors and their insurance carriers. After four years of effort, we obtained a very favorable settlement for our client through mediation. Under the terms of this settlement, our client’s defense costs were paid almost entirely by insurance carriers, our client did not pay any of the settlement amount paid to the university, and our client obtained reimbursement for certain amounts it had paid to address and correct the construction problems.
  • The Barnes & Thornburg Construction Law Practice Group represented a national real estate developer and related entities in connection with multi-million dollar delay, change order and construction defect claims against a large general contractor. The claims arose out of a significant project located in Chicago’s River North district that successfully converted a large historic building and related structures into residential and retail space. We devised and negotiated a creative alternative dispute mediation process under which the parties that successfully addressed and resolved the complex and contentious claims without having to engage in litigation proceedings.
  • The Barnes & Thornburg Construction Law Practice Group represents a large municipality in connection with claims and possible litigation arising out of a $200 million contract to engineer, build and operate the central heating and cooling plant/facility for a large airport facility.
  • The Barnes & Thornburg Construction Law Practice Group routinely represent owners, contractors and subcontractors in connection with various mechanic's lien and related claims.
  • The Barnes & Thornburg Construction Law Practice Group served as lead counsel for a Michigan general contractor in connection with construction claims and related insurance coverage issues arising out of the design, fabrication and installation of a five-story racking system in three large freezer warehouses located in Hobart, Indiana. Thousands of pallets of frozen food items were stored in the warehouses; the racking system designed, supplied and installed by our client’s subcontractor was failing, and our client became involved in litigation and alternative dispute resolution proceedings involving six parties with claims worth millions of dollars.

    On behalf of our client, we successfully settled the claim with the primary plaintiff at mediation, and proceeded with litigation against five other parties. After the completion of two rounds of mediation with parties from four states, we successfully concluded a final settlement with all parties and our client’s insurance carriers under which our client was able to recover most of its client’s defense costs and the settlement amount paid.
  • The Barnes & Thornburg Construction Law Practice Group successfully negotiated a $250 million construction contract on behalf of a prominent Chicago real estate developer with a national general contractor in connection with a large mixed-use project located on the south side of Chicago. Our attorneys also negotiated the contracts with the project’s design professionals.
  • The Construction Law Practice Group represents an international oil and gas company in connection with one of the largest, if not the largest, refinery modernization construction projects in the United States. Our work on this project has included the following significant claims:

    Litigation Regarding Refinery Emissions Control System

    We are lead counsel handling litigation pending in California arising out of a contract to design and supply a large emissions reduction system for a power plant at the refinery. In conjunction with attorneys in our Los Angeles office, we are both defending against the contractor’s claims and prosecuting counterclaims worth several million dollars.

    $20 Million Dispute With Refinery Contractor – Forensic Audit

    We are lead counsel in a $20 million dispute with a contractor that performed a major turnaround maintenance project at the refinery. The investigation of these claims includes cost accounting and forensic audit issues and various claims related to the work itself. Our team is responsible for dispute resolution efforts and any litigation that may be required.

    $15 Million Dispute - Supplier of Defective Component Parts

    We are lead counsel in a dispute with a supplier of refinery component parts that involves over 100 claims and at least $15 million. Our team is responsible for the investigation and analysis of the claims, dispute resolution efforts and any litigation that may be required.

    $10 Million Dispute – Coke Facility Construction Work

    In 2012, we successfully resolved a $10 million dispute related to the construction of the large coke handling facility at the refinery. We evaluated the complex commercial contract that included construction of the facility, and assisted the client in negotiations that resolved the dispute on favorable terms including eliminating certain potential future claims.

    Structural Steel Fireproofing

    We are co-counsel in connection with the investigation and litigation of issues related to structural steel fireproofing at the refinery. The claims involve steel suppliers, fireproofing fabricators and fireproofing suppliers located in various states and litigation that is now pending in two states.
  • The firm obtained dismissal of almost every claim against firm client Kenda Tires in a nationwide class action pending in the Southern District of Indiana. The plaintiff class alleged that thousands of high-end golf carts and all-terrain vehicles were rendered defective by faulty Kenda tires. The proposed class included more than 9,500 vehicles and a total exposure of more than $4 million. In an opinion that reconciled conflicting federal and state cases, the district court dismissed all but one warranty claim against Kenda on privity grounds. The district court also dismissed a claim under the consumer protection statutes of Indiana and several other states. The district court found that those claims were essentially fraud claims and must be pled with particularly. The court also held that the class complaint could not show that the named plaintiff actually relied on any statement by Kenda and therefore could not satisfy the reliance element necessary for a fraud claim.
  • The Supreme Court examined the scope of remedies available for a breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA. Th.e firm represented ACLI in filing an amicus brief supporting the employer’s position that the plaintiff could not obtain tort-like remedies under ERISA. LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates, 552 U.S. 248 (2008)
  • The trial court granted client summary judgment motion dismissing claims that he was liable for a finder’s fee in connection with a joint venture to manufacture and sell athletic apparel pursuant to a license from the National Football League. After conducting a multi-day evidentiary hearing and finding that numerous allegations in the pleadings were without a basis in fact, the trial court imposed monetary sanctions against two attorneys under Rule 11 in the amounts of $2500 and $250, respectively. On appeal, the amount of sanctions were found to be an abuse of discretion by the Sixth Circuit which increased the sanctions award to $29,294.87 and $3,447.37, respectively. Rentz v. Dynasty Apparel Industries, Inc., 556 73rd 389 (6th Cir 2009). (This matter occurred prior to the attorney joining Barnes & Thornburg LLP.)
  • The United States Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit affirmed a decision dismissing claims that several U.S. and U.K. companies conspired to defraud two Mexican Banks.

    Banco del Atlantico, S.A., a Mexican bank, filed a lawsuit in Texas in 1996 alleging that several companies in the U.S. and the U.K. had conspired to defraud it of more than $12 million in loan proceeds. HSBC Mexico, S.A. joined as an additional Plaintiff in 2004. The Banks also asserted claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).

    In 2003, the Texas Court transferred the case to the Southern District of Indiana. In 2005, the Indiana Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the Banks’ RICO claims. In 2007, the Indiana Court dismissed all of the Bank’s claims as a sanction for the Banks’ failure to prepare their witnesses and comply with the rules of discovery. The 7th Circuit agreed with the Indiana Court and affirmed the dismissal of all claims against the Defendants. 7th Circuit’s opinion is published at Banco del Atlantico, et al. v. Woods Industries, Inc., et al., 519 F.3d 350 (7th Cir. 2008).

    Barnes & Thornburg LLP and Schiff Hardin LLP represented Defendant Woods Industries, Inc. in the Banco del Atlantico litigation, which included depositions in the United States, the United Kingdom, Hong Kong, and Mexico. "This was a tremendous team effort," said Jeff Barron, a partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP who represented Woods in the litigation since 1999.

    Banco Del Atlantico, S.A. v. Woods Indus., No. 07-2238 (7th Cir. 2008).
  • Trace Schmeltz handled first-chair responsibilities for a federal jury trial in the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of a prisoner who had repeatedly been denied medical treatment. As a member of the Trial Bar in the Northern District of Illinois, Mr. Schmeltz had been appointed to represent the plaintiff in the Section 1983 deliberate indifference case. The case centered on a prisoner who had suffered for an inguinal hernia for over 10 years and was repeatedly denied treatment for his condition. After seven days of trial and more than a day of deliberation, the jury came back with a verdict against Dr. Partha Ghosh and awarded plaintiff $23,250 compensatory damages, and $250,000 in punitive damages. Delbert Heard v. Illinois Department of Corrections, Willard O. Elyea, Parthasarathi Ghosh, Lawrence Ngu, Wexford Health Sources, Inc. No:06-cv-0644 (N.D. Illinois filed February 3, 2006).
  • Trace Schmeltz recently earned a victory for the officers and directors of Green Recycling Enterprises, a franchisee sued for alleged trademark infringement, unfair competition, breach of franchise agreement and specific performance of a franchise agreement. In the complaint, Free Green Can attempted to hold the officers and directors of Green Recycling liable for actions taken in furtherance of Green Recycling's business. Judge Sharon Coleman of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted our clients' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' second amended complaint against each of the individual defendant officers and directors for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The lawsuit continues against the corporate defendants. Free Green Can, LLC et ano v. Green Recycling Enterprises, LLC et al. (Case No. 10-cv-5764).
  • Whether shutting down “breakaway” franchisees, enforcing trade and service marks or trade secrets or operating procedures or enforcing a franchisor’s real estate and personal property rights through forcibles, replevin or UCC sales, pursuing franchisees through bankruptcy adversarial proceedings, or doing battle with disgruntled and powerful area franchisees or franchise associations, Mr. McErlean has handled as lead counsel every type of conceivable litigation that occurs between franchisors and franchisees in federal and state courts and before arbitrators throughout the country. Through the years, Mr. McErlean has represented as lead counsel Domino’s Pizza, Burger King, Microsoft, Alphagraphics, Boston Market, Brown’s Chicken, Popeye’s, Century 21, Blockbuster, Roto Rooter and Subway in major litigated matters throughout the country.
PROFESSIONALS

{{resultSet.Title}}

{{resultSet.BioDesignation}}

{{Office.LocationName}}{{', '}}

P {{resultSet.Phone}}

M {{resultSet.Mobile}}

No Search Results Found

WANT TO GET IN TOUCH?

Contact Us
INSIGHTS & EVENTS
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.