loader
7 Results
Commercial Litigation
Bryan Cave’s Commercial Litigation group regularly handles jury trials, bench trials, arbitrations, mediations and administrative and regulatory proceedings for all manner of complex business disputes.  We also counsel clients on how to avoid litigation and resolve business disputes without litigation.  Our experience combined with our technology and attention to cost-effective litigation translate to favorable and prompt results for our clients. We have more than 400 business litigators across the firm.  Our clients range from private family-owned businesses to some of the largest publicly traded companies, in industries such as manufacturing, transportation, retail, technology, energy, financial services, pharmaceutical, health care, hospitality and real estate. Our Trial Experience We have successfully represented clients in virtually all areas of litigation and in nearly every state and federal court in the U.S., as well as all of the leading international arbitral institutions.  We serve as national or coordinating trial counsel for many clients in jurisdictions across the U.S.  Our trial teams include a former United States Attorney, several Assistant United States Attorneys, and nine Fellows of the American College of Trial Lawyers. Cost Effective Litigation We understand our clients’ need for cost management and take an aggressive approach to reducing the cost of litigation.  Our approach includes: Alternative fees.  We embrace alternative fee structures that align our interests with our clients’ interests and give our clients predictability with respect to cost.   Because of our extensive experience within the field, we understand the potential risks involved in different types of litigation, and can develop cost-effective fee structures for discrete stages of litigation. Streamlined e-discovery.  We made aggressive and intelligent investments in people, facilities and technology to reduce the mounting costs of e-discovery. We use powerful concept-searching software that accelerates the average review time.  We have a dedicated document review team, made up of domestic contract lawyers trained and supervised by Bryan Cave professionals, that can be deployed at virtually a moment’s notice. eTrial.  We are among the most active users of web-based case management tools in the world – we house many terabytes of discovery and evidence materials accessed by hundreds of lawyers, clients, experts and consultants.  We use cutting-edge technology at trial, including multimedia briefs and remote monitoring of courtroom proceedings so that subject-matter experts can provide real-time input on case strategy from anywhere in the world. Custom technology solutions.  We develop technologies to make high volume litigation more cost-effective for our clients.  For example, we created a risk assessment and management application for a mortgage company facing hundreds of class action and other suits.  The technology allows us to assess the costs, risks and probable outcomes of a case as it progresses, so that we can determine at any point whether it makes sense to settle or continue on to trial. Areas of Experience Bryan Cave’s commercial litigation practice focuses on counseling, preparation for and trial of all varieties of commercial claims.  Our areas of experience include: Complex Business Litigation Construction Litigation ERISA and Employee Benefits Litigation  Fiduciary Litigation Financial Services Litigation Franchise and Distributor Litigation Health Care Litigation Insurance Litigation International Arbitration Real Estate Litigation Unfair Competition Litigation
Practices
Appellate Cross-Team
The Appellate Group handles appeals and extraordinary proceedings in federal and state appellate courts across the country. We also work with trial counsel, advising on the preservation of defenses and constitutional arguments; assisting with dispositive motions; preparing jury instructions, evidentiary motions, and post-judgment pleadings; and consulting throughout the pre-trial, trial, and post-trial stages. Our goal is to achieve the best possible result for our clients at trial or, in the event of an adverse ruling or verdict, to preserve potential error for review on appeal. Our members also have experience in a wide range of substantive areas, including antitrust, bankruptcy, class actions, intellectual property, labor and employment, product liability, and securities. This combination of appellate and subject-matter expertise has produced a significant track record of success, including the following representative cases: BNSF Railway Co. v. Alstom Trans., Inc., 777 F. 3d 785 (5th Cir. 2015) – Reversing district court’s vacatur of arbitration award and remanding with directions to reinstate the award under the Federal Arbitration Act. The decision is the Fifth Circuit’s first published decision applying the Supreme Court’s Oxford Health standard of review of arbitration awards. Ruiz v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., 130 A.D.3d 1000 (2d Dep’t 2015) – Affirming the dismissal of borrower’s RPAPL Art. 15 quiet title action which claimed that the MERS mortgage was void ab initio having been “split” at inception from the debt.  The supreme court had termed this a case of “first impression” and though its holding was implicit in the case law, this decision provided much needed clarity on the claim.  Borrower’s motion to reargue was denied.  George K. Baum & Co. v. Twin City Ins. Co., 760 F.3d 795 (8th Cir. 2014) – Affirming summary judgment in favor of policyholder in coverage lawsuit against its professional liability insurer, holding that the insurer had improperly denied coverage for antitrust class actions based on untimely notice. BAC Home Loans Servicing, LP v. Fulbright, 180 Wn.2d 759 (Wash. 2014) – Reversing a series of trial and appellate decisions interpreting the State of Washington’s Race-Notice Act, Redemption Act, and Condominium Act, and holding that primary lenders were entitled to redeem properties sold in condominium association foreclosures that otherwise had extinguished the lenders’ security interests. Rolwing v. Nestle Holdings, Inc., 437 S.W.3d 180 (Mo. banc 2014) – Affirming dismissal of class action brought by shareholder to recover accrued interest on shares converted to cash during corporate merger. Holding that statute of limitations was not tolled for plaintiff shareholder despite membership in putative class action filed in another state. Visendi v. Bank of America, N.A., 733 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2013) – Holding that defendants properly removed a "mass action" from state court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) despite the district court's post-removal conclusion that plaintiffs' claims were improperly joined, reversing remand to state court and instructing the district court to dismiss the claims of all but the first named plaintiff. Also holding that the CAFA "local controversy" exception is not jurisdictional and could not be invoked for the first time on appeal. The Renco Group, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London, 362 S.W.3d 472 (Mo. App. 2012) – Reversing summary judgment against successor corporation and its officers in action seeking coverage under defendant insurers' occurrence-based liability insurance policies. United States v. Chemical & Metal Industries, Inc., 677 F.3d 750 (5th Cir. 2012) – Vacating a restitution award and reducing a criminal fine in half, reducing the total sentence by $2,500,000 to $500,000. First National Bank v. Ricon, 311 S.W.3d 857 (Mo. App. 2010) – Reversing judgment totaling almost $800,000 in actual and punitive damages and attorney's fees in favor of Bank's former customer on slander-of-title claim. Gregory v. Dillard's, Inc., 566 F.3d 464 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc) — After granting a rare rehearing en banc, affirming the district court's dismissal of claims brought under 42 U.S.C. §1981 by African-American shoppers against defendant retailer. Union Pacific Railroad v. Vickers, 2009 Ark. 259, 308 S.W.3d 573 (Ark. 2009) — Reversing decision certifying plaintiff class of persons who had settled claims arising from train-crossing accidents; plaintiffs alleged that Union Pacific claims representatives had engaged in the unauthorized practice of law in obtaining settlements. Corey v. Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc., 299 Ga. App. 487, 683 S.E.2d 27 (Ga. App. 2009) — Affirming $4.9 million judgment on jury award in favor of client on claim for violation of non-compete clause in sales agreement. First American Title Co. v. Raffone, 975 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008) – Granting writ proceeding against trial court order allowing classwide merits discovery prior to class certification (opinion written in companion case of Commonwealth Land Title Ins. Co. v. Higgins, 975 So.2d 1169 (Fla. 1st DCA 2008)). Structural Polymer Group, Ltd. v. Zoltek Corp., 543 F.3d 987 (8th Cir. 2008) — Affirming $21,138,518 judgment in favor of client on claim for breach of a requirements contract for the sale of carbon fiber. Davis International, LLC v. New Start Group Corp., 488 F.3d 597 (3d Cir. 2007) — Affirming dismissal of RICO claims based on alleged misconduct in Russia. Washington University v. Catalona, 490 F.3d 667 (8th Cir. 2007) — Affirming grant of summary judgment in favor of university in its declaratory judgment action against former professor and participants in cancer research; Court agreed that university owned biological materials donated by research participants. Kelly v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 218 S.W.3d 517 (Mo. App. 2007) — Reversing judgment totaling more than $19 million in actual and punitive damages on claims brought by terminated insurance agents for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and tortious interference. Philippine American Lace Corp. v. 236 West 40th Street Corp., 822 N.Y.S.2d 25 (1st Dept. 2007) — Reversing grant of specific performance of first right of refusal, based on failure to record grant of right and laches. Atlanta Journal Constitution v. City of Atlanta, 442 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2006) — Affirming award of attorneys' fees to client USA TODAY for successfully challenging newsrack plan on First Amendment grounds. Day v. Taylor, 400 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2005) — Affirming district court's dismissal of multi-district class action alleging that U-Haul's methods of business violated antitrust laws; Court concluded that, given the nature of the relationship between U-Haul and its dealers, they could not violate the antitrust laws. Biomedical Systems Corp. v. GE Marquette Medical Systems, Inc., 287 F.3d 707 (8th Cir. 2002) — Affirming the $75 million judgment in favor of our client on its claim for breach of contract. Duncan v. General Motors Corp., 300 F.3d 928 (8th Cir. 2002) — Reversing outright a $1 million judgment against automobile manufacturer on sexual harassment and constructive discharge claims. In addition to our successful representation of parties on appeal, members of the Appellate Group have prepared amicus briefs on behalf of various organizations in several appeals, including the following: Smith v. Baptiste, 287 Ga. 23, 694 S.E.2d 83 (Ga. 2010) — Filed brief for the Georgia Chamber of Commerce in support of the constitutionality of OCGA 9-11-68, which provides that if either party's written demand or offer to settle a tort claim is rejected, that party may be entitled to recover its attorney's fees; Court upheld statute as constitutional. Iannacchino v. Ford Motor Co., 888 N.E.2d 879 (Mass. 2008) — Submitted brief for the United States Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae in successful appeal; Court held that plaintiffs in a putative class action who had not experienced any personal injury or property damage could not seek recovery for an alleged "defect" absent proof that the product failed to meet a standard "legally required by and enforced by the government." State ex rel. Coca-Cola Co. v. Nixon, 249 S.W.3d 855 (Mo. banc 2008) — Filed brief for Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc. as amicus curiae in successful writ action; Court reversed the trial court's decision certifying a plaintiff class in consumer class action against Coca-Cola Co. Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., 551 U.S. 877 (2007) — Submitted brief for PING, Inc. as amicus curiae in groundbreaking case reversing 96-year-old doctrine that vertical price restraints were per se illegal; brief was discussed during oral argument and cited in Court's opinion, and has since been reprinted in full in a leading antitrust handbook and widely cited as an excellent example of an amicus brief. Welzel v. Advocate Realty Investments, LLC (In re Welzel), 275 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2001) (en banc) — Submitted brief on behalf of a bank as amicus curiae in a case involving the allowance of statutory attorneys' fees to an oversecured creditor in bankruptcy case; the en banc Court largely adopted the reasoning set forth in the amicus brief in unanimously reversing the decision of the three-judge panel. Knights of Ku Klux Klan v. Curators of University of Missouri, 203 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2000) — Submitted brief for National Public Radio as amicus curiae; position espoused in brief was adopted in Court's opinion dismissing Klan's claim alleging infringement of First Amendment rights. Our members also volunteer time to pro bono appellate matters. Those pro bono appellate representations include: Vale v. Avila, 538 F.3d 581 (7th Cir. 2008) — Affirming order requiring return of children in international child abduction case. Roper v. Weaver, 550 U.S. 598 (2007) — Dismissing writ as improvidently granted and allowing lower court's reversal of death sentence to stand. Bousley v. United States, 523 U.S. 614 (1998) — Appointed by Chief Justice Rehnquist to argue position abandoned by government.
Practices
Consumer Financial Services Litigation
Bryan Cave's Consumer Financial Services Litigation team represents financial institutions in high stakes cases nationwide. Our trial lawyers regularly appear in putative consumer class actions and individual claims in state and federal courts, including multi-district and bankruptcy actions, as well as in arbitrations and other alternative dispute proceedings. These cases often involve claims brought under TILA, HOEPA, RESPA, FCRA, FDCPA, ECOA, the Fair Housing Act, state unfair and deceptive practices statutes (UDAP), privacy laws, and the common law.  In addition to consumer disputes, we also represent institutions in connection with business to business disputes relating to their financial services activities. Our clients include banks, mortgage companies, mortgage servicers, credit card issuers, and insurance companies. Many of these matters involve simultaneous government enforcement actions or investigations and multiple class actions, where the need to coordinate is paramount. Our team members across the U.S. — in Atlanta, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Irvine, Kansas City, New York, Phoenix, Santa Monica, San Francisco, St. Louis and Washington D.C. — work together to provide a seamless and effective response. Our team, which includes former in-house counsel at major financial institutions, understands the variety of risk considerations involved in consumer litigation and regulatory enforcement. We work to achieve matter resolutions that meet both our clients' short term needs and broader strategic goals. We represent clients in purported nationwide and statewide consumer class actions involving a variety of claims. These cases often challenge our clients' basic business practices, including the ability to charge certain fees, do business with affiliates, and foreclose on loan collateral, and involve issues with widespread industry impact. Current representations involve: Claims under RESPA alleging sham fees, illegal kickbacks and/or marked up third party fees in connection with mortgage origination; Claims against mortgage servicers under the FDCPA for alleged failure to provide debt validation and other practices; Claims alleging state law claims for breach of contract or improper servicing activity in connection with servicing and REO sales; Suits under state unfair competition laws relating to mortgage origination and servicing practices including force-placed insurance and servicing fees; Suits alleging claims for failure to provide loan modifications; Suits seeking rescission and other TILA remedies, as well as suits alleging unfair competition in the financial services industry. Our practice involves much more than litigation. We also assist clients in pre-suit activities, such as internal investigations, development of internal company procedures and advice about avoidance of litigation risk. Our Consumer Financial Services clients benefit from a variety of other Bryan Cave resources. Our Financial Services and Real Estate practices bring substantial knowledge of the complex regulatory and business environment in which our clients operate. Similarly, our Public Policy and Government Affairs practice includes preeminent lawyers and advisors who provide government relations and strategic counsel on issues that impact financial institution operations and business models. Bryan Cave’s One Firm philosophy promotes a cross-discipline approach to addressing our clients’ needs. Bryan Cave's Client Technology Group is widely known for the innovative business and legal solutions it has created for a number of clients in the financial sector. For example, we developed a new technology solution that had a significant impact on legal spend for a national mortgage lender beset with hundreds of mortgage-related suits. Bryan Cave created a web-based risk assessment system that let lawyers develop risk and cost profiles very early in each matter and then track those variables throughout the life of each case. The availability at any point in a case of detailed risk and cost assessments highlighted cases that could and should be settled early, and that in turn reduced unnecessary discovery and trial expense.
Practices
Fiduciary Litigation
Probate avoidance techniques, once a “trend” used to pass assets at death without court supervision, are now common practice.  There is also a corresponding rise in disputes by and among beneficiaries and fiduciaries concerning estate plans and the administration of estates and irrevocable trusts.  In addition, there are more individuals serving as trustees than ever before, with a corresponding rise in disputes caused by inexperienced trustees handling complex trust matters. Bryan Cave’s Fiduciary Litigation Team combines strength, experience and global resources to handle today’s highly-specialized fiduciary litigation involving often complex trust, estate, guardianship and similar matters at both the trial and appellate levels in jurisdictions nationwide.  We have successfully represented individuals, charitable organizations, educational institutions, banks and trust companies in thousands of such matters spanning the full spectrum of fiduciary issues. Our attorneys have a deep understanding of the substantive common law and statutory requirements governing fiduciary disputes, including the Uniform Trust Code, the Uniform Probate Code, the Uniform Principal and Income Acts, the Prudent Investor Act and the important fiduciary exceptions to attorney-client privilege laws.  With these evolving probate and trust laws as a foundation, our attorneys work alongside: Executors, trustees and other fiduciaries.  They are frequent targets of unhappy beneficiaries and co-fiduciaries.  In addition to defending them in court, our group advises fiduciaries every day on ways to avoid litigation and, when possible, on proven techniques for amicably resolving disputes before going to court. Banks and trust companies.  Our attorneys analyze policies and practices before problems arise in order to improve the chance of avoiding litigation.  We make timely and creative recommendations for improvements. As part of our firmwide commitment to anticipate legal problems rather than react to them, our team includes both estate planning lawyers and trial lawyers who regularly confer on litigation prevention techniques for our trust and estate clients. If litigation becomes unavoidable, our attorneys succeed for clients through well-planned and well-coordinated preparation and trial presentation.  Our representation includes pre-litigation fact review; advice and strategic planning; pleadings preparation; document discovery; and depositions.  We continue to explore mediation and other alternative dispute resolution methods until the trial or hearing.  Bryan Cave also has a strong success rate on appeal. We have invested heavily in technology to provide all clients with better, faster, more cost-efficient services.  We meet with clients at the start of each new engagement to determine how best to address and solve their problems through a combination of excellent legal skills and technology solutions.  Our lawyers use the industry’s most advanced computer and communication devices, information management systems and Web tools for a customized trial approach.  When needed, this technology and Bryan Cave’s established “One Firm” concept can quickly link clients with attorneys from our Fiduciary Litigation Team in all of our offices from Shanghai to London, and from New York to Southern California.  Our Fiduciary Litigation Team is one of the largest in the U.S. and one of the few coordinating the substantive and procedural skills of our Team to deliver the highest quality fiduciary litigation advice and service to our clients nationwide.
Practices
International Arbitration
The globalization of business has made arbitration an increasingly necessary method of dispute resolution, primarily because of the absence of transnational tribunals capable of exercising jurisdiction over private disputes with parties from different countries. Thus, international arbitration has proliferated into the international dispute methodology of choice because it is the legal counterpart to economic globalization. Bryan Cave’s International Arbitration Team provides a comprehensive service to clients around the world, advising them at all stages of the arbitration process, from drafting arbitration clauses to handling jurisdictional and merits hearings and enforcing arbitral awards. Similarly, in the context of investor-state arbitrations (treaty-based arbitral proceedings) the firm counsels clients on the structuring on available treaty investment protection strategies. We serve as counsel and arbitrator in international commercial and investment treaty arbitrations under all of the major institutional rules, including AAA/ICDR, CIETAC, CMAC, DIFC-LCIA, DIS, HKIAC, ICC, ICSID, LCIA, LMAA, SCC, SIAC, UNCITRAL and ad hoc. We also advise parties with respect to the choice of dispute resolution procedures in their contracts and counsel clients on how to avoid litigation or arbitration and resolve business disputes without resorting to third-party adjudication. We regularly work on cases where there is a hostile relationship between the parties, where preserving a long-term working relationship is important or where broader strategic business concerns inform a particular dispute. Our International Arbitration Team is recognized by the Global Arbitration Review in its GAR 100 as well as by the Legal 500 UK Guide. We expanded our international arbitration practice with the opening of our newest office in Miami, where our team has significant experience with disputes in Latin America. We have since been named to Latinvex’s “Top 15 Arbitration Firms” and “Latin America’s Top Law Firms” lists. Bryan Cave has offices in the most popular seats of arbitration, including London, Paris, Hong Kong, Singapore and New York. Combining the common law and civil law traditions, our team includes lawyers from more than 10 offices across the United States, Europe and Asia. We have a demonstrated ability to work seamlessly between offices on disputes with mixed law, venue or language provisions. Our international arbitration lawyers are qualified in a variety of civil law and common law jurisdictions, and speak more than 15 languages including Bosnian, Chinese (Cantonese and Mandarin), Croatian, Danish, English, French, German, Greek, Italian, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, Turkish and Ukrainian. Thus, they are multicultural as to relevant legal and socio-political systems. Members of our International Arbitration Team hold prominent positions in arbitration-related organizations such as the Panel of Conciliators of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (a presidentially appointed position) and the Executive Committee of Young ArbitralWomen. Others previously worked at international courts and tribunals including the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court. Several members of our team hold or have held teaching positions in international arbitration and international law at leading law schools around the world, including New York University, Emory University, Universidad de Navarra and Universidad de San Ignacio de Loyola. Many also are frequent speakers and writers on international dispute resolution issues whose commentary and publications have been featured in CDR News, Le Cercle les Echos, Le Monde du Droit, Global Arbitration Review, The Guardian, The Times and Daily Business Review. Our team produces annual reviews of international investment arbitration covering regions in which the firm is active, including Africa, Asia, Europe, CIS, Latin America, the Middle East and North America. Our International Arbitration Team draws on the full range of subject-matter and industry experience across our global firm. In addition, we work with an established network of local counsel in places where we do not have a direct presence, ensuring our strong market knowledge and quality of service on matters worldwide. Representative Experience Our lawyers have been involved in many high-profile and high-value disputes in recent years. We have handled disputes covering a broad range of industries, including manufacturing, transportation, retail, technology, commodities, media, energy, financial services, pharmaceutical/biotechnology, health care, hospitality, real estate, aerospace, mining and natural resources, media, public and private construction, medical, and electronic devices and software. Below is a list of current or recent representative matters handled by members of our International Arbitration Team. International Commercial Arbitration Our experience includes the representation of: A Russian client in a substantial shareholder dispute, described at the time by Global Arbitration Review as one of the largest international arbitrations in London: an LCIA arbitration concerning commodities supply contracts worth more than US $50 billion, and concerning veto rights over related party transactions, competition law claims and issues of English, Jersey and Hong Kong law. Settled successfully before the final hearing. A global TV broadcaster in a US $1.6 billion ICC arbitration in Paris under French law concerning sports TV broadcasting rights in the Middle East and North Africa. The dispute involved alleged breaches of a channel distribution license and agency agreement and unfair competition claims. Successful final award following trial.  A Panamanian corporation in AAA/ICDR arbitration involving rights to sale and use of entertainment technology throughout South America, Central America and the Caribbean.  A Swiss telecommunications operator in a substantial CCJA arbitration in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, concerning the management and operation of an exclusive gateway for international voice traffic. The governing law of the dispute is the OHADA uniform commercial code, and the language is French. A South Korean trading company in a multimillion dollar ICC arbitration in London under English law concerning shipments of wheat from Romania to Bangladesh. A Russian shareholder in a joint venture dispute concerning a substantial real estate development opportunity in Moscow. This is an LCIA arbitration in London under English law with issues of alleged minority oppression and questions of interpretation of the joint venture agreement. Russian investors in a substantial power plant project in Macedonia in an LCIA arbitration in connection with the recovery of their investment. Successful final award.  A Panamanian construction consultancy in an LCIA arbitration in Geneva under English law relating to a US $300 million project for the construction of an urban waste water treatment plant and disputed consultancy fees. Successful settlement. A French mining contractor in a US $10 million claim brought under Nova Scotia law by way of ad hoc arbitration under the ICC Rules in London concerning a project for drilling and blasting at an open cast gold mine in West Africa. Successful final award following trial. Russian investors into a diamond exploration and production facility in Angola in an LCIA arbitration concerning a dispute over the terms of a contract of association and joint participation. Korean cotton traders in a cotton trade arbitration conducted under the International Cotton Trade Association Rules against Chinese buyers concerning alleged performance and quality issues in a series of substantial cotton trades. Successful final award. A French oil services contractor in an LCIA arbitration concerning a dispute arising out of the terms of a joint venture agreement for an oil services and supply operation in Iraq. Successful settlement. A majority shareholder in a garment distribution company in a US $5 million LCIA arbitration concerning a joint venture to import and distribute high-end children’s shoes into Russia. A former CEO of a Russian bank, and a key financial sector figure, in a US $5 million LCIA arbitration regarding a dispute over share options and departure package. An international hotel management chain in a US $30 million DFC-LCIA arbitration concerning management of a five-star hotel in Dubai.  A substantial US-based telecoms operator in a US $10 million UNCITRAL arbitration seated in London involving claims for alleged breaches of a commercial contract. A US hospitality company in AAA/ICDR arbitration concerning acquisition of a restaurant chain from Japanese and US sellers. Investor-State Arbitration Our experience includes the representation of:  The Republic of Ecuador before the International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) (World Bank) in Occidental Petroleum Corporation and Occidental Exploration and Production Company v. Republic of Ecuador. The amount in controversy exceeded US $2 billion. Instrumentalities of the government of El Salvador in a Paris-based ICC arbitration against a major European energy company concerning ownership and corporate control rights in a geothermal energy production company. Chile in a pre-action 28 U.S.C. 1782 proceeding to solicit discovery in aid of criminal cases filed in Chile against former President Augusto Pinochet. The Dominican Republic in the first investor-state arbitrations commenced against it, concerning the electricity sector.  A central Eastern European state in a bilateral investment treaty dispute under the UNCITRAL Rules.  A hospitality sector investor in an ICSID (World Bank) arbitration against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela pursuant to Barbados-Venezuela Bilateral Investment Treaty with claims exceeding US $400 million.  An automotive industry investor in an ICSID arbitration against Venezuela involving restrictions on foreign exchange and importation.  A major telecommunications company in a multibillion dollar investment treaty arbitration against the government of Algeria.  An investor in a bilateral investment treaty dispute against an Eastern European state under the SCC Rules. Kuwait in the final determinations by the United Nations Compensation Commission of the government of Kuwait’s claims for compensation for governmental losses and for remediation of environmental damages resulting from Iraq’s invasion and occupation of Kuwait in 1990-91, together with representation of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia in hearings on some of its claims for remediation of environmental damages.
Practices
ERISA & Employee Benefits Litigation Team
Bryan Cave’s ERISA and Employee Benefits Litigation Team handles a broad spectrum of ERISA and employee benefit disputes – from individual benefit claims to the defense of class actions for cutting-edge theories of fiduciary breach. With the steady rise of ERISA litigation, Bryan Cave has developed a deep bench of specialists who are well-positioned to handle cases anywhere in the country, both at the district court and appellate levels. Our specialized ERISA litigation focus enables our team to successfully represent and counsel clients on the key ERISA issues and litigation trends confronting some of the largest multi-nationals and publicly traded companies, in industries such as manufacturing, transportation, insurance and financial services, food and beverage, and health care. Our ERISA Litigation experience includes successful client representations in: Individual and class action lawsuits for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty and prohibited transactions; Challenges to plan denials of benefit claims; Actions challenging investment decisions and 401(k) plan fees; Challenges to an employer’s termination of retiree health care benefits; ESOP stock valuation disputes; Executive compensation claims under non-qualified SEPs, SERPs and deferred compensation agreements; Delinquent employer contribution and collection claims; Withdrawal liability matters arising under multi-employer plans; Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation proceedings; US Department of Justice and US Department of Labor investigations and lawsuits; and Tax Court inquiries. Representative examples of our experience in this area include: Class Action Litigation  Fiduciary Defense / Plan Administration Litigation Defense of Claims for Benefits  Multi-Employer Plan Defense   We can provide a listing of important employee benefit cases at your request.
Practices