Appellate List

Chicago Office Selected Representations of Linda T. Coberly (312) 558-8768 [email protected] U.S. of Appeals

Kirschner v. KPMG, et al., 15 N.Y. 3d 446 (on certification), and 626 F.3d 673 (after certification) (2d Cir. 2011) (argued) Obtained an outright dismissal of a $2 billion malpractice and aiding/abetting brought against auditor Grant Thornton LLP and others by a litigation trustee, and secured a highly favorable precedent for third-party on the issue of in pari delicto. The suit arose from the collapse of brokerage giant Refco LLP after disclosure of a massive fraud. Judge Gerard Lynch dismissed the suit on the ground that it was based on wrongdoing by Refco’s managers—wrongdoing that was imputed to Refco and, in turn, barred the trustee’s claims. On appeal, the Second Circuit certified a series of questions to the New York of Appeals concerning the scope of imputation and in pari delicto. That court issued a highly favorable decision on these issues that strikes a blow against the efforts of trustees and corporate fraudfeasors to expand their ability to shift the cost of corporate fraud to third-party professional advisers. Based on the New York Court of Appeals’ decision, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the trustee’s lawsuit in all respects. Ms. Coberly played a lead role in briefing these appeals and presented oral argument on behalf of all defendants, both in the Second Circuit and in the New York Court of Appeals.

In re Parmalat Securities Litigation, 639 F.3d 572 (2011), opin. after remand, 671 F.3d 261, reh’g den’d (2d Cir. 2012) (argued) Represented Grant Thornton on appeal in defending the dismissal of another multi- billion lawsuit, this time brought by the Italian administrator of the estate of Parmalat SpA, the dairy conglomerate that collapsed amid allegations of massive fraud. The suit was based on allegations of vicarious liability, as the audit work for Parmalat was performed not by our client but by Grant Thornton SpA, Grant Thornton International’s member firm in Italy. The appeal followed our summary victory on Grant Thornton’s behalf, on the ground that the estate’s claims were barred as a matter of under the common law doctrine of in pari delicto. The appeal also concerned the issue of mandatory abstention under § 1334(c)(2). After extended practice in the MDL court and two full sets of briefing and two oral arguments in the Second Circuit, the case was ordered back to state court via the Northern District of Illinois. On our motion, however, the Northern District retained in light of supervening authority and entered in our client’s favor once again. The case is now pending on appeal in the Seventh Circuit.

Capital Management Select Fund Ltd., et al., v. Phillip R. Bennett, et al., 670 F.3d 194 (2d Cir. 2012) (argued) Represented Grant Thornton LLP in successfully defending an order dismissing a putative securities brought by customers of a Refco subsidiary. The appeal dealt with issues of standing under Blue Chip Stamps and with whether the plaintiffs had adequately alleged deception.

Attorney advertising materials

Anderson v. Aon Corp., 674 F.3d 895 (7th Cir. 2012) (cert. denied) Successfully defended the dismissal of a asserting claims for securities fraud under a state “holder” theory, on the grounds that the had failed to allege that the supposed fraud caused him any damage.

Premium Plus Partners v. Goldman Sachs & Co., 648 F.3d 533 (7th Cir. 2011) (argued) Successfully represented Goldman, Sachs & Co. in consolidated appeals arising out of a set of securities fraud relating to Goldman’s alleged trading during an eight- minute period before the Treasury Department’s 2001 public announcement that it would no longer issue 30-year bonds. Among other things, the appeals concern whether a plaintiff who reached an individual may still appeal the denial of class certification, or, alternatively, whether a plaintiff who litigated his individual claim to judgment in a separate action may intervene in the putative class action after final judgment to appeal the denial of class certification.

Hassinger v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., No. 09-30708 (5th Cir. 2010) (argued) Successfully represented JP Morgan Chase & Co. on appeal in defending an award of summary judgment in the bank’s favor on a claim of breach of contractual “anti- dilution” clause. The issue in the case was whether the clause gave the plaintiff- shareholders the right to receive the same amount that was paid to a separate group of shareholders who brought and settled a separate securities fraud lawsuit.

In re Computer Associates Securities Litigation, Nos. 07-3673, 3674, 3675 (2d. Cir. 2009) (argued) Represented Computer Associates founder Charles B. Wang in appeals relating to Computer Associates’ and investor Sam Wyly’s efforts to upset a global settlement that resolved securities and derivative actions and released Mr. Wang and other insiders from any personal liability. The Court accepted our position and ruled in Mr. Wang’s favor on all issues.

Pappas v. Bank of America, et al., Nos. 07-4103, 4093 (2d Cir. 2009) (argued) Successfully represented auditor Grant Thornton LLP in defending the dismissal of tort claims brought by bankruptcy estates of two U.S. affiliates of Parmalat SpA. The issues on appeal included proximate cause, deepening insolvency , and federal standards.

Comtide Holdings, LLC v. Booth Creek Management Corp., No. 08-3767 (6th Cir. 2009) (argued) Represented the appellee in an appeal concerning the interpretation of a brokerage agreement concerning the purchase and sale of automobile dealerships.

Menard, Inc., et al. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 560 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2009) Served as consulting counsel on appeal and assisted our client Menard in securing a unanimous decision reversing the tax court’s adverse determination regarding the deductibility of CEO compensation under the “reasonableness” and “disguised dividend” tests.

Harry R. Larson, et al. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., successor to Bank One Corp., 530 F.3d 578 (7th Cir. 2008) (argued) In the securities fraud litigation arising out of the merger between Bank One and First Chicago, successfully represented the bank in opposing an appeal by a putative intervenor seeking to revive long-dead claims following a multi-million-dollar settlement designed to end the litigation.

Marsha Bartel v. NBC Universal Inc., 543 F.3d 901 (7th Cir. 2008) (argued) On behalf of NBC, successfully defended the dismissal of a suit for breach of an employment contract, arguing against the expansion of a state law exception to at-will employment based on the employee’s reporting of alleged ethical misconduct.

Louis A. Perretta, Jr., et al. v. Prometheus Development Co., et al., 520 F.3d 1039, vacated, 527 F.3d 853, opinion on rehearing, 527 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2008) Represented the general partner of a real estate development partnership in defense of the dismissal of a complaint for breach of fiduciary duty based on a merger approved by the limited partners in which the general partner had (and had disclosed) a conflict of interest. After an adverse ruling by the panel on an issue it raised sua sponte, we persuaded the panel to grant rehearing and take supplemental briefs on the issue. The panel ultimately reversed its decision and affirmed the dismissal in our client’s favor.

In re Parmalat Sec. Litig., No. 07-0685-BK (2d Cir. July 23, 2007) (argued) On behalf of auditor Grant Thornton LLP, succeeded in defending an order of the district court modifying an under Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code to allow of a foreign bankruptcy estate into pending U.S. securities litigation.

United States v. Patrick J. Roxworthy, VP-Tax for Yum! Brands, 457 F.3d 590 (6th Cir. 2006) (argued) Represented a taxpayer in its successful appeal in an IRS summons enforcement action in which the IRS was attempting to establish a limit on the work product doctrine as it applies to tax opinions prepared in anticipation of a tax dispute and potential litigation. The Court unanimously accepted our position and reversed the district court’s order requiring production of the tax opinions.

F:A J Kikson v. Underwriters Laboratories, 492 F.3d 794 (7th Cir. 2007) Represented Underwriters Laboratories in a successful appeal reversing an award of punitive and compensatory damages against it in a lawsuit by a manufacturer claiming tortious interference and negligent misrepresentation in connection with UL’s testing and certification of a chimney lining product.

Guy Carpenter & Co. v. John B. Collins Assoc., Inc., No. 05-3465, 2006 WL 870795, as modified on rehearing by 2006 WL 1312547 (8th Cir., May 15, 2006) (argued) Briefed and argued an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction on behalf of a major reinsurance company seeking to enforce the terms of non-compete and confidentiality agreements against a group of former employees who defected to a competitor and thereby took a substantial portion of their employer’s business.

In re Cendant Corporation, et al., No. 06-7844-op (2d Cir., Dec. 12, 2006) Successfully petitioned the Second Circuit for to require a district court to accept and decide a motion for summary judgment pursuant to the Federal Rules.

Van Patten v. Deppisch, 434 F.3d 1038 (7th Cir. 2006) (argued), as amended on remand sub nom Van Patten v. Endicott, 489 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2007), rev’d sub nom Wright v. Van Patten, No. 07-212, 127 S.Ct. 743 (2008) (per curiam) Represented a state prisoner in his bid for federal habeas relief on the ground that he was denied counsel at a critical stage of the proceedings when his lawyer appeared only by speakerphone at his plea hearing. The Seventh Circuit panel accepted this argument and overturned the conviction. On remand from the Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of new authority, the Seventh Circuit panel reaffirmed its original decision. The Supreme Court later summarily reversed.

Harris v. Cotton, 365 F.3d 552 (7th Cir. 2004) (argued) Briefed and argued an appeal on behalf of an inmate seeking federal habeas relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The appeal was successful; the Court overturned the murder conviction.

United States v. Fassnacht, 332 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2003) (argued) Briefed and argued an appeal in the Seventh Circuit on behalf of a client who had been convicted of obstructing a federal investigation into alleged income tax evasion.

Seton Co. v. Lear Corp., No. 05-2489, 2006 WL 2860774 (6th Cir., Oct. 4, 2006) Represented an automobile parts manufacturer in its appeal from a $30 million verdict in a case involving claims for anticipatory breach of contract and promissory estoppel.

Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, 399 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2003) Briefed an appeal on behalf of a manufacturer that had been the subject of an award of attorney’s fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, based upon its pursuit of a claim of infringement in the face of an equitable estoppel defense. The appeal was successful; the Federal Circuit reversed the fee award.

AUSA Life Insurance Co. v. Ernst & Young, 991 F. Supp. 234 (S.D.N.Y. 1997), vacated in part and reversed in part, 206 F.3d 202 (2d Cir. 2000), opinion on remand, 119 F. Supp. 2d 386 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), aff’d, 39 Fed. App’x 667 (2d Cir. 2002) Drafted briefs in two appeals to the Second Circuit—as well as pretrial, post-, and remand briefs in the district court—on behalf of Ernst & Young in a high-profile securities fraud case. Played a significant role in developing and briefing the loss causation defense on which Ernst & Young ultimately prevailed.

U.S. Supreme Court

Omnicare v. Laborers Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pens. Fund, No. 13-435 (pending) Represent the petitioner seeking certiorari to the Sixth Circuit in a case about the standards for pleading falsity for claims under Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933.

Fung & IsoHunt Web Technologies v. Columbia Pictures Industries, No. 13-334 (2013) Represented the petitioner in a case concerning the standards for secondary copyright infringement liability under Grokster

Willis of Colorado Inc. v. Troice, No. 12-86 (pending) Represented DRI—The Voice of the Defense Bar as amicus curiae in support of certiorari and on the merits in a case concerning the scope of preclusion under SLUSA

Maersk Drilling USA v. Transocean Offshore Deepwater Drilling, No. 13-43 (pending) Represented a major drilling company in an amicus brief supporting certiorari in a case concerning patent liability based on a contract for services negotiated overseas

American Express Company v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013) Submitted an amicus brief for the Financial Services Roundtable, advocating the winning position in a case concerning arbitration clauses and federal statutory claims

Bland v. Lemke, No. 12-594 (2013) Represented the petitioner seeking certiorari in a case concerning whether AEDPA requires deference to a state court’s determination when the state court reached only one prong of a multi-prong analysis

CompuCredit Corp. v. Greenwood, 132 S. Ct. 665 (2012) Represented DRI—The Voice of the Defense Bar as amicus curiae in support of a petition for certiorari and on the merits in a case arising out of the Ninth Circuit’s refusal to enforce a valid arbitration agreement with respect to claims arising under the federal Credit Repair Organizations Act. Our brief addressed the importance of arbitration to the business community and the arbitrability of statutory claims.

Barr Laboratories, Inc., et al. v. Cancer Research Technology Ltd. & Schering Corp., No. 11-131 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (2011) Represented Barr in its petition for certiorari from a decision by a divided panel of the Federal Circuit that imposed new and rigid limitations on the patent doctrines of prosecution laches and inequitable conduct.

Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011) Represented the National Immigrant Justice Center, the American Immigration Lawyers Association, and the American Immigration Council as amici on the merits in support of the U.S. Chamber’s challenge to an Arizona statute that creates a parallel enforcement scheme for immigration-related employment law.

Jerman v. Carlisle, McNellie, Rini, Kramer & Ulrich, L.P.A., 130 S. Ct. 1605 (2011) Represented DRI - the Voice of the Defense Bar as amicus curiae on the merits in a case concerning whether a debt collector’s error in interpreting the law is categorically ineligible for the bona fide error defense under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Acctg. Oversight Bd., 130 S. Ct. 3138 (2010) Represented the Cato Institute and others as amici curiae on the merits in arguing successfully that the Court should declare unconstitutional the provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act that provide for the removal of members of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board. Our brief discussed the constitutional problems with the PCAOB’s structure and how these constitutional problems are linked to failings in the PCAOB’s policies and practical operations.

Florida v. Powell, 130 S. Ct. 1195 (2010) Represented the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and the National Association of Federal Defenders as amici curiae on the merits in a case concerning whether the Tampa police department’s systematic failure to warn suspects explicitly that they have a right to the presence of counsel during their interrogations represented a deprivation of constitutional rights under Miranda.

McDonald v. City of Chicago, 130 S. Ct. 3020 (2010) Represented a group of legal scholars and academics as amici curiae on the merits in a case concerning the constitutionality of Chicago’s handgun ban. Our brief presented a historical argument against a position taken by one set of petitioners, who argued unsuccessfully that the Reconstruction-era Slaughterhouse Cases should be overruled and the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteen Amendment interpreted to incorporate the Second Amendment as against the States.

Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 130 S. Ct. 2577 (2010) Represented the National Immigrant Justice Center and other advocacy groups as amici on the merits on the winning side of a case presenting the question whether a misdemeanor conviction for simple drug possession may be deemed an aggravated felony (thus carrying serious consequences for immigrants and refugees under the Immigration and Nationality Act) simply because the offense could have been charged

under federal law as a repeat offense. Our brief presented the argument that the government’s position would put the United States in conflict with its international treaty obligations.

Bayer Schering Parma AG, et al. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., No. 09-1022 (2010) Successfully opposed a petition for certiorari challenging the Federal Circuit’s post-KSR standard for invalidating a patent on “obviousness” grounds.

Rivera v. Illinois, 129 S. Ct. 1446 (2009) Represented the National District Attorneys Association in an amicus brief supporting the winning position in a case concerning whether an improper denial of a state- granted peremptory challenge is a structural error under the Due Process Clause.

Phoenix of Broward, Inc. v. McDonald’s Corp., No. 07-659 (2008) Represented McDonald’s in successfully opposing a petition for certiorari by a Burger King franchise on behalf of a putative class; the petition concerned the standards for prudential standing to bring false advertising claims under the Lanham Act.

Nunez v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 2990 (2008) Succeeded in obtaining a summary order vacating and remanding an unfavorable decision of the Seventh Circuit in a case relating to a criminal ’s right to insist that counsel file a notice of appeal even in the presence of a plea agreement waiving appeal.

Betty Joblove v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., et al., No. 06-830 (2007) Represented a generic drug manufacturer in successfully opposing certiorari in a case concerning whether and when the parties to a patent infringement suit should bear antitrust liability for reaching a settlement that includes a payment from the drug manufacturer to the challenger.

Avalos-Gutierrez v. Gonzales, No. 06-1312 (2007) Represented a legal permanent resident seeking certiorari from an order of the Fifth Circuit refusing to reopen a deportation appeal despite new Supreme Court authority establishing that the basis for deportation—a single state court conviction for possessing less than one gram of cocaine—rested on an erroneous interpretation of the immigration .

Rongstad v. Lassa, No. 06-1084 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (2007) Represented the petitioner in a petition for certiorari in a case concerning the burdens the First Amendment poses on a public official seeking to compel the identification of members of an association that criticized the official during a campaign.

Miller v. United States, No. 06-643 (U.S. Sup. Ct.) (2007) Represented Northwestern’s Center on Wrongful Convictions and other innocence projects as amici curiae in support of certiorari in a case concerning the availability of oral argument under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 34.

Hyundai Motor America v. Razor, No. 06-746 (2007) Represented Hyundai Motor America in a petition for certiorari from a decision of the Illinois Supreme Court concerning the preemptive effect of Federal Trade Commission regulations with respect to state warranty law.

Lopez v. Gonzales, 127 S. Ct. 625 (2006) Represented Human Rights First as amicus curiae on the merits in a case addressing the definition of “aggravated felony” in the Immigration and Nationality Act. The amicus brief addressed the impact of the issue on refugees and on the United States’ compliance with its international treaty obligations concerning refugees.

Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao do Vegetal, 126 S. Ct. 1211 (2006) Represented a group of major religious organizations as amici curiae on the merits in support of a church seeking protection under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The church’s religious rituals include the use of a sacramental tea that contains a controlled substance, and the church sought to prevent prosecutions under the federal drug laws. The Court ruled unanimously in the church’s favor.

Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, 126 S. Ct. 1297 (2006) Represented the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network and the ACLU as amicus curiae on the merits in support of a challenge to the Solomon Amendment, which effectively requires universities to allow access to military recruiters. The amicus brief focused on issues of military deference.

Illinois Central Railroad Co. v. Smallwood, No. 04-831 (2005) Represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Financial Services Association, and the American Insurance Association as amici curiae in support of a petition for certiorari from a Fifth Circuit decision that adopted a “common defense” exception to the fraudulent doctrine and thus dramatically limited an out-of- state defendant’s ability to remove a case to federal court based on diversity.

Marsh & McLennan Cos. v. Palmer & Cay, Inc. No. 05-274 (2005) Submitted a petition for certiorari from a decision of the Eleventh Circuit holding that a Georgia court, on grounds of Georgia public policy, could refuse to enforce an otherwise valid non-solicitation agreement executed between a Minnesota employer and employee. The petition focused on issues of federalism and state sovereignty.

DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Ysbrand, No. 03-1342 (2004) Represented the U.S. Chamber of Commerce as amicus curiae in support of a petition for certiorari in a case involving the certification of a nationwide class action based on the law of the defendant’s domicile. The amicus brief addressed the significant due process and federalism issues in the case.

State Courts

Kirschner v. KPMG, et al., 15 N.Y. 3d 446 (N.Y. 2010) (argued) Won a key case in New York’s highest court involving the doctrine of in pari delicto, establishing a highly favorable precedent for third-party defendants in corporate fraud cases and paving the way for dismissal of a $2 billion federal malpractice and aiding/abetting lawsuit by a bankruptcy litigation trustee against an auditor and other third-party professionals. (See above.)

Lee Medical, Inc. v. Beecher, et al., 312 S.W.3d 515 (Tenn. 2010) (argued) Represented Bard Access Systems, Inc. in an appeal in the Tennessee Supreme Court concerning whether documents concerning a review prepared on behalf of a hospital and falling within Tennessee’s Peer Review Privilege were nevertheless discoverable from Bard, which supplied the relevant equipment and assisted in the hospital’s review.

Willie B. Hadley v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections, 864 N.E.2d 162 (Ill. 2007) (argued) Won an appeal in the Illinois Supreme Court in which that court effectively rejected on statutory grounds a state regulation regarding medical copayment requirements for inmates.

Jablonski v. Ford Motor Company, 955 N.E.2d 1138 (Ill. 2010) Represented the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers as amicus in a case in the Illinois Supreme Court concerning the “voluntary undertaking doctrine,” where an auto manufacturer undertook a targeted campaign to warn a category of users who were at risk of a particular harm.

Everest Properties II v. Sanford N. Diller, No. A122641 (Cal. Ct. App., 1st Dist 2009) (unpub.) (argued) Represented Sanford Diller, the principal of a real estate development firm, in defending the dismissal of a suit against him for punitive damages, after his company was found liable for a breach of fiduciary duty (but not punitive damages) and paid the judgment. The court agreed with our position and affirmed the dismissal.

In re Marriage of Polsky, 899 N.E.2d 454 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008), petition for leave to appeal denied (Ill. 2009) Represented the husband in his appeal from a judgment of dissolution that awarded the wife $183 million (the largest reported divorce award in history), which represented half of a business fortune that the husband built single-handedly during a period when the wife was engaged full-time in her own business pursuits.

Old Orchard Ltd. Partnership v. Harry Rosen, Inc., 389 Ill. App. 3d 58 (2009) (argued) petition for leave to appeal denied (Ill. 2010) Represented Canadian clothier Harry Rosen Inc. in defeating an appeal from the dismissal of a suit involving its U.S. subsidiary for lack of .

Karris v. U.S. Equities Dev., Inc., 876 N.E.2d 688 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007) (argued) Successfully defended a judgment in our client’s favor in a $25 million real estate dispute, defeating claims for specific performance of an alleged agreement to purchase commercial property.

People ex rel. Spitzer v. Grasso, 21 A.D.3d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005) (argued) Represented the New York Stock Exchange and its interim CEO John Reed in briefing and oral argument in an appeal from the dismissal of a claim for defamation brought by Richard Grasso. Grasso resigned as Chairman and CEO of the Exchange after public disclosure of his compensation package, worth more than $180 million. The defamation claim, based on statements Reed allegedly made to the press during and after the investigation into Grasso’s compensation, was filed in the context of a lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer to recover the unreasonable compensation.

Everest Properties II, LLC, et al. v. Prometheus Development Co., No. 5157984 (Cal. 2008) Represented the petitioner seeking California Supreme Court review of an important question relating to the scope of fiduciary duties and the application of the “inherent fairness” doctrine in the partnership context.

Archangel Diamond v. Lukoil & Arkhangelskgeoldobycha, 123 P.3d 1187 (Colo. 2005) Served as lead appellate counsel in proceedings in the Colorado Supreme Court in a dispute over rights to a diamond deposit in Russia. The trial court had dismissed all claims against our client Arkhangelskgeoldobycha, a Russian company, for lack of personal jurisdiction. On appeal, the Colorado Supreme Court accepted our position and affirmed that result.

Tri-G, Inc. v. Burke, Bosselman & Weaver, 856 N.E.2d 389 (Ill. 2006) Represented the Illinois Civil Justice League and two bar associations as amici curiae in the Illinois Supreme Court in a successful challenge to an award of “lost punitive damages” as an element of compensatory damages in a legal malpractice case.

People v. Morris, 848 N.E.2d 1000 (Ill. 2006) Submitted an amicus brief on behalf of former Illinois Governor George Ryan in a case concerning the scope and consequences of his grant of clemency to all inmates who were then on death row and whether that relief was binding in a retrial. The brief was influential in securing a ruling in the inmates’ favor.

Evitts v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Corp., 834 N.E.2d 942 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005) Handled an appeal from the dismissal of a putative class action relating to alleged defects in the Chrysler Sebring convertible. Plaintiffs alleged claims for breach of warranty and violation of consumer protection statutes. The trial court dismissed the complaint because Plaintiffs had no claim under the written warranty and had failed to allege sufficient facts to show that the manufacturer knew about any alleged defect at the time of sale. Our client prevailed on appeal; the Court upheld the dismissal.

Abbott Laboratories, et al. v. Rufer, 118 Wash. App. 1080 (2003) Prepared briefs in an appeal from a verdict in a product liability/failure-to-warn case relating to a immunoassay designed for the diagnosis of early pregnancy. The appeal concerned the application of the learned intermediary doctrine in the context of laboratory diagnostic tests, as well as public access to sealed materials.

Practice Areas

Antitrust International Arbitration Appellate and Critical Motions Labor and Employment Relations Banking Lease Finance

Corporate Governance Litigation

Corporate Internal Investigations Maritime

Corporate Lending Mergers and Acquisitions

e-Discovery and Electronic Information Private Equity

Employee Benefits and Executive Product Liability Compensation Public Finance Energy Real Estate Environmental Restructuring and Insolvency Financial Services Securities Government Contracts Securitization Governmental Relations and Regulatory Affairs Tax

Health Care Trusts and Estates

Intellectual Property White-Collar Criminal Defense

About Winston & Strawn

Winston & Strawn LLP is an international law firm with nearly 1,000 attorneys among 15 offices in Beijing, Charlotte, Chicago, Geneva, Hong Kong, Houston, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, New York, Newark, Paris, San Francisco, Shanghai, and Washington, D.C. The exceptional depth and geographic reach of our resources enable Winston & Strawn to manage virtually every type of business-related legal issue. We serve the needs of enterprises of all types and sizes, in both the private and the public sector. We understand that clients are looking for value beyond just legal expertise. With this in mind, we work hard to understand the level of involvement our clients want from us. We take time to learn about our clients’ organizations and their business objectives. And, we place significant emphasis on technology and teamwork in an effort to respond quickly and effectively to our clients’ needs. Please visit us at www.winston.com if you would like more information about our legal services, our experience, or the industries we serve.

www.winston.com 4.12