Quinn emanuel trial lawyers

Transnational Litigation

IntroductionSign up for firm Publications  Print

In today’s ever-flattening marketplace, business disputes are often multi-national and international.  We have broad experience representing clients in litigations filed in multiple jurisdictions and in disputes arising in one country that get litigated in another.  In addition to our offices in the United States, we have offices in Tokyo, London, Mannheim, Hamburg, Paris, Hong Kong, Munich, Sydney, Brussels, Shanghai, Perth, Stuttgart, Zurich, and we are the best litigators in the world, everywhere we litigate.

Our offices form a dynamic team of attorneys who collaborate strategically to offer the best national and cross-border litigation, arbitration, and investigation advice.  We work together across cultures and time zones, on different continents and in different languages, relying on our network of offices (as well as in countries where we have no office), to offer coordinated, multi-jurisdictional dispute avoidance and resolution strategies for our clients.

Our firm regularly works closely with the top law firms in Europe, the Americas, and Asia, and beyond, in litigation, arbitration, and investigation matters where we act as world-wide coordinating counsel.  These connections enable us to better serve the interests of our clients.

The firm’s broad expertise in cross-border and multi-jurisdictional litigation is complemented by its similar strength in representing clients in international arbitration matters. Our appellate group leads the field litigating issues of transnational and extra-territorial jurisdiction.  Several of our practice areas are specializations of transnational practice, such as antitrust and competition, data privacy litigation, intellectual property litigation, and our investigations, government enforcement and white collar criminal defense practice.

No firm wins more cases in more countries than Quinn Emanuel.

Back to Top

Recent Representations Print

  • We cemented our prior victories on behalf of Indonesian bank PT Bank Mutiara, Tbk (now known as PT Bank JTrust Indonesia) against a crooked Mauritian hedge fund, leaving the fund with no assets and no recourse in the United States. Nearly six years ago, the hedge fund improperly seized and retained several million dollars of our client’s assets and refused to return the money despite numerous court orders to do so. The court held the fund and its owner in contempt, imposed fines that eventually reached more than $400 million, and ultimately granted our request that it transfer the ownership of the hedge fund itself to our client. Following that order, and the Court of Appeals’ affirmance, the hedge fund’s former management commenced a new action in Delaware to oust the newly appointed board of directors and to retake control of the entities. We swiftly obtained an injunction stopping that case, which the Court of Appeals affirmed last week. The decision leaves the hedge fund with no viable means to continue its pursuit of our client in courts in the United States or anywhere else around the world.
  • We represented ASM in patent infringement actions against Kokusai Electric (previously Hitachi Kokusai Electric) in the U.S. and Japan as well as multiple IPR proceedings and ultimately secured a $115 million royalty payment through July 2021.
  • We represented Swiss-based Highlight Group in a shareholder dispute about a joint venture in the area of international sports. The dispute arose after one shareholder caused a deadlock by refusing to provide promised financing and by challenging decisions of the board of directors. We defended against all actions and secured our client a controlling stake in the company.
  • We represent Vantage Deepwater Company and Vantage Deepwater Drilling, Inc. in an ICDR arbitration against Petrobras America Inc., Petrobras Venezuela Investments & Services, BV, and Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. – Petrobras (together, “Petrobras”) concerning Petrobras’s improper early termination of an eight-year deepwater drilling contract.  A majority of the Tribunal rejected Petrobras’s contentions that termination was proper due to purported operational failures and that the contract was void or voidable for being procured by bribery.  The Tribunal awarded Vantage $622 million in benefit-of-the-bargain damages, plus post-judgment interest.  Petrobras challenged the award, arguing that the tribunal had not properly considered whether or not that contract was procured through bribery. In May of 2019, U.S. District Judge Alfred H. Bennett (S.D. Tex.) rejected this argument and confirmed the award, and Petrobras was forced to pay our clients over $700 million.
  • We represented Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd., which is the world’s largest pure private bank and publicly listed on the Swiss stock exchange, in resolving criminal liability related to its historical U.S. private banking business.  In February 2016, Julius Baer entered into a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York (SDNY) and paid a total of $547 million as part of its settlement.  Julius Baer was one of the first Swiss banks to reach a resolution outside of the U.S. Department of Justice Program for Non-Prosecution Agreements or Non-Target Letters for Swiss Banks, which was negotiated between the U.S. and Swiss governments and announced in August 2013.  The penalty component of Julius Baer’s settlement ($81 million) represented a departure of approximately 85% below the bottom end of the recommended sentence range under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines.  Julius Baer’s resolution stands as the largest percentage downward departure that DOJ has publicly reported in any context.  As Julius Baer complied with the requirements of the DPA – which required, among other things, ongoing cooperation with the U.S. Department of Justice for a period of three years – the SDNY  moved to dismiss the criminal charges against the bank.  On February 4, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York formally dismissed the charges. 
  • We represented NVIDIA Corporation, a pioneering developer of graphics processing technology, and a number of its customers (ASUS, MSI, Gigabyte, PNY, Zotac, and EVGA), in patent infringement actions filed by ZiiLabs in the District of Delaware and at the International Trade Commission (“ITC”).  ZiiLabs is a subsidiary of Creative Labs.  ZiiLabs claimed that various NVIDIA GPUs along with graphics cards and computers containing the same infringe eight patents (three are currently asserted in the ITC investigation) relating to graphics processing and rendering technology.  ZiiLabs previously used its patent portfolio (including some of the patents at issue here) to sue Apple, Samsung, ARM, AMD, Sony, Qualcomm, Lenovo, MediaTek and LG and obtain substantial settlements. Over the ITC investigation, the ALJ terminated one of the four asserted patents from the ITC investigation, denied ZiiLabs’ Motion for Summary Determination on the Economic Prong of the Domestic Industry Requirement, denied all relevant portions of ZiiLabs’ motion to strike our expert reports, and granted large portions of our own motion to strike, include striking the vast majority of ZiiLabs’ validity case for one of the three remaining patents. On the eve of trial—with multiple, case dispositive, motions for summary determination pending—the parties resolved the multiple pending actions on confidential terms.
  • The firm secured a full dismissal of all the claims against its client Ledman Optoelectronics  Co., Ltd. in an ITC investigation launched by Ultravision Technologies, Inc. in March 2018, against 44 respondents.  Ultravision accused Ledman’s LED modules, which are used in large indoor and outdoor digital displays around the world, of patent infringement.  We were the lone respondent to develop and assert defenses of improper inventorship and inequitable conduct against Ultravision at the outset, and we later led the effort to aggressively pursue these defenses during the investigation.  Facing a court order granting Ledman’s motion to compel emails and depositions related to the defenses, Ultravision voluntarily dismissed its complaint and filed a motion to terminate the investigation.
  • We achieved a favorable settlement for our clients Yan Li, Hua Zhong, Zhenzhe Kou, and Eric Huo, ending a lawsuit brought by plaintiffs UCAR Inc. and UCAR Technology (USA) Inc., alleging trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the computer fraud and abuse act.
  • We represented PT Bank Mutiara, Tbk, an Indonesian bank in a case involving a crooked Mauritian hedge fund’s attempt to enforce Mauritian judgments in the Southern District of New York. The hedge fund improperly seized and retained several million dollars of our client’s assets.  We were able to persuade Judge Crotty of the S.D.N.Y. to hold the entity in contempt, to pierce the veil between the entity, its founders, and its affiliates, and to impose escalating fines against them for failing to return our client’s money.  When this failed, we were able to persuade Judge Crotty to turn over to us first the contemnors’ judgments against us, then the underlying financial instruments, and finally the equity interests in the contemnors themselves.  On June 25, 2018, the Second Circuit affirmed this extraordinary precedent.
  • We represented U. S. Steel in a case involving an effort to escape tariffs on oil country tubular goods (“OCTG”) from the People’s Republic of China by “finishing” the product in a third country.  We obtained a favorable reversal from the Federal Circuit of an adverse order from the Court of International Trade.
  • We represented EIZO in a patent infringement action filed by Barco – EIZO’s chief competitor – related to high end liquid crystal displays (LCDs) for medical applications.  Between 2011 and 2016, the district court case was stayed while Quinn Emanuel successfully invalidated a majority of asserted claims in post-grant proceedings.  Once the district court case resumed, Quinn Emanuel swiftly obtained summary judgment invalidating all but three asserted claims.  Barco took its appeal after dismissing the three remaining claims with prejudice.  The Federal Circuit heard oral argument on April 2, 2018 and issued a summary affirmance of the district court’s ruling a mere 24 hours later, resulting in a complete victory for our client.
  • We represented a Russian investment fund in a EUR 63m complex financial dispute spanning eight jurisdictions and numerous opaque corporate structures. We obtained a default judgment and a Worldwide Freezing Injunction in London and a judgment in Luxembourg as well as numerous attachments of assets in multiple jurisdictions until the defendant agreed to a settlement payment over the full amount plus all costs (total EUR 73m) incurred in the pursuit of the claim.
  • We represented local subsidiaries of the ExxonMobil and Petronas groups as member of a consortium involved in a dispute against the Republic of Chad over Chad’s attempt to levy a statistical tax on crude oil exports by the consortium in violation of the provision of two conventions entered into by the parties for the production and export of crudes. Chad had sought relief in its own national courts in violation of the arbitration agreements of the conventions and a local court had ordered our clients to immediately pay over USD 800 million even as an appeal was pending. We filed for ICC arbitration and first obtained ex parte super provisional measures (later confirmed after a hearing) enjoining Chad from seeking enforcement of the local court decision, followed by a partial award in which the Tribunal retained jurisdiction over the dispute. In parallel to the arbitration effort, the parties settled the dispute. The amount in controversy was USD 77 billion.
  • We successfully represented a market leading online travel agency against a contracting partner asserting various abuse of dominance claims.
  • We recently won a complete dismissal of all claims against Odebrecht in a civil suit in Washington DC seeking over $200 million in damages stemming from Odebrecht’s participation in the massive Petrobras bribery scheme that has sent shockwaves through Brazil.  A group of investment funds managed by EIG had invested over $200 million in a Brazilian company, Sete, that Petrobras created to extract oil in waters off the coast of Brazil.  As part of the Petrobras bribery scheme, Odebrecht and certain other Brazilian shipyards paid bribes to Sete to secure lucrative contracts to build drillships for the oil extraction.  When this fact came to light, Sete went bankrupt, and EIG started looking for who it could sue.  In 2016, EIG filed suit in federal court in DC against Petrobras, Odebrecht, and other Brazilian shipyard owners, alleging they had all conspired to defraud EIG by inducing it to invest in Sete without disclosing the ongoing bribery scheme.  We persuaded Judge Mehta to dismiss the claims against Odebrecht, both because EIG could not establish that an objective of the bribery scheme was to defraud EIG and because EIG had not established a sufficient connection between Odebrecht and Washington DC to enable the court to exercise personal jurisdiction over it.
  • We represented DP World in an international arbitration before the London Court of Arbitration concerning allegations by the Republic of Djibouti that DP World had paid bribes to obtain a suite of contracts under which DP World designed, built, and was operating a state-of-the art container terminal in Djibouti in exchange for 33% ownership of the terminal and a management fee.  Djibouti initiated the arbitration in an effort to rescind or terminate the contracts and either take full ownership of the terminal or receive hundreds of millions in damages.  By unanimous vote, the tribunal of Lord Hoffman, Sir Richard Aikens, and Peter Leaver (QC) completely exonerated DP World, rejected all of Djibouti’s claims, and ordered Djibouti to pay DP World’s legal and other costs on an indemnity basis.
  • We represent FIFA in connection with U.S. and Swiss criminal investigations against current and former football officials into allegations of bribery and corruption in the international soccer world. We are advising FIFA, which is considered a victim of the alleged wrongdoings, on the investigations as well as conducting an internal investigation on behalf of the organization. The Swiss investigation focuses on allegations of criminal mismanagement and money laundering in connection with the selections of Russia and Qatar to host the 2018 and 2022 World Cups, respectively. The criminal indictment unsealed on May 27, 2015 and the superseding indictment of December 3, 2015 filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York allege that high-level soccer officials abused their positions to solicit bribes from sports marketing companies and also allege corruption in connection with the selection of South Africa to host the 2010 World Cup and with the 2011 FIFA presidential election.
  • We represent the CONMEBOL in connection with U.S. criminal investigations and prosecutions into allegations of bribery and corruption in the international soccer world. Specifically, Quinn Emanuel is advising CONMEBOL on the investigations and conducting an internal investigation on behalf of the organization. On May 27, 2015, the U.S. unsealed a 47-count criminal indictment in the Eastern District of New York, charging 14 defendants with racketeering, wire fraud and money laundering conspiracies, among other offenses, in connection with the defendants’ alleged participation in a long running scheme to enrich themselves through the corruption of international soccer. The criminal indictment alleges that high-level soccer officials abused their positions to solicit bribes from sports marketing companies. The DOJ announced a superseding indictment on December 3, 2015, which charged 16 additional defendants, including several past and current CONMEBOL officials. Among the additional charges in the superseding indictment are a bribery scheme implicating many top CONMEBOL officials relating to the sale of broadcasting rights to the CONMEBOL Copa Libertadores and a scheme by an Argentinian sports marketing company to obtain various rights properties by paying bribes to three Central American soccer officials to cause them to exert their influence in favor of the company.
  • We represent the prior owners of Representaciones e Investigaciones Médicas, S.A. de C.V. ("Rimsa"), a leading pharmaceutical company in Mexico, who sold Rimsa to Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Limited ("Teva"), one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies for $2.3 billion.‎ Teva sued the prior owners seeking to rescind the transaction, a return of the entire purchase price and punitive damages. Teva alleges that the prior owners defrauded it by failing to disclose that Rimsa's products violated Mexican federal health care standards. We represent the prior owners with Mexican co-counsel in the Mexican regulatory proceedings and in the $2.3 billion rescission lawsuit in the U.S. This is the largest such case in Mexican history and one of the largest failed transaction litigations in U.S. history.  As part of our representation, we are conducting an investigation in all of the jurisdictions involved in the transaction including the U.S., Mexico, Israel and Luxembourg.
  • A federal judge has ruled that plaintiffs’ claims can go forward in the Quinn Emanuel-led Gold antitrust class action, in which we allege that a group of banks conspired to suppress a worldwide benchmark price for gold known as the “London Gold Fix.”  In an October 4, 2016 decision, Judge Valerie Caproni of the S.D.N.Y. largely upheld our complaint, which was built primarily around economic evidence showing prices moving in anomalous ways around the time of the Fix.  Notably, the Court rejected the attempts by the banks to have the factual allegations about price movements discarded under a Daubert-like level of scrutiny, and to posit innocent counter-explanations for the anomalies.  The Court also rejected many other common defenses the banks have asserted in financial market manipulation cases, including that each plaintiff need detail its harm to a heightened extent, and that the size of liability was too big compared to the banks’ culpability.  
  • We successfully defended a leading European energy distributor in an ICC arbitration seated in Geneva against a leading European gas supplier in connection with a medium-term gas supply agreement.  The dispute revolved around the validity under NY law of the termination of the agreement by application of a hardship provision. We obtained a complete victory  for our client.  The tribunal dismissed all of Claimant’s claims (totaling USD 100 million), including an unrelated claim for payment of contested invoices.  
  • We represented Edison in a major gas supply dispute against Eni in connection with a long-term gas supply agreement in the Italian gas market.  We obtained an arbitral award retroactively reducing by more than EUR 1 billion (without interest) the price paid by our client Edison.  ‎This billion-dollar victory is one the largest amounts ever awarded in a price review arbitration.  
  • We won a victory before the Second Circuit for our client PT Bank Mutiara, Tbk.  The Second Circuit affirmed an S.D.N.Y. order we had previously obtained in September 2015 holding the founder of a “hedge fund” and various other of his instrumentalities in contempt and imposing escalating fines of $1,000/day, with the daily fine doubling each month, for failing to return $3.6 million of our client’s money.  The appeals court rejected the arguments of the “hedge fund” and its founder that the district court should not have pierced the veil between them and the fines were disproportionately large.  The Second Circuit’s order reinforces the district court’s broad discretion in imposing contempt, and drives home that a party cannot simply evade responsibilities to pay money by seeking to make itself judgment-proof after an order to return money is entered. 
  • We obtained an unprecedented preliminary injunction that enjoins the U.S. Treasury Department and its Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or “FinCEN,” bureau from enforcing a final rule that otherwise would have cut our client bank, FBME, off from US dollars (and thus from the global financial system) to devastating effect.  This is the first successful stand a bank has made against FinCEN’s implementation of this deadly sanction, which reflects a determination by FinCEN under Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act that a foreign bank is an institution of “primary money laundering concern” and should be cut off from the U.S. financial system.  Quinn Emanuel persuaded the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that our client faces irreparable harm from implementation of the rule and is likely to prevail on the merits on the grounds that FinCEN’s ruling was procedurally defective and arbitrary and capricious.  We succeeded despite being up against classified evidence submitted ex parte and in camera that allegedly establishes FBME’s involvement in money laundering and terrorist financing, as well as the heightened deference that courts accord Executive agencies whenever concerns about national security and foreign policy are invoked, as they are here.  
  • We represented Megaupload Limited in a case involving the United States Department of Justice and successfully set aside a restraint order which had froze the client’s assets located in Hong Kong. 
  • We represented a Japanese textile manufacturer against a U.S. company purportedly specializing in the growth and manufacture of carbon nanotube fibers in a dispute over the joint development of machinery for the spinning of carbon nanotube yarns.  In a 2007 contract, the two parties agreed to exclusively work together and share their technology, expertise, and raw materials to develop cutting-edge carbon nanotube spinning machines.  However, after two years of efforts on the part of our client, it became clear that the U.S. company had none of the technology or abilities that had incuced our client to enter the agreement.  Despite this, our client was still bound (even after termination) to a 20-year exclusive relationship with its dishonest and failed partner pursuant to the terms of the contract.  In an effort to avoid this exclusivity provision, we filed an arbitration demand on behalf of our client based on alleged fraud and material breach and seeking to have the contract voided or rescinded.  After a three-day hearing, the arbitrator awarded our requested relief.  The reasoned award enumerated virtually every factual finding in our client’s favor, found that the U.S. company had materially breached the contract, and issued declaratory relief that our client was no longer bound by any exclusivity provision in the contract.  
  • We represented Cisco Systems Inc. and certain of its executives against putative class action claims filed by individuals who alleged that they had been injured in China by members of the Chinese police and sought recovery from Cisco and its executives, including under international law, on the basis that their injuries had allegedly been facilitated by generic networking equipment Cisco had sold to the Chinese government in compliance with U.S. export regulations. The Court dismissed all claims, holding among other things that they impermissibly turned on extraterritorial conduct and failed to allege the requisite knowledge by Cisco or a specific connection between Cisco’s acts and the alleged misconduct. The decision is an important development concerning U.S. corporations’ exposure to domestic lawsuits for alleged international law violations committed by third parties abroad, and follows the firm’s recent victory for Cisco in a similar case pending in Maryland, and the firm’s Supreme Court victory on similar issues in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum.
  • In a case The New York Times called “the most important business decision” of the October 2012 Term, we won a landmark 9-0 victory for Shell Oil in the U.S. Supreme Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, which held that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), enacted by the First Congress in 1789, does not provide a cause of action in U.S. courts for alleged violations of international human rights law that take place in foreign countries. Applying the presumption against the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, the Court upheld the dismissal of a suit by Nigerian plaintiffs against Dutch and English companies for alleged conduct in Nigeria. The decision greatly curtails the availability of the ATS as a vehicle to sue corporations in U.S. courts for supposedly aiding and abetting foreign governments’ human rights violations. 
  • We won a complete dismissal for UniCredit of all claims brought against it in a long-running real estate dispute.
  • We represented Russian technology company Yandex, which operates the world's fourth largest search engine, in a massive copyright infringement lawsuit brought by adult entertainment publisher Perfect 10, seeking over $100 million in damages. The suit alleged that Yandex had willfully infringed Perfect 10’s copyrights in tens of thousands of its images of nude women by crawling, indexing, and linking to third party websites hosting infringing Perfect 10 images, and by hosting unauthorized Perfect 10 images uploaded by users of Yandex’s user-generated content sites. Early in the case, Yandex defeated Perfect 10’s motion for a preliminary injunction on its cpyright claims directed to Yandex’s search and hosting services, obtaining a court ruling that Perfect 10 was unlikely to succeed on the merits of its claims and that Perfect 10 had not demonstrated irreparable harm. Subsequently, Yandex obtained summary judgment on the vast majority of Perfect 10’s claims, on extraterritoriality and fair use grounds. Specifically, Yandex showed that most of Perfect 10’s claims concerned “extraterritorial” acts of alleged copyright infringement not cognizable under the U.S. Copyright Act, and that the thumbnail-sized images in Yandex’s image search results are a non-actionable “fair use” under the U.S. Copyright Act. After that victory, Perfect 10 quickly settled for a fraction of its original demand.
  • We obtained three victories in Russia for a prominent Ukrainian businessman, Dmitry Firtash. The dispute was about control over EMFESZ, a leading Hungarian gas trader with annual turnover of over $1 billion. We won a Russian arbitration for entitlement to trader’s shares and also succeeded in two related Russian litigations, where the courts upheld the client’s cornerstone legal argument and then refused to set aside the award.
  • We defeated an attempt to enjoin the fledgling U.S. distributor and subsidiary of a Japanese manufacturer and two independent contractors from selling manufacturer's premiere product in the United States on the basis of alleged trade secret misappropriation.
  • We obtained a directed summary judgment on appeal for a Brazilian infrastructure company CCR Rodoanel in a swap dispute against French and Portuguese banks.
  • We advised Dubai Ports World (“DPW”) in negotiating an optimal settlement with the Republic of Yemen and its state-owned company, the Yemen Gulf of Aden Ports Corporation (“YGAPC”), whereby the U.A.E.-based port operator recovered 80% of the value of its claims and divested its entire interests in the troubled joint venture company established with Yemen and YGAPC to develop, operate and manage two container terminals in Aden, Yemen.
  • We won a unanimous decision in the Second Circuit in Palacios v. Coca-Cola Co., affirming our own trial-court victory on behalf of The Coca-Cola Company. After we secured a forum non conveniens dismissal of a case brought in New York on the basis of events that had occurred in Guatemala, plaintiffs attempted to return to federal court without abiding by the district court’s order that they first pursue a bona fide lawsuit in Guatemala. We obtained an order from the district court rejecting the plaintiffs’ motion for reinstatement, and the appellate panel agreed with the district court that the plaintiffs had failed to justify relief from the order of dismissal.
  • We currently represent Sony in worldwide patent infringement litigation against LG and its subsidiaries, including three ITC actions and five district court actions. The cases include a series of both offensive and defensive actions against LG and its subsidiary, Zenith, involving digital displays, Blu-Ray players, PS3s, digital cameras, and other consumer electronic products. Sony is asserting its DTV patents directed to closed captioning, digital video content protection, digital channel selection, scaling conversion, and a variety of menu display features and functionalities.
  • We successfully represented Saudi interests in obtaining dismissal of proceedings in the English High Court in which Citigroup sought declarations of non-liability against our clients under the 2002 ISDA Master Agreement and Equity Derivates Definitions. The proceedings were, in substance, an attempt to pre-empt U.S. arbitration proceedings worth approximately $350 million brought in New York under the rules of the U.S. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.
  • We represented Seiko Epson in one of the largest patent infringement cases ever filed with the International Trade Commission, asserting eleven patents and thirty-one claims against 1,000 different cartridge models sold by twenty-four manufacturers, importers and distributors of aftermarket ink cartridges for resale in the U.S. After a 7-day trial, the Administrative Law Judge found for our client on every asserted patent and claim, against every single accused product that was adjudicated, and against every respondent that had not already entered into a consent order, and based thereon, it issued a general exclusion order prohibiting all companies, whether or not they were parties to the ITC proceeding, from importing and selling infringing cartridges in the U.S.
  • In a major victory for Empresas Cablevisión, a subsidiary of Grupo Televisa, the world's largest Spanish-language media company, we obtained and upheld on appeal injunctive relief barring JPMorgan from transferring a 90% participation interest in a loan to a bank controlled by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, owner of a company that competes directly with Empresas Cablevisión in the market for media services. The district court found that the transfer violated JPMorgan's covenant of good faith and fair dealing by bypassing Empresas Cablevisión's contractual right to veto assignments of the loan. In June 2010, the Second Circuit affirmed the grant of injunctive relief, and on the eve of trial the following month, JPMorgan consented to repurchase the loan interest it had sold to the Slim bank and to permanently refrain from any similar violation of Empresas Cablevision's rights. The court rulings made front-page news in The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times.
  • We obtained a U.S. Supreme Court victory for Japanese ocean carrier “K” Line in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., which held in a unanimous portion of the opinion that ocean carriers are not subject to regulation under the Carmack Act when they make intermodal shipments that travel both by sea and by land.
  • We represented a global telecommunications company and the world's largest manufacturer of mobile cellular handsets in probably the largest intellectual property litigation in the world. The firm was brought in to act as lead trial counsel in all U.S. cases and was coordinating counsel with respect to the others. The plaintiff, based in California, develops and sells chip sets which are the “brains” of mobile handsets. In a matter before the ITC, the plaintiff sought an exclusionary order that would have enjoined our client from importing its handsets into the United States. If successful, the complaint would have cost our client billions of dollars. We obtained an order denying the plaintiff's request for an exclusionary order, with the judge finding that all three asserted patents were not infringed and that one of the patents was invalid under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. The result was a complete defense victory for our client, allowing it to continue to import hundreds of millions of handsets into the United States.
  • We represented Companhia Siderurgica Nacional (“CSN”), a large Brazilian steel company, in a lawsuit against its former Chief Financial Officer in the United States District Court of the Southern District of New York for conversion and declaratory judgment relating to CSN’s ownership interest in International Investment Fund (“IIF”). After a two-week trial, and after deliberating for just three hours, the jury awarded CSN a complete victory. The verdict brought CSN's three-year dispute with the former executive to a conclusion and affirmed that the approximately $500 million of assets at the center of the dispute belong to CSN.
  • We represented two German nationals who moved to Santa Barbara and sued media giant Bertelsmann AG and its former CEO. While working for Bertelsmann, these former executives had been the driving force behind the creation and development of AOL Europe, a joint venture between Bertelsmann and AOL. When Bertelsmann sold its interest in AOL Europe for $6.75 billion, it refused to compensate plaintiffs. They asserted claims for breach of contract and breach of partnership agreement among others. We obtained a $295 million verdict. It was the seventh largest jury verdict in the nation that year.
  • We obtained a complete defense verdict for our client Dubai World after a two week trial. Dubai World had been sued by Herve Jaubert, a Florida resident, alleging among other things that Dubai World had promised him tens of millions of dollars to lead a recreational and commercial submarine manufacturing venture in Dubai. He claimed that Dubai World reneged on the deal, used the police to have him arrested and threatened him with torture. Jaubert wrote a book about his allegations and tried to extort $30 million from Dubai World NOT to publish the book. At trial we proved that Jaubert had fabricated much of his book, including a recording of Jaubert's alleged interrogation and threatened torture in Dubai.
  • We obtained a dismissal of all charges brought by the SEC against our client Chartwell Asset Management in an insider trading case. Chartwell, a Geneva-based asset management firm, was accused of trading ahead of a merger announcement for a U.S.-listed chemical company and was required by the court to post more than $12 million to cover any potential penalty. After months of discovery and just before Quinn Emanuel was set to file a motion for summary judgment, the SEC agreed to dismiss the case in its entirety and return the money to Chartwell.
  • We negotiated a favorable settlement with JPMorgan on behalf of the Joint Provisional Liquidators of Parkcentral Global Hub Limited. The settlement came after the New York Supreme Court vacated a prior order of attachment pursuant to which JPMorgan had attached $200 million in cash and securities belonging to Parkcentral. Immediately after the court vacated the attachment, JPMorgan initiated settlement negotiations and ultimately agreed to a settlement in the amount that it would have received had it taken its claim to the Bermuda liquidation proceeding. The effect of Quinn Emanuel's work was that the creditors received more than a 30 percent recovery on their claims, rather than close to zero.
  • We represented General Motors in the famous case against Volkswagen and Ignacio Lopez, GM's former head of sourcing in Detroit, for stealing secret GM documents. Working closely with inside lawyers from GM, we amassed devastating evidence and defeated all Volkswagen's jurisdictional and substantive motions. On the eve of the Volkswagen chairman's deposition, we obtained a $1.1 billion settlement for General Motors.
  • We represented Vishay Intertechnology Asia and Vishay Japan in two patent infringement cases in the Tokyo District Court in which they were accused of infringing Japanese patents covering Trench MOSFET semiconductor technology. After obtaining a series of positive pretrial rulings, the cases settled on favorable terms. We simultaneously represented their sister company, Siliconix, in the U.S. for infringement of its U.S. patents covering the same technology.
  • We represented Mobil Oil in overturning a multi-million default judgment in Venezuela (that had been affirmed by the Venezuelan Supreme Court) based on Mobil's alleged failure to diligently prosecute an oil exploration effort on land where the plaintiff held a royalty interest, but where there had never been shown to be any commercial quantities of oil. After an investigation into the facts in Venezuela, and proceedings in five courts (three in Virginia and two in New York), we obtained a judgment declaring the Venezuelan judgment null and void and requiring the plaintiff to pay Mobil's costs.
  • We represented Hughes Aircraft in a suit against the Civil Aviation Authority of Australia in the Australian federal courts. We obtained a $20 million judgment against the CAA, with the court finding that the Australian government had committed fraud and breached an obligation of good faith and fair dealing in its interactions with our client.
  • We represented Dow Chemical in a case in Geneva, Switzerland against its joint venture partners (the governments of Japan and Korea) arising out of joint ventures created to build chemical plants and to manufacture products overseas. We obtained a favorable settlement - a total return of capital plus thirty percent.
  • As General Counsel to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for many years, the firm has represented the Academy world-wide in numerous cases concerning the Academy's intellectual properties, including the rights to Academy Awards® telecasts, “Oscar” copyright and design mark, and OSCAR, OSCARS, OSCAR NIGHT and ACADEMY AWARDS trademarks.
  • We currently represent Societe de Bains de Mar, the marketing arm of the Principality of Monaco, in all U.S. intellectual property matters, including litigation over the rights to the Monte Carlo trademark for casino and hotel services.
  • We represented Raytheon in a case brought against it by an individual who claimed that he was entitled to millions of dollars in commissions on the sale of the Patriot missile system to Saudi Arabia. We obtained a voluntary dismissal during trial, when, as a result of our extensive negotiations with the Saudi government, a Saudi minister submitted an answer to a written interrogatory disavowing the plaintiff's right to any recovery.
  • We serve as world-wide coordinating counsel for the world's largest car manufacturer in an intellectual property theft case, coordinating enforcement in the EEC, Korea, and elsewhere.
  • We represented a major aerospace company in a federal lawsuit brought by a large European aerospace conglomerate involving a dispute over solar arrays used in satellites. We obtained summary judgment and a complete dismissal of the $133-million negligence, negligent misrepresentation, and fraud claims.
  • We represented an Asian businessman in proceedings relating to a family trust alleged to have contained very substantial assets through a network of offshore companies and which it was alleged had been transferred to him in breach of trust.

Other foreign clients we have represented include:

The Federal Republic of Germany; The Government of Kuwait; The Government of Chile; The Republic of Gabon and its President; Invensys, a British corporation, and its Dutch subsidiary, Baan Development; Investcorp, a Bahrain-based investment bank; Odebrecht, the largest construction conglomerate in Brazil; Opportunity, the largest investment advisor in Brazil; Hyundai Corporation of Korea; Hitachi and Semiconductor Energy Laboratory in Japan; Samsung; Sony; Credit Lyonnais, the French investment banking company; Daewo; Zurich Group; Siete Leguass, a Mexican retail company; and the world-wide companies of General Motors, Vivendi and Shell.

Back to Top