Menu
Menu
Menu
Our litigation and dispute resolution lawyers advise on complex and sensitive multijurisdictional disputes. With offices in the U.S. and Taiwan, we help clients resolve domestic and cross-border litigations, arbitrations and investigations and enforcement for clients across all the key industry sectors.
Our experience includes the full spectrum of litigation and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) mechanisms ranging from negotiation, mediation, arbitration and vigorous courtroom strategy. We both prevent and resolve disputes by providing clients with practical and creative legal advice that focuses on their strategic and commercial objectives.
California Public Employees’ Retirement System v. ANZ Securities, Inc., et al. (U.S. Supreme Court)
Represented Citigroup Global Markets Inc. and more than two dozen other underwriters in a Supreme Court appeal brought by the California Public Employees’ Retirement System (CalPERS) involving the question of whether the filing of a putative class action serves to satisfy the three-year time limitation in Section 13 of the Securities Act with respect to the claims of putative class members. The case arose from CalPERS’ lawsuit alleging the underwriters defrauded California’s state employees’ pension fund. In 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of CalPERS’ suit against Kirkland’s clients on the basis that it was, indeed, time-barred under Section 13.
In re Platinum and Palladium Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y.)
Representing BASF Corporation and affiliate BASF Metals Ltd. in a putative antitrust class action alleging a Sherman Act violation and various violations of the Commodities Exchange Act arising from alleged conduct in connection with the price discovery process for platinum and palladium. In 2017, Kirkland won full dismissal for the BASF entities by arguing failure to state a claim and also lack of jurisdiction. BASF’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ amended complaint remains pending.
Park Employees’ and Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, et al. v. Richard Smith, et al. (Del. Ch.; Del.)
Represented BioScrip and certain current and former directors and officers in a corporate derivative action alleging that certain defendants breached their fiduciary duties with respect to BioScrip’s public disclosures, oversight of company operations, secondary stock offerings and stock sales. In 2016, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed the lawsuit in a seminal ruling in which the court held — for the first time — that a change in a company board shortly after the filing of a derivative complaint required that demand excusal be evaluated as to the composition of the board after the turn over in directors. In 2017, Kirkland prevailed again when the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ amended complaint. The second dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
State of California v. Abbott Laboratories, et al. (Cal. Super. Ct.: Cal. Ct. App.; Cal.)
Representing Teva Pharmaceuticals and its affiliates, Duramed Pharmaceuticals and Barr Pharmaceuticals, in antitrust litigation alleging that a so-called “pay-for-delay” settlement involving generic versions of cholesterol drug Niaspan® was anticompetitive. In 2018, Kirkland won an appeal directing the trial court to strike statewide claims. Ongoing appeal before the California Supreme Court.
