Along with many companies, the period of 2000-2002 was a tough one for Williams. Williams experienced what some have called a “perfect storm” because it had invested heavily in energy trading and marketing and in the telecommunications business (through its former subsidiary, Williams Communication Group).  Each of these sectors was affected by an unprecedented downturn in margins combined with the backlash from the Enron and Worldcom scandals.

With the sudden declines in both Williams’ and Williams Communication Group’s stock prices came shareholder litigation and various regulatory investigations.  The multiple shareholder litigations did not begin well.  Motions to dismiss were denied, and the plaintiffs in three separate subclasses combined to besiege Williams with multiple discovery requests, serial motions to compel and for sanctions.  Unfortunately, Williams' posture was defensive and reactive so I made the difficult decision in 2004 to replace existing litigation counsel with Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher.

Gibson Dunn quickly put together a multi-office team from Dallas, Denver, Orange County, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Palo Alto, which proceeded to win significant subsequent discovery battles and move the litigation back to a more equal footing.  The team gathered, processed and reviewed over 10 million documents in a six month period, then defended over one hundred depositions, while at the same time preparing massive summary judgment papers and motions attacking the "science" applied by the plaintiffs' experts. Ultimately we were able to settle the largest exposure part of the cases for a sum which, while large, was only a small fraction of the claimed damages.  Gibson Dunn also won a complete summary judgment victory for Williams on the remaining portions of the case relating to our former telecommunications company.

Why did I select Gibson, Dunn?  I spent several years in the Denver and London offices of the firm in the 1980s and learned first hand about their emphasis on quality at all levels.  I also knew that their "one firm" mentality meant they could put together a team of experts from several offices quickly without any turf issues.  Over the years I have engaged the firm for various large deals and significant litigation matters and knew that I could rely on them for sharp legal analysis accompanied by sound business sense and attention to client needs.  I also knew that I would get frank and honest advice on the strengths and weaknesses of the matters they handled for me.  At the end of the day, when I have difficult decisions to make, I want a firm that gives solid answers, not platitudes.

I knew that Gibson, Dunn had resources that other firms did not, something that came in very handy when the government began to take what we believed were unreasonable positions concerning the activities of some former energy traders in the company. We brought in a team led by Joe Warin in the Washington office and after a series of meetings in which Gibson Dunn marshaled both factual and policy reasons for a result far less onerous than being proposed by the government, we were able to negotiate an acceptable deferred prosecution agreement.