Gibson Dunn advised AIP Management on its agreement to acquire a 49.99% equity stake in Pine Forest, a co-located 300 MWac solar photovoltaic and 200 MW / 400 MWh battery energy storage system project, from Clearway Energy Group. The total investment amount is approximately $200 million. The transaction follows AIP’s collaboration with Clearway on Victory Pass & Arica, a solar and battery storage project in California on which Gibson Dunn also advised AIP.
Led by partner Nick Politan, the Gibson Dunn corporate team included of counsels Ata Dinlenc and Jessica Basil and associates Matt Goldstein and Andrew Watson. Partner Michael Cannon and associates Josiah Bethards and Nathan Sauers advised on tax, partner William Hollaway and senior counsel Janine Durand on energy regulatory matters, partner Michael Murphy on environmental matters, associate Lauren Traina on real estate, and associate Vlad Zinovyev on project construction and operation.
Gibson Dunn advised Veritas Capital and Frontgrade Technologies, a leading provider of high-reliability electronic solutions for space and national security missions, on Frontgrade’s acquisition of IDSI, LLC, the Defense Solutions division of Crescend Technologies, LLC.
The Gibson Dunn corporate team was led by partners John Pollack and Lilit Voskanyan and included of counsel Robert Banerjea and associates Nicolette Fata, Owen Alderson, and Mona Kalantar. Partner Aaron Adams advised on financing. Partner Matt Donnelly advised on tax aspects. Partner Michael Collins advised on benefits. Partner Kari Krusmark advised on commercial transactions aspects; and partner Meghan Hungate advised on IP aspects.
Gibson Dunn advised Schlumberger Holdings Corporation (SHC) and Schlumberger Investment S.A. (SISA), indirect wholly owned subsidiaries of Schlumberger Limited (SLB), in approximate $1.88 billion private exchange offers to exchange four series of outstanding senior notes issued by SISA for corresponding senior notes newly issued by SHC, and simultaneous consent solicitations from holders to certain proposed amendments to the indentures governing SISA’s outstanding senior notes. Goldman Sachs & Co. LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC and SG Americas Securities, LLC acted as dealer managers.
The Gibson Dunn capital markets team was led by partner Andrew Fabens and included of counsel Rodrigo Surcan and Justine Robinson and associates Alexandria Johnson and Alexis Levine. Partner Pamela Lawrence Endreny, of counsel Kate Long, and associate Melissa Murphy advised on tax aspects, and partner Michael Collins advised on benefits.
Gibson Dunn advised Forestar Group Inc. in a private offering of $500 million aggregate principal amount of 6.500% senior notes due 2033. The proceeds of the notes offering were used to fund Forestar’s tender offer to purchase any and all of its outstanding 3.850% Senior Notes due 2026 (of which $329,434,000 aggregate principal amount was tendered) and for general corporate purposes, including to repay borrowings under Forestar’s credit facility.
The Gibson Dunn corporate team was led by partners Robyn Zolman and Darius Mehraban and included associates Paul Rafla, Sarah Ediger, and Lauren Hernandez. Of counsel Rodrigo Surcan led the Tender Offer, and partner Michael Cannon and associate Blake Hoerster advised on tax aspects.
Our Litigators of the Week are Brian Rosenthal, Stuart Rosenberg and Audrey Yang of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. This past week, they helped Cisco Systems Inc. secure a rare directed verdict before closing arguments in a patent infringement trial with $120 million in damages on the line. U.S. District Judge Alan Albright in Waco has only granted rule 50(a) motions three times. Rosenthal now has been lead counsel in two of those cases.
Lit Daily: What was at stake for Cisco here?
Brian Rosenthal: This was an important victory for Cisco, not just because of what was at issue in the case itself—over $375 million of claimed damages—but also because of the broader context of the dispute. The plaintiff is one of a larger set of non-practicing entities who all acquired patents from the same Orckit-Corrigent portfolio, obtained litigation funding from professional funders and came after Cisco in separate cases. Of that broader set of cases, this is the first to reach trial, and Cisco’s win here validates its commitment to defend its products and innovations against sustained litigation campaigns.
Who all was on your team and how did you divide the work?
Stuart Rosenberg: We had an all-star team for this trial. Brian Rosenthal was our lead counsel and presented our opening argument and our directed verdict argument. Brian also cross-examined the plaintiff’s technical expert and a key fact witness and presented Cisco’s first witness. I was second-chair, I cross-examined the plaintiff’s corporate representative and presented our technical expert, and I argued summary judgment motions before trial. Audrey Yang presented Cisco’s corporate representative and, before trial, she argued and won our Rule 12(c) motion that invalidated two of the asserted patents, ran the case day-to-day and was deeply involved in everything. Emily Whitcher presented our damages expert and, before trial, she led the development of our damages positions and equitable defenses. Mike Jones at Potter Minton led voir dire, cross-examined the plaintiff’s damages expert and argued key motions in limine. Libby Moulton at Orrick handled jury instructions and our written Rule 50(a) motion and, before trial, she argued our Daubert motions. And we all got fantastic support throughout the case from our Gibson Dunn colleagues Kate Dominguez, Allen Kathir, Ron Lee, Jaclyn Hellreich and Erin Kim.
Tell me about the initial complaint that Cisco was facing. How were you able to trim the number of patents down before this matter made it to trial?
Audrey Yang: The initial complaint was filed in 2022, asserting five patents against a wide range of Cisco products. We knocked out four of those patents before trial by taking a strategic approach where we focused on the strongest arguments first and did not overload the court with alternative arguments. For example, when we filed our Rule 12(c) motion, we focused on the two patents that we knew we had the best shot at defeating at the pleading stage under Section 101, rather than trying to challenge all the patents. That strategy was successful, because the court agreed with us on both patents and granted our motion in full. We also won summary judgment of non-infringement of another patent by leveraging the claim construction that the plaintiff itself had proposed and won earlier in the case—we showed that the plaintiff’s infringement theory violated its own construction. Finally, for the fourth patent, we developed evidence that the Cisco feature accused of infringement had actually been in Cisco’s products since before the patent’s priority date, so we filed an amended pleading adding a prior-user defense under Section 273, which prompted the plaintiff to drop that patent. With four patents down, there was only one left for trial.
Shortly before trial, you withdrew your patent invalidity defense and went forward with only a noninfringement defense. What was behind that decision? How did it help hone your presentation?
Rosenberg: That was a really hard decision. We had a strong invalidity defense, and in many ways it dovetailed with our noninfringement defense. But we knew we had to focus our trial presentation, and we knew that if we went ahead with the invalidity defense, then the plaintiff would have the right to present a rebuttal case after our case-in-chief, and the last witness the jury would hear before closing arguments would be the plaintiff’s expert rather than our experts. After a lot of thought, and with the benefit of excellent advice from our local counsel Mike Jones, we decided that the right approach for this trial would be to drop the invalidity defense, stop the plaintiff from presenting a rebuttal case and focus our merits presentation on the relentlessly clear and simple message that Cisco does not use the plaintiff’s patent, period. We are grateful that Cisco trusted us to make that hard decision here and supported us in seeing it through at trial.
What were your key trial themes? How did you drive them home for jurors and the court?
Rosenthal: As Stuart mentioned, our key message at trial was simple: Cisco does not use the plaintiff’s patent. It was the first and last thing I said in our opening statement, and every single one of our witnesses repeated it. Our themes were all based around that core message. One theme was that Cisco is an innovator who designs its own products, so it makes sense that Cisco does not use the plaintiff’s patent. We drove that theme home by bringing physical examples of Cisco’s products into the courtroom, both the accused products and Cisco’s older products pre-dating the patent, and by having Cisco’s corporate representative—who has been at Cisco for 25 years, since before the plaintiff’s patent was filed 20 years ago—step out of the witness box and demonstrate how they worked in key respects during his direct testimony. Another theme was that the patented idea isn’t a very good idea, regardless of whether it was new and deserved to be patented, so again it is no surprise that Cisco is not using it. We drove that point home by showing that the plaintiff had no evidence that anyone anywhere has ever used this patent, not even the company that filed for the patent and that actually made networking products. Yet another theme was that the plaintiff was overreaching in its allegations, not only on infringement but also on damages, where the plaintiff tried to take credit for the value of things it didn’t invent, including things we showed that Cisco invented and patented itself. All of those themes worked together to reinforce the core message that Cisco simply does not use this patent and so is not liable for infringement.
You had a couple of associates present witnesses. Is that typical of your approach? How did they do?
Rosenberg: Yes, we had two associates present witnesses, and they were amazing! Audrey Yang presented Cisco’s corporate representative, who was also our key technical fact witness and had never testified at a trial before. Audrey defended his deposition before trial and knew the issues extremely well, and she had already argued motions successfully in this court, plus she is great on her feet in general. So it was clear to us that Audrey should stand up and present this witness notwithstanding that it was the witness’s first trial. When the time came, both Audrey and the witness knocked it out of the park. It was also clear that Emily Whitcher should present our damages expert. Emily had been working on damages throughout the case, including working closely with our expert through reports and depositions, and Emily is fearless on her feet and has great attention to detail. She delivered a powerful, concise direct exam that amplified our themes and helped us finish strong with our damages expert as the last witness at trial. While we don’t always have the opportunity for associates to present witnesses, we do consider and aim for that when possible, and in this case it was not only possible (thanks to Cisco), but exactly the right call.
Brian, this is the second time that you’ve won a directed verdict on a Rule 50(a) motion in Judge Albright’s courtroom—something that’s only happened three times. What are the keys for laying the groundwork for that kind of win?
Rosenthal: In my experience, the keys to this kind of win are the same three keys to any win. Focus, simplicity and discipline. We won this directed verdict, as we did in the prior case, by first picking our battle. We found the one critical, substantive point we thought the plaintiff couldn’t prove and couldn’t win without proving. That’s not easy to do when there are a lot of different issues swirling around in a case, and it’s not always even possible to begin with, depending on the case. In this case, we focused on one limitation of the claims that required encoding a physical port number in a data label. Cisco’s products don’t do that. Then we had to find a way to make that point as simply and crisply as possible. We worked hard to explain the patent and the requirements in simple terms and explain simply why we would never do what the patent requires and that doing so would make our products worse, not better. Finally, and most challenging, we had to have the discipline to stay on message. At the outset of the trial, we instituted a “no chasing rabbits” rule for all witnesses. We made sure that at every turn, and with every witness, we were focused on the singular message of non-infringement. Anything that was off-message ended up on the cutting room floor. That rule was one of the reasons we ultimately decided to drop our invalidity case. Once we had our simple, focused message, we previewed the key issue for the court early and often. By the time the motion came at the close of the plaintiff’s case, everyone in the courtroom—including the judge—knew the motion was coming and exactly what the issue was. With the pump primed, we had the best chance of getting the court to focus on the one key deficiency in the plaintiff’s case.
Of course, all the focus and discipline in the world won’t get a favorable verdict, let alone a directed verdict, unless you are right! We have been fortunate to be involved in two cases in Waco where the evidence came in as we expected it to on the key issue we had previewed for the court, allowing us to win our Rule 50(a) motions for directed verdicts. But directed verdicts will continue to be rare in patent cases, and we always try our case with an eye toward the jury verdict first. In those rare cases where a directed verdict is the right outcome, it is very likely because the same point that is being made to the jury also resonates with the Court.
What can other patent defendants take from what you were able to accomplish here?
Yang: I think other defendants can see our win as an example of how a strategic approach, focusing on your best arguments instead of all possible arguments, can really pay off in a trial and in a multi-patent case. I also think other parties and counsel can take some comfort in how smoothly this trial was run by the court and through cooperation between counsel on both sides. We really appreciated the professionalism of our opposing counsel and the opposing party’s corporate representative, which allowed everyone to minimize disputes over things that can drag down a trial, like objections to demonstratives and disputed jury instructions, and allowed everyone to focus instead on developing the key facts that determined the outcome.
What will you remember most about this matter?
Rosenthal: What I will remember most about this trial win is the teamwork that made it happen. I got to watch Audrey and Emily take their first trial witnesses. I got to see Stuart expertly conduct an incredibly simple and straightforward direct examination of our expert. I got excellent counsel from Mike Jones, not to mention the front-row seat he gave me to a pitch-perfect voir dire. And at every turn, we had the support and input of Cisco’s in-house lawyers, who not only trust us with their most important cases but who also live and breathe the issues with us in the war room. I will take with me the great feeling of pride and gratitude I had watching such an incredible team work together so collaboratively and effectively.
Rosenberg: The moment when the court granted our Rule 50(a) motion from the bench after the close of evidence. It was a bittersweet moment, because I was looking forward to Brian’s closing argument the next day, and I thought we were very well-positioned to win before the jury. But it sure was exciting to win the case!
Yang: Getting to take my first witness at trial! But also, how everyone on the team worked together. We really could not have tried this case without everyone’s help and support at all levels—partners, associates, paralegals, trial tech and our on-site support, and it was just amazing to see how willing the entire team was to lend a hand whenever someone needed it. From the day-to-day logistics to all of the substantive work on preparing witnesses and drafting motions, it was a pleasure working with every single person on this team.
Reprinted with permission from the January 24, 2025 edition of “The AmLaw Litigation Daily” © 2025 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or [email protected].
First up this week, Barry Berke, Dani James and Darren LaVerne of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher helped former New York Lt. Governor Brian Benjamin beat back bribery and fraud charges brought by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York. In a motion filed last week, prosecutors indicated to U.S. District Judge J. Paul Oetken in Manhattan that the death of a key witness, real estate magnate Gerald Migdol, meant that they could “no longer prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, the charges in the indictment.”
Shout-out to a Gibson Dunn team led by Anne Champion and Zainab Ahmad. They represented Pacira BioSciences Inc. in an earnout dispute with Fortis Advisors LLC. Fortiss claimed shareholders were due milestone payments stemming from Pacira’s acquisition of MyoScience Inc., a medical device company that developed a product to provide pain relief by applying extreme cold to peripheral nerves. Delaware Vice Chancellor Paul Fioravanti Jr. this week sided with Pacira, finding that the applicable contract tied earnout payments to a national benchmark reimbursement rate for procedures involving the device, not a locality-adjusted reimbursement rate as Fortis argued.
To read complete article visit Law.com (subscription required)
Reprinted with permission from the January 24, 2025 edition of “The AmLaw Litigation Daily” © 2025 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or [email protected].
On behalf of Coinbase, a Gibson Dunn team won a major victory Tuesday against the SEC in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Coinbase challenged the SEC denial of Coinbase’s petition requesting that the agency issue new rules explaining the agency’s views about whether and how the federal securities laws apply to digital assets.
This has been a closely watched case, carrying potentially significant implications for the digital-asset industry, which has been targeted by the SEC in recent years with an aggressive campaign of enforcement actions.
In a blow to the SEC, a unanimous Third Circuit panel held that the SEC’s denial of Coinbase’s rulemaking petition was “conclusory and insufficiently reasoned” and therefore arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. In an opinion penned by Judge Ambro, the Court remanded Coinbase’s petition to the SEC for a more complete explanation.
A concurring opinion by Judge Bibas further took the SEC to task on due-process grounds. Judge Bibas faulted the agency for failing to provide “meaningful guidance on which crypto assets it views as securities,” adding that the SEC’s “silence and contradictory unofficial signals breed uncertainty,” target “a whole industry,” and risk “de facto banning it.” Judge Bibas added that the SEC’s “caginess” about how the securities laws apply to digital assets “creates a serious constitutional problem” that should be addressed in SEC enforcement actions against crypto firms.
The Gibson Dunn team was led by partners Eugene Scalia, Jonathan C. Bond, and Nick Harper and included associate Zach Young.
A Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher team led by partners Eugene Scalia, Jonathan Bond and Nick Harper secured a precedential opinion for Coinbase at the Third Circuit this week. The ruling forces the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to explain its denial of Coinbase’s petition asking the agency to clarify how and when the federal securities laws apply to digital assets. The appellate court found that the SEC’s one-paragraph explanation of the denial was “conclusory and insufficiently reasoned, and thus arbitrary and capricious,” but stopped short of forcing the agency to engage in rulemaking proceedings as Coinbase requested. The Gibson Dunn team included associate Zach Young.
To read complete article visit Law.com (subscription required)
Reprinted with permission from the January 17, 2025 edition of “The AmLaw Litigation Daily” © 2025 ALM Global Properties, LLC. All rights reserved. Further duplication without permission is prohibited, contact 877-256-2472 or [email protected].
Gibson Dunn won a complete victory for United Services Automobile Association (USAA) in a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, where the plaintiffs sought nearly a billion dollars in damages and demanded changes to USAA’s business model. With this ruling, USAA has defeated every claim asserted in the complaint. The case is Coleman, et al. v. United Services Automobile Association, et al.
The Gibson Dunn team includes partners Kahn Scolnick and Brad Hamburger and associates Daniel Adler, Sean Howell, James Tsouvalas, Roark Luskin, and Milene Minassians.
Shukie Grossman was featured in Lexology Index as a Thought Leader in the USA – Private Funds – Formation [PDF] category. The article was published in December 2024.
Gibson Dunn has been named the Corporate M&A Foreign Firm of the Year at the 2024 edition of the Legal 500 China Awards. This is the second iteration of these awards, which recognize the leading firms and lawyers within China. The award was announced at the ceremony in Beijing on December 12, 2024.
Gibson Dunn’s Beijing M&A practice is one of the elite M&A practices in the region, representing a diverse assortment of clients in a range of high-profile transactions, including complex M&A transactions involving multiple jurisdictions and practice groups; take-private transactions of U.S.- or Hong Kong-listed Chinese companies; U.S. and Hong Kong public company transactions; sophisticated restructuring and foreign direct investments involving China; and acquisitions and divestitures in Europe.
Gibson Dunn earned 13 firm rankings and 9 individual rankings in the 2025 edition of Chambers Asia-Pacific. The firm was recognized in the Asia-Pacific Region-wide categories for Corporate/M&A, Corporate/M&A: Private Equity, Energy & Natural Resources, Investment Funds: Private Equity, and Technology, Media, Telecoms (TMT), as well as in the following International Firms categories: India Corporate/M&A; Indonesia Corporate & Finance; Philippines Projects, Infrastructure & Energy; Singapore Banking & Finance; Singapore Corporate/M&A; Singapore Energy & Natural Resources; Singapore Investment Funds: International; and Singapore Restructuring/Insolvency: International.
The following lawyers were ranked individually in their respective categories: John Fadely was ranked in Singapore – Investment Funds; Jai Pathak was ranked in Singapore – Corporate/M&A, and India – Corporate/M&A; Ben Shorten was ranked in Vietnam – Projects, Infrastructure & Energy; Karthik Ashwin Thiagarajan was ranked in India – Corporate/M&A; and Jamie Thomas was ranked in Indonesia – Banking & Finance, Singapore – Banking & Finance, and Singapore – Restructuring/Insolvency.
The rankings were published on December 12, 2024.
Gibson Dunn advised BTG Pactual Timberland Investment Group (BTG Pactual TIG) on a long-term contract with Meta for the delivery of 1.3 million nature-based carbon removal credits, with options for delivery of an additional 2.6 million nature-based carbon removal credits, through 2038. The deal is one of the largest of its kind and a key component of BTG Pactual TIG’s Latin America reforestation strategy, which is designed to support climate change mitigation alongside benefits for biodiversity and communities.
The Gibson Dunn corporate team was led by John Gaffney and Kira Idoko and included Adam Lapidus.
Gibson Dunn represented Veritas Capital on $1.2 billion of financing in connection with its $2.45 billion acquisition of NCR Voyix Corporation’s cloud-based digital banking business.
The Gibson Dunn finance team is led by partners Doug Horowitz and Jin Hee Kim and includes associates Victoria Jones Yilmaz and Melody Karmana.
Gibson Dunn is pleased to announce that Keith Enright, former Vice President and Chief Privacy Officer for Google LLC, has joined the firm’s Palo Alto office as a partner. Keith will serve as Co-Chair of the firm’s Artificial Intelligence Practice Group and Co-Chair of the Tech and Innovation Industry Group, where he will focus on AI, data privacy, and technology risks and strategies for an array of clients.
“Keith is a recognized global leader on privacy, AI and data innovation, with experience navigating countless front-page legal and regulatory issues and investigations,” said Ashlie Beringer, Co-Chair of Gibson Dunn’s Tech and Innovation Industry Group. “Keith’s technical depth and strategic insights will strongly benefit Gibson Dunn’s burgeoning and market-redefining technology, artificial intelligence, privacy, and cybersecurity platform.”
Keith’s arrival further strengthens Gibson Dunn’s global bench of leading lawyers with former senior executive experience at the world’s largest and most disruptive technology companies. Last year, former Apple Inc. Chief Privacy Officer Jane Horvath joined Gibson Dunn’s D.C. office, former Apple Inc. senior attorney Vivek Mohan joined the Palo Alto office in 2022, and former Facebook (now Meta) Deputy General Counsel Ashlie Beringer rejoined the firm in Palo Alto in 2021.
“With the swell of technology regulation globally, coupled with the technological shifts that GenAI is driving across industries, we are in a transformational era, and I look forward to expanding this growing practice at Gibson Dunn,” said Keith. “Gibson Dunn has built a destination practice for companies embracing the digital migration and grappling with data strategies and risks associated with these new disruptive technologies. I am excited to begin the next chapter of my career alongside the firm’s talented team to help clients address these complex challenges.”
Gibson Dunn recently added several heavyweights to its tech practices in the UK and Europe, including Robert Spano, former president of the European Court of Human Rights who joined in 2023 and is based in Paris; Joel Harrison, who joined the London office in 2022; and Lore Leitner, who also joined in London this year. The firm also added Connell O’Neill in Hong Kong in 2020. They work closely with Ahmed Baladi, Co-Chair of Gibson Dunn’s Privacy, Cybersecurity and Data Innovation practice in Paris, to lead the firm’s strong bench of privacy, AI and technology lawyers in U.S., Europe and Asia. The team works closely together to develop integrated global strategies for implementing a wave of EU regulation and defending regulatory disputes with cross-border reach. Keith’s deep experience navigating global regulation and his relationships with global regulators will add to this rapidly growing area for the firm.
About Keith Enright
Keith’s practice will focus on advising clients in all sectors to navigate the complex regulatory, public policy, compliance, and customer challenges that arise when deploying AI and data-driven product offerings, often against a backdrop of government scrutiny, evolving regulation, and fierce competition. He has over 20 years of senior executive experience, focusing on legal leadership, international strategy, AI governance, data privacy/protection, cybersecurity, information management, regulatory engagement and response, compliance, and risk management. As Google’s Vice President and Chief Privacy Officer, Keith led the company’s worldwide privacy and consumer protection legal functions, with teams across the United States, Europe, and Asia. He is also an experienced public company, private enterprise, and nonprofit board director, with a particular passion for entrepreneurship and the maximization of the benefits of technology for society and people everywhere. He has previously served on the Board of Directors for the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP) and currently serves as a founding member of the IAPP AI Governance Center Advisory Board.
The Fund Finance Association named Aja Sanneh among its 2024 Rising Stars, which include “outstanding individuals with less than 10 years of experience who have made remarkable contributions to the Fund Finance industry” and “are the ones who will drive the industry forward in the coming years.” The award was announced on August 14, 2024.
Aja Sanneh’s representation focuses on financings for private equity, senior credit, real estate, infrastructure, and other investment funds during all parts of the fund life cycle. Clients benefit from Aja’s experience in asset-based facilities, subscription-based facilities, and hybrid facilities, and in other types of investment fund leverage.
Katharina Humphrey and Sophie Rohnke are the authors of “SEC weitet Zuständigkeit deutlich auf Cybersicherheit aus” [PDF] (SEC significantly expands jurisdiction to include cybersecurity), published by Börsen-Zeitung on July 19, 2024. The article outlines the issue of cyber security with a view to internal accounting control regulations in the U.S. and its impact on German companies with a U.S. listing.
The Los Angeles Business Journal named Perlette Jura and Marcellus McRae among its 2024 Leaders of Influence: Litigators & Trial Attorneys, which honors “the very best litigators and trial attorneys in the region.” The list was published on July 16, 2024.
Marcellus McRae serves as Co-Chair of the firm’s Trials Practice Group. His litigation and white-collar criminal defense practices focus on a wide variety of business disputes, internal investigations, and criminal prosecutions including defense of individuals and corporations in cases involving allegations of: financial fraud, False Claims Act violations, public corruption, violations of federal and state environmental laws, health care fraud, wrongful death, criminal antitrust violations, and other matters.
Perlette Jura is Co-Chair of the firm’s Transnational Litigation Practice Group and the Environmental Social Governance practice. Her practice focuses on complex trial and appellate litigation. She has played a key role in a number of the firm’s most high-profile transnational, environmental and technology-driven matters. She has extensive experience working with the food and beverage, agricultural, aerospace, automotive, emerging technology and energy industries.
AnnElyse Scarlett Gains is one of five lawyers recognized as Law360’s 2024 Bankruptcy Rising Stars. The series profiles “attorneys under 40 whose legal accomplishments belie their age.” AnnElyse’s profile was published on July 17, 2024.
AnnElyse Scarlett Gains’ practice focuses on corporate restructurings, distressed financing, liability management transactions, and other special situation transactions in acquisitions, out-of-court restructurings, and Chapter 11 cases. She advises boards of directors, board committees, and senior management on a range of issues, including fiduciary duties and corporate governance. In addition, she represents ad hoc groups, lenders, investors, purchasers, and other stakeholders evaluating strategic transactions with target companies facing actual and potential economic distress.
Lawdragon 500 named 32 Gibson Dunn partners to its 2024 Leading Global Litigators guide, featuring “advisors…at the forefront resolving global disputes” and “whose vision and reach is worldwide.” The partners recognized are Mohammed M. Bashir, Cyrus Benson, Eric Bouffard, Theodore Boutrous Jr., Susy Bullock, Elaine Chen, Trey Cox, Patrick Doris, Theane Evangelis, Charles Falconer, Jean-Pierre Farges, Pierre-Emmanuel Fender, Kai Gesing, Brian Gilchrist, Osma Hudda, Perlette Michèle Jura, Penny Madden, Matthew McGill, Nooree Moola, Allan Neil, Matthew Nunan, Piers Plumptre, Markus Rieder, Philip Rocher, Benno Schwarz, Andrea Smith, Orin Snyder, Robert Spano, William E. Thomson, Doug Watson, Betty Yang and Finn Zeidler. The list was published on July 19, 2024.