Commercial Litigation — Recent Engagements

The following are among our recent engagements and trials:

• DHL. The successful defense of DHL in a business dispute in which the plaintiffs sought $60 million in compensatory and punitive damages. After a three-month trial in San Antonio, Texas, the jury returned a verdict that rejected virtually all of the plaintiffs’ liability theories and awarded nominal damages on the remaining claims.
• The Dow Chemical Company. The dismissal of an unprecedented putative class action brought against The Dow Chemical Company in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The Vietnam Association for Victims of Agent Orange/Dioxin and various named plaintiffs sued Dow under the Alien Tort Statute, alleging that Dow had committed a war crime by supplying the United States government with the herbicide Agent Orange during the Vietnam War. The Court found that "no treaty or agreement, express or implied, of the United States operated to make use of herbicides in Vietnam a violation of the laws of war or any other form of international law."
• Emirates. A significant appellate victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on behalf of Emirates, an international airline based in Dubai. The complex international suit implicated the governments of the United Arab Emirates and Sri Lanka, and included depositions around the world. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Emirates’ motion for summary judgment on all claims and the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
• Union Carbide Corporation. An Orrick team acts as national counsel to the Union Carbide Corporation in connection with asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits. One of the Orrick attorneys recently was lead trial counsel in the highly-publicized “mass” asbestos trial in West Virginia where, after a five-week jury trial, the jury rendered a partial verdict in Union Carbide's favor, finding no conspiracy, no punitive damages and no product defect during the vast majority of time Union Carbide sold raw asbestos.
• PG&E Corporation. Orrick represents PG&E Corporation in connection with litigation and proceedings before the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The Orrick litigation team handles matters for PG&E that deal with novel re-organization, energy, regulatory, finance, unfair competition, antitrust, and RICO issues.
  • PG&E and its directors in an unlawful competition lawsuit by the California Attorney General seeking $5 billion in restitution and penalties arising out of the California energy crisis.
  • People of the State of California ex rel. Bill Lockyer v. PG&E Corporation, et al. Representation of PG&E Corporation and its directors in an action filed by the Attorney General of California (AG) seeking in excess of $5 billion. The AG alleges that PG&E Corporation engaged in unfair business practices in its relationship with its subsidiary.
  • The CPUC Investigation, I.01-04-002. Defense representation of PG&E Corporation in a CPUC investigation to determine whether California's public utilities and their respective holding companies violated CPUC conditions or the Public Utilities Code. PG&E Corporation recently was dismissed from this proceeding.
  • Wilson v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company, et al. Defended PG&E Corporation in two California state court cases where the plaintiff alleged that PG&E Corporation violated its fiduciary duties and section 17200 in its relationship with Pacific Gas and Electric Company. Both Wilson cases, which sought billions of dollars, were dismissed by the plaintiffs. The same plaintiff's counsel then filed a claim in bankruptcy court, which was dismissed.
  • Gillam v. PG&E Corporation, et al. Defended PG&E Corporation in an action in the Northern District of California where the plaintiff alleged that PG&E Corporation and certain officers violated federal securities laws by issuing allegedly false and misleading financial statements in the second and third quarters of 2000. This case was dismissed.
  • Tate v. PG&E Corporation, et al. Represented PG&E Corporation in a $300 million antitrust, section 17200, and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) action. In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (the Utility), PG&E Corporation, and other companies monopolized the low emission fuels market. The Orrick team defeated the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction and negotiated a no-money dismissal for our client.
• Cadence Design Systems, Inc. Orrick won a major jury trial for clients Cadence Design Systems, Inc. and Quickturn Design Systems in a complex patent and trade secrets case brought by Mentor Graphics, in which Mentor sought over $1 billion. Ater a month-long trial, the jury deliberated for nine days and gave a complete victory to our clients. The jury's verdict invalidated three of Mentor's patents, found non-infringement and rejected claims of misappropriation of trade secrets and other common law causes of action.
• Arvesta. We represented this client, formerly known as Tomen Agro, Inc., in BASF v. Tomen Agro and Eastman Chemical, a patent infringement case in which BASF sought hundreds of millions of dollars regarding the chemical manufacturing process used to make Select, a herbicide manufactured for Arvesta by the Eastman Chemical Company. The court ultimately ruled in our client's favor, finding, among other things, that the intrinsic evidence supported our claim construction. Several weeks later, the court issued a decision granting summary judgment of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit confirmed the trial court's decisions in a unanimous opinion.
• State Farm. Orrick scored a major victory for State Farm in State Farm v. Pyorre and Wier, a trade secrets case against two former State Farm agents, who after their contracts were terminated, gave policyholder information to a competitor to solicit customers.
• Thompson v. Miller. Orrick defended the majority shareholders of a Silicon Valley company in a nine-week jury trial against claims brought by former minority shareholders alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and securities law violations. In December 2000 we obtained a defense verdict on every count.
• Falise v. American Tobacco Company. Orrick went to trial against the tobacco industry in December 2000. Breaking new legal ground on behalf of the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust, we sought to recover the tobacco industry's share of liability to workers injured by exposure to asbestos and tobacco.
• Tops Markets v. Quality Markets. In a three-week jury trial, a team of Orrick attorneys successfully defended The Penn Traffic Company on monopolization claims in federal court in Buffalo, New York.
• Chesterfield Investment Partnership v. Stone Container Corp. Orrick took this complex contract action to trial in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of the plaintiff in 1999; the case settled in Chesterfield's favor for $30 million while the jury was deliberating.
• Ramirez v. Wyeth. After a three-week jury trial in 1999, we obtained a defense verdict on product liability claims alleging injuries from the use of the Norplant contraceptive system. The successful outcome of the Ramirez trial, one of only three Norplant cases actually tried to a verdict, was a major factor contributing to the global settlement of the nationwide Norplant litigation.
• ARV v. Atria Communities. A team of Orrick lawyers from New York and Los Angeles successfully defeated an attempt to enjoin a merger, obtaining a directed verdict after a two-week trial in Los Angeles.
• In re Pharmatrak MDL Litigation. Orrick recently obtained summary judgment on all claims against our client American Home Products Corp. (now known as Wyeth) in consolidated putative class action litigation claiming violations of federal computer fraud statutes and state law arising from the manner in which several major pharmaceutical companies monitored usage of their Web sites.