Waymaker represents policyholders in insurance disputes in pre-litigation matters, trials and appeals. We are experienced in pursuing insurance claims for property damage and losses suffered as a result of business interruption, such as losses related to the coronavirus pandemic. 

We hold insurance companies accountable to their policyholders for insured losses and a legal defense against third-party claims. Although the best result often comes from a resolution before litigation begins, our deep trial experience helps us identify the most important issues up front and focus on developing the facts and law into a clear, persuasive narratives for courts and juries.

We are experienced in handling lawsuits against insurance companies for breach of contract and bad faith. We represent entrepreneurs and companies in disputes with their insurance carriers over commercial general liability (CGL), directors and officers liability (D&O), employment practices liability (EPL), as well as other types of coverage. We have represented closely held corporations, as well as multi-national corporations, in insurance disputes.

Representative Engagements:

• Vepo Design Corporation v. American Economy Insurance Company  
  Represented a client holding a business interruption insurance policy after one of client’s locations was burned by an arsonist. After helping the client conduct informal discovery and submit additional information to insurer, the firm successfully negotiated a supplemental insurance payment to compensate for the loss before litigation was filed.

• In re Sunnova
  Worked with a client to obtain appropriate insurance coverage and indemnity in connection to fund the legal defense of various claims subject to third-party insurance policies on which Sunnova was named as an additional insured.  This was done while the Waymaker guided the resolution of numerous claims, avoiding a possible flood of copycat lawsuits.

• DeGrace v. Jacobs Engineering
  Represented a widow in a dispute against her deceased husband’s former employer based on the employer’s withdrawal of life insurance benefits without proper notice.

Waymaker is a leader in the field of advising companies and individuals facing cybersecurity and data privacy issues, criminal and regulatory actions, and related civil litigation. We handle cybersecurity data breach litigation and are available 24/7 for incident response. The latter includes assistance with breach investigations and general crisis management.

In addition, we handle defense of actions, inquiries, and investigations by the FBI, SEC, FTC, HHS, OCR, FCC, U.S. Attorney’s Offices, State Attorneys General, and financial regulators. The firm’s strong background and experience in technology matters, and deep connections to cyber and blockchain experts, assist it in understanding and explaining the needs and objectives of clients while advocating before these law enforcement agencies and regulators.

We also understand the intricacies of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) and related federal statutes, having represented clients in federal courts across the country accused of CFAA violations. As an example, we represent Paige Thompson, who is alleged to have engaged in one of the largest hacks in United States history (Capital One), in her criminal case in the Western District of Washington. The firm also represented Marcus Hutchins – a worldwide hero due to his intervention to stop the “WannaCry” ransomware attack in May 2017 – in a prosecution based out of the Eastern District of Wisconsin for cybercrimes dating back to 2014. Following a plea, Mr. Hutchins was sentenced to no prison time; in fact, adopting arguments put forth by Waymaker attorney Brian Klein, the district court judge suggested that Mr. Hutchins seek a pardon due to his exemplary conduct in stopping “WannaCry.”

We not only can help clients evaluate regulatory risk concerning cybersecurity and data privacy issues, but also related litigation risk, by drawing on our civil litigation experience.

Representative Engagements:

• External Data Breach of Tech Manufacturer
  Assisted a leading tech manufacturer in responding to an external data breach. We coordinated closely with FBI agents and prosecutors in the Southern District of New York on the arrest and prosecution of the perpetrator after the company learned of a data breach.

• Internal Data Breach of Global Financial Services Company
  Worked with one of the world’s largest financial services companies to handle an internal data breach. We worked with an outside forensic investigation firm to identify and report the breach to the FBI, which arrested and prosecuted the perpetrators.

• United States v. Paige Thompson
  Currently defending Paige Thompson in a criminal case prosecution out of the Western District of Washington. Ms. Thompson is alleged to have hacked into Capital One and other entities, and was charged with wire fraud and computer fraud and abuse.

• United States v. Marcus Hutchins
  Defended Marcus Hutchins who is regarded as a worldwide hero due to his intervention to stop the “WannaCry” ransomware attack in May 2017. Mr. Hutchins was prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for cybercrimes dating back to 2014. Following a plea, Mr. Hutchins was sentenced to no prison time; in fact, adopting arguments put forth by Waymaker attorney Brian Klein, the district court judge suggested that Mr. Hutchins seek a pardon due to his exemplary conduct in stopping “WannaCry.”

Led by partner Brian Klein, named by Chambers as one of the top financial technology attorneys in the United States, Waymaker is at the forefront of cases in this burgeoning industry. This includes matters involving blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. Financial technology is upending the world of traditional finance, and Waymaker is proud to be part of the revolution.

We regularly represent financial technology entrepreneurs and companies (from the smallest start-ups to fast-growing industry leaders) located in the United States and abroad. The firm has handled some of the first and most prominent fintech cases before federal regulators like the SEC and CFTC, and in federal courts around the country. Our practice is national, and we have appeared in places as diverse as New York, Boston, Washington DC, Denver, Seattle, San Diego, Miami, and San Francisco. For example, the firm represented Block.one before the SEC in New York, reaching a landmark settlement related to Block.one’s unregistered initial coin offering (ICO) of digital tokens that raised the equivalent of several billion dollars. The firm also represented Arthur and Kathleen Breitman in connection with two securities class action lawsuits involving the Tezos fundraiser, which raised approximately $230 million. Finally, we are representing the digital token platform Kraken and its founder Jesse Powell in the first cryptocurrency antitrust case, in Miami federal court.

We have represented dozens of clients, both individuals and companies, in state and federal criminal and regulatory investigations involving financial technology. Some cases have included allegations of unlicensed money transmitting businesses, money laundering, and alleged OFAC violations involving cryptocurrencies. Our adeptness in understanding this new technological landscape has often assisted us in securing resolutions that result in no charges being instituted and no penalties, including fines or forfeiture, being assessed. Having had the opportunity to advocate before law enforcement officials in numerous jurisdictions throughout the United States, including top fintech regulators at the SEC and CFTC, we have not only a broad base of experience, but substantial national credibility, in advocating for clients. We fight for clients wherever the fight takes us.

Representative Engagements:

• In the Matter of Block.one, Securities Act Release No. 10714
  Represented Block.one before the SEC in New York, reaching a landmark settlement related to Block.one’s unregistered initial coin offering (ICO) of digital tokens that raised the equivalent of several billion dollars.

• United American Corp. v. Bitmain
  Currently represents the digital token platform Kraken and its founder Jesse Powell in the first cryptocurrency antitrust case, in Miami federal court.

• In Re Tezos Securities Litigation
  Represented Arthur and Kathleen Breitman in connection with two securities class action lawsuits involving the Tezos fundraiser, which raised approximately $230 million.

• United States v. Burt Wagner
  Represented Mr. Wagner who was prosecuted for operating an unlicensed money transmitting business by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado tied to his Bitcoin trading. Before trial, we secured a dismissal of the case.

• In the Matter of: Erik T. Voorhees, Securities Act Release No. 9592
  Represented Bitcoin pioneer Erik Vorhees in this SEC matter based out of New York City. This was the first settlement for an unregistered cryptocurrency securities offering.

• In re Hashfast Technologies
  Represented a professional in the first cryptocurrency bankruptcy case in a fight over thousands of bitcoins, and secured a very successful settlement for the client. The case was based out of federal bankruptcy court in San Francisco.

Waymaker defends clients nationwide in law enforcement and regulatory investigations, trials, and appeals. It regularly handles cases involving the FBI, SEC, CFTC, FTC, CFPB, Department of Justice investigators, and federal, state, and local prosecutors around the country. The firm’s attorneys have experience in all aspects of criminal and government enforcement defense, including in the areas of fraud, corruption, tax, securities, healthcare, cybersecurity, and financial technology. Several attorneys – Brian Klein and Keri Axel – bring substantial criminal trial experience and subject matter expertise, having worked as federal prosecutors; they also have relevant agency experience, as Keri worked in the Enforcement Division at the SEC.

At Waymaker, we use our broad experience to guide individuals and companies (including entrepreneurs, professionals, iconoclastic companies, celebrities, and high-profile start-ups) through the particular challenges posed by criminal investigations and trials. For example, the firm successfully defended Cesar Millan (the “Dog Whisperer”) when the Los Angeles County Department of Animal Control and District Attorney’s Office investigated allegations of animal abuse tied to one of Mr. Millan’s television shows. The authorities ultimately concluded Mr. Millan did nothing wrong and did not bring any charges. The firm is currently representing Virgil Griffith, who is being prosecuted out of the Southern District of New York on charges that a speech he gave in North Korea violated sanction laws.

We have successfully defended clients in cutting-edge prosecutions, including those involving drones, blockchain technology, and digital assets. We have also defended clients from more traditional industries such as healthcare, pharmaceuticals, construction, property management, telemarketing, and the securities industry.

Representative samples of prior engagements are listed below, but much of our criminal defense work leads to favorable resolution before any public disclosure. When it is in the clients’ best interests, we work to minimize exposure through discreet negotiations with government officials. Our attorneys often persuade law enforcement or regulators to decline to bring criminal charges or other sanctions, including monetary sanctions. When trial is in a client’s best interest, we rely on our extensive trial experience and zealous advocacy to pursue an acquittal or dismissal. We advocate forcefully for its clients in every setting.

Representative Criminal Defense Engagements:

• United States v. Virgil Griffith
  Currently defending Mr. Griffith in a criminal prosecution by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York. Mr. Griffith allegedly violated North Korean sanctions for a speech at a conference in Pyongyang.

• United States v. Paige Thompson
  Currently defending Paige Thompson in a criminal proceeding in the Western District of Washington. Ms. Thompson is alleged to have hacked into Capital One and other entities in one of the largest alleged hacks in U.S. history.

• United States v. Marcus Hutchins
  Defended Marcus Hutchins in a criminal prosecution brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for cybercrimes dating back to 2014. Following a plea, Mr. Hutchins was sentenced to no prison time; in fact, adopting our arguments, the district court judge suggested that Mr. Hutchins seek a pardon due to his exemplary conduct in stopping the “WannaCry” ransomware attack in May 2017.

• United States v. Burt Wagner
  Defended Mr. Wagner in a criminal prosecution brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Colorado tied to his Bitcoin trading. Mr. Wagner was alleged to have operated an unlicensed money transmitting business. Before trial, we secured a dismissal of the case.

• People v. Dr. Fenton
  Defended Dr. Fenton in one of the largest healthcare criminal prosecutions in California state history. Dr. Fenton secured a no-prison time plea deal.

Representative Regulatory Defense Engagements:

• In the Matter of Block.one, Securities Act Release No. 10714
  Represented Block.one before the SEC in New York, reaching a landmark settlement related to Block.one’s unregistered initial coin offering (ICO) of digital tokens that raised the equivalent of several billion dollars.

• CFTC Investigation
  Represented a technology company founder under investigation for personal trading by the CFTC. After extensive back-and-forth, we persuaded the CFTC to drop its investigation before any charges were filed.

Waymaker has extensive experience in federal and state appellate courts across the country. We have argued a wide range of subject matters on appeal. In recent years, our arguments have covered subject matters including copyright law, the federal RICO statute, free speech rights, cyberbullying, anti-SLAPP law, forum non conveniens, insurance, general commercial disputes, and arbitration agreements. We meticulously prepare appellate briefs that focus on critical, dispositive issues. We then hone argument to address only the most critical points and to prepare for questions from the bench. Generally, our approach has led to success.

In one notable group of cases, we represented a disruptive new technology company that was sued by the major broadcast networks for copyright infringement. Our client claimed that it had a statutory right to transmit broadcast television over the Internet as a “cable system” under the Copyright Act of 1976. The dispute between the parties attracted the attention of the media, with the Los Angeles Times reporting in an editorial that the case “could usher in a new generation of pay TV services online[.]” Although oral argument in the D.C. Circuit was scheduled for 15 minutes per side, the three-judge appellate panel (Merrick Garland, Brett Kavanaugh, and Patricia Millet) conducted oral argument for over two hours (Ryan Baker argued). At the end of the argument, then Presiding Chief Judge Merrick Garland commended the parties for their “excellent oral argument.” Shortly after that argument, the parties commenced settlement negotiations. Our client obtained a favorable confidential settlement.

In a high-profile anti-SLAPP case, we won a unanimous victory in the California Supreme Court that reversed the decisions of the lower courts. Our client had sued another business for trade libel, alleging that the defendant had disparaged it in confidential reports to on-line advertisers. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit on the ground that it was barred by California’s anti-SLAPP statute, which was designed to guard against the use of the courts to intimidate or punish people for exercising their First Amendment rights. The California Supreme Court agreed to review the case. It unanimously agreed with our argument that the speech at issue was not protected. As a result, our client’s trade libel lawsuit was reinstated. The Court’s published opinion in our case established a new legal test for the catch-all provision in the anti-SLAPP statute, which already has greatly influenced subsequent judicial decisions.

On occasion, we have prepared amicus briefs on behalf of clients on important legal issues that are relevant to their businesses. We have filed amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court, which have attracted the attention of the justices and influenced questioning during oral argument.

Representative Engagements:

• Camargo v. Sunnova Energy Systems, Inc.
  Baker Marquart achieved a state court appellate victory on March 3, 2020, when the California Court of Appeal reversed a trial court order in Camargo v. Sunnova Energy Corporation, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the opinion. 
  
  Sunnova had moved to compel arbitration, pursuant to a written arbitration agreement between the parties.  The trial court denied the motion on the grounds of unconscionability not raised by Camargo.  The Court of Appeal reversed, agreeing with Sunnova that the trial court erred in making its decision without giving Sunnova an opportunity to brief the issue and present evidence.  In making its finding, the Court relied on Civil Code section 1670.5(b), which requires a trial court to allow parties to present evidence as to the “commercial setting, purpose and effect” of an agreement, where unconscionability is claimed

• McMillan v. Chaker, et al.
  Baker Marquart achieved another Ninth Circuit victory on January 27, 2020, when the Ninth Circuit affirmed the Southern District of California’s ruling in McMillan, et al. v. Chaker, et al. In the case, plaintiffs argued defendants violated the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) based on the predicate act of extortion by disrupting plaintiffs’ right to practice law and publish decisions on the internet free of threats. The appellate court upheld the district court’s finding that these allegations were insufficient to state a RICO claim as a matter of law.
  
  Extortion as the predicate act necessary to establish a RICO violation requires a plaintiff to allege that a defendant “obtained something of value” from plaintiff. In this case, the Court found plaintiffs’ claim deficient because plaintiffs did not allege defendant obtained property that could be “exercised, transferred or sold.” The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal of the complaint in its entirety.

• FilmOn.com v. DoubleVerify, Inc.
  Won an anti-SLAPP appeal before the California Supreme Court and reversed lower court decisions that had dismissed a trade libel lawsuit. Defendant had made allegedly defamatory statements in confidential reports to advertisers, which negatively affected client’s advertising revenue. The trial court dismissed the lawsuit based on California’s anti-SLAPP law. We petitioned the California Supreme Court for review. Following oral argument, the Court unanimously reversed the lower court decisions, and reversed the dismissal of the client’s trade libel lawsuit. In a published opinion, the California Supreme Court created a new two-part legal test to govern cases under the catch-all provision.

• David v. Textor
  Won an appeal before the Florida District Court of Appeals in a free speech dispute involving Florida’s cyberstalking law. The trial court had found that Waymaker’s client had violated the cyberstalking law by sending threatening text messages and emails to a competitor in a business dispute and by posting information about the plaintiff on social media and other on-line forums. The appellate court unanimously reversed, ruling that Waymaker client’s conduct did not constitute cyberstalking and that an injunction violated the client’s free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution.

• American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc.
  Submitted an influential amicus brief in a copyright dispute before the U.S. Supreme Court in a case with important implications for Waymaker’s client. In an amicus brief, Waymaker argued that the dispute could be decided on an alternative legal theory not briefed by the actual parties or any other amici. Several Justices seized on this issue during oral argument and questioned counsel about it. The court’s majority opinion embraced much of the language in Waymaker’s brief. Though the client was not a party to this dispute, the Supreme Court’s opinion was of immense importance to the client and highly effective in helping the client build its own legal case in a similar dispute.

• FilmOn X, LLC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.
  Successfully defended a new media company sued by the five major broadcast networks in a copyright dispute before the D.C. Circuit. We argued that its client—which used the Internet to retransmit broadcast television over the Internet—qualified as a modern-day “cable system” and was entitled to a statutory copyright license under the Copyright Act of 1976. Shortly after the two-hour long oral argument, the client obtained a favorable settlement on confidential terms.

• Whittaker v. Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP
  Successfully petitioned the appellate court for interlocutory relief and successfully revived a breach of fiduciary duty claim brought by the firm’s client against a law firm in a legal malpractice action. The trial court had granted a demurrer in favor of the law firm, dismissing a breach of fiduciary duty claim against it. Waymaker filed a petition for interlocutory relief with the California Court of Appeal. The appellate court granted a preemptory writ of mandate and ordered the trial court to reconsider its decision. The trial court subsequently reversed its own order and ruled in the client’s favor.

• Mattel, Inc. v. MGA Entertainment
  Successfully represented Mattel in one chapter in the highly publicized legal battle over Barbie and Bratz dolls concerning an insurance indemnity and subrogation issue. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Waymaker’s argument that no further insurance payments were required, as the issue had not been properly raised in the trial court and was therefore waived.

• Jones v. Jacobson
  Won affirmance of trial court’s denial of a motion to compel arbitration because no defendant was party to the agreement to arbitrate. The defendants, a group of Societe Generale affiliates, had moved to compel the Waymaker’s client to arbitrate the dispute based on a contract the client had signed with another entity affiliated with Societe Generale. In a published opinion, the court of appeal found that “[e]ven the strong public policy in favor of arbitration does not extend to those who are not parties to an arbitration agreement or who have not authorized anyone to act for them in executing such an agreement.” The case then proceeded in the trial court and was eventually favorably resolved on confidential terms.

Waymaker handles a wide range of commercial disputes, including breach of contract, fraud, negligence, interference, breach of fiduciary duty, legal malpractice, and real property claims in federal courts, state courts, and arbitral tribunals across the country. The firm has represented Fortune 500 companies such as DirecTV and Rolls-Royce, as well as closely held companies and individuals in a broad range of commercial disputes.

For instance, we successfully defended an aviation startup client against multi-million dollar claims brought by an investment bank over a round of financing the client had raised. After a five-day arbitration – and after the bank had rejected a substantial settlement offer – the firm demonstrated the bank’s claims were wholly without merit. The arbitrator agreed, entering an award for the client that included an award to the firm’s client of nearly all our clients’ attorneys’ fees and costs.

In each case, the firm develops a strategy specific to each client’s needs. We strategically employ dispositive and other motions, always with an eye toward the client’s ultimate goal. We often recover our clients’ fees and costs as prevailing parties in litigation or as monetary sanctions for discovery abuses or violation of California’s anti-SLAPP law.

We are also skilled at employing alternative dispute resolution to accomplish client goals. We accept certain cases on a contingency or hybrid fee arrangement.

Representative Engagements:

• McGladrey Capital Markets v. Icon Aircraft, Inc.
  Successfully defended client in an arbitration against multi-million dollar claims brought by an investment bank over a round of financing that had been raised for the client. After a five-day long arbitration, the arbitrator ruled in our client’s favor. The bank was ordered to reimburse our client for its attorneys’ fees and costs.

• Brett Barrett v. Broad Green Pictures, LLC
  Successfully represented a designer in a substantial breach of contract dispute against a high net worth individual and his motion picture company arising out of a contract to design a residence in the Hollywood Hills. After successfully consolidating the parties’ disputes into a single action and compelling arbitration of all disputes, we conducted discovery to obtain valuable testimony and evidence. Days before the start of the evidentiary hearing, the client settled on favorable and confidential terms.

• LABC Productions, LLC v. USSE Corp., LLC
  Represented a DirecTV subsidiary production company in a lawsuit related to the production of a reality television featuring female surfers searching for the perfect waves around the globe. Our client had paid defendant pursuant to the contract, but the defendant never produced the required content. After discovery revealed significant misconduct by defendant and its principals – which led to multiple claims against various parties – the case settled at mediation. The firm’s client obtained a substantial recovery.

• Michael Monaghan v. UBS Financial Services, Inc.
  Represented a broker who had been terminated by the defendant in a dispute over forfeiture of significant commissions. While the case proceeded in FINRA arbitration, the parties mediated. The parties settled. Our client recovered his expected income and launched a new startup technology company.

• Pro-Packing, Inc. v. Rolls-Royce Energy Systems Inc.
  Won summary judgment for defendant Rolls-Royce in a dispute arising out of the construction of an oil platform. We established the plaintiff never had any contract with the defendant and demonstrated that there was no valid theory of equitable relief. The trial court granted our client summary judgment on all claims.

• Sina Fuel, Inc., et al. v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc.
  Defended a publicly-traded supplier of hydrogen refueling and refueling stations in a commercial dispute brought by an entity that alleged it formed a partnership for hydrogen refueling stations. After extensive discovery, which revealed significant misconduct, the matter was resolved favorably and confidentially on the eve of trial.

• Whittaker v. Glaser Weil Fink Howard Avchen & Shapiro LLP
  Represented a trustee in a dispute against a law firm that allegedly mishandled a $20 million-plus residential real estate transaction. We aggressively pursued the client’s claims for legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty and defended against counterclaims for legal fees. Shortly before trial and after defeating the law firm’s motion for summary judgment, our client obtained a favorable settlement.

• Sina Fuel, Inc. et al. v. Air Products and Chemicals, Inc
  Defended a publicly-traded supplier of hydrogen refueling and refueling stations in a commercial dispute brought by an entity that alleged it formed a partnership for hydrogen refueling stations. After extensive discovery, the matter was resolved favorably and confidentially on the eve of trial.

Waymaker is well-versed in corporate governance disputes. Whether a dispute involves a large, publicly traded company, a deadlocked closely held startup, or a corporate divorce in a family partnership, we have the experience and skills to solve a wide range of problems.

We have represented all sides in corporate governance disputes. It has advised management and defended against minority shareholder disputes brought against large companies. It has represented minority shareholders in proxy fights over publicly traded firms, and has brought and defended complicated shareholder derivative suits, where a sophisticated understanding of intricate filing requirements and pre-filing formalities can bring about an early life or death to a dispute. Additionally, it has handled deadlocked close corporations and partnerships on the brink of dissolving and has represented clients in Special Litigation Committee proceedings.

When issues of control and shareholder rights arise, a keen understanding of corporate governance law and an ear tuned to the ever-particular facts of the situation at hand are paramount. Like no other dispute, a corporate governance dispute requires intense initial analysis, including a thorough review of any applicable corporate history, from founding to the present dispute. Understanding the problem from all angles and assessing every possible outcome at the outset are essential to avoiding mistakes and missteps. Creative solutions and opportunities arise at all stages of a corporate governance dispute, and it is important to hire counsel who can find out what matters most and formulate creative solutions for each moment. Circumstances change quickly, allegiances shift, and new problems emerge. A dynamic approach is critical. This is where we excel.

Representative Engagements:

• 678 USA, Inc. v. 678 Corporation
  Assisted a 50 percent shareholder in a successful chain of Korean barbeque restaurants acquire 100 percent ownership, after another shareholder petitioned for an involuntary corporate dissolution. Based on California Corporations Code section 2000, we successfully stayed the dissolution proceedings and set an appraisal of the corporation. The petitioning shareholders then agreed to sell their interests at a price acceptable to the firm’s client.

• Deak, et al. v. The Safe Cig, et al.
  Represented locked out founding members of a closely-held California business in a dispute over ownership and control of an electronic cigarette corporation. We obtained an interim order appointing a Special Litigation Committee to independently review the claims made by the founding members against purported current management and leveraged this order and the Special Litigation Committee procedure to obtain a favorable confidential buyout of the founding members’ interests.

• Pope v. Summit Pain Alliance, Inc. et al, Case No. SCV-261060
  Waymaker was hired the day after a founding partner of a California medical partnership was locked out overnight from the partnership and clinic. Within a few days, we sought and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order that restored access to the ousted partner, and later succeeded in obtaining a further order restoring the ousted partner’s access to key financial information after a one-day contempt trial.

Waymaker regularly represents employers and highly compensated employees in a broad array of employment disputes. With the benefit of a litigator’s perspective, we advise clients on severance agreements and packages connected to major corporate mergers, restructurings, and workforce reductions. In doing so, we provide counsel on numerous matters related to the rights and duties of departing employees, including senior executives.

We are particularly experienced in litigating employment claims arising out of alleged trade secret misappropriation, breach of non-competition agreements, breach of fiduciary duty, wrongful termination, discrimination, wage and hour disputes, and sexual harassment. We have handled cases ranging from individual employment disputes to class actions involving Fortune 500 companies. The firm’s criminal and regulatory defense practices, which are helmed by a number of former federal prosecutors, are helpful to clients when allegations also concern potential criminal conduct.

Although the best outcome is often a negotiated pre-litigation resolution, the firm has a well-earned reputation for delivering results if those negotiations are not successful. The deep experience of the firm’s trial attorneys is indispensable before litigation commences because it provides the firm with credibility and the ability to spot litigation opportunities and vulnerabilities.

Representative Engagements:

• Byton North America Corporation v. Breitfeld
  Currently representing an electric automobile pioneer, co-founder and former executive of an all-electric vehicle manufacturer in claims against his former employer, a Chinese electric vehicle company. After the company sued our client, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty and other claims, we counterclaimed for breach of the employment contract and other employment claims.

• Holland v. Penthouse World Media, LLC
  Currently defending a corporation against a lawsuit filed by a former owner and executive. The plaintiff has asserted claims of wrongful termination, age discrimination, breach of contract, failure to pay wages, and other claims. We are aggressively pursuing our counterclaims.

• Charalambous v. SBEEG Holdings, LLC
  Currently representing a former executive of a major hospitality company, SBE, in a fraud and breach of contract lawsuit. The firm’s client alleges that his former employer has wrongfully failed to provide compensation owed to him under a profits interests agreement.

• Hernandez v. Price Waterhouse Coopers LLC
  Represented a former highly compensated employee of Google in an action involving international taxation advice that PWC provided to him in connection with his foreign assignment to Google’s Mountainview campus. The case was confidentially resolved shortly after being filed.

• Mainstream Communications, Inc. v. DIRECTV, LLC
  Represented DIRECTV in arbitration against a collection of former independent contractors seeking consequential damages arising out of several contracts. After claimants were awarded less than 20 percent of their most recent settlement demand, we petitioned for vacatur based on misconduct at arbitration. The parties reached a settlement for a fraction of the arbitration award.

• Bernardini v. Zodiac US Management, LLC
  Represented the former CEO of a large aviation company in an action under a written executive compensation agreement, asserting various claims in contract and under the California Labor Code. The case was resolved privately after we brought an early motion for summary adjudication.

• In re ICON Aircraft
  Represented a new aviation startup, a manufacturer of a revolutionary lightweight sport aircraft, with the resolution of various threatened claims by SpaceX arising from our client’s hiring of former SpaceX employees. The matters were resolved prior to litigation.

For over two decades, Waymaker lawyers have consistently demonstrated a fearless commitment to the protection of creative artists’ works and visions. At times, that has meant vigorously defending Oscar-winning producers, writers and directors against baseless idea theft claims, and many other times it has meant taking major motion picture studios and television networks to court to ensure that an artist was compensated for his or her valuable contributions to a creative work.

Along with his former colleagues at Quinn Emanuel, Jaime Marquart tried and won a federal jury trial in the Central District of Los Angeles on behalf of Oscar-winning producers, directors and writers Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz and their studio, The Bedford Falls Company (Shakespeare in Love, Thirtysomething, Blood Diamond, Legends of the Fall), in which two brothers alleged that Messrs, Zwick and Herskovitz had stolen their screenplay for the blockbuster film The Last Samurai. On the other hand, Waymaker has not shied away from taking on major motion picture studios, having successfully sued Disney on behalf of a creator of the television show Hannah Montana, and against MGM Studios and Sony on behalf of acclaimed producer Arthur Sarkissian (Rush Hour Trilogy). Waymaker attorneys have also handled a number of personal cases for celebrities and their families, and are acutely skilled at navigating thorny media relations issues.

In the last decade, Waymaker has defended a multitude of copyright infringement claims brought by various television networks against Internet-based media companies, and has also brought antitrust claims against major motion picture studios on behalf of a smaller media company.

Representative Engagements:

• Art & Anne Productions, Inc., v. Misenhimer, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. SC090452
• Friis v. Joensen, Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BC592828
• Jacal Productions, Inc., et al. vs. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures Inc., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. SC093181
• Sheffield v. ABC Cable Networks Group, No. CV 08-2555 ABC (CTx) 2008 WL 11338477 (9th Cir. 2008)
• Benay, et al. v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, et al., 607 F. 3d 620 (9th Cir. 2010)
• Disney Enterprises, Inc., et al. v. VidAngel, Inc., No. 16-56843, 2017 WL 3623286 (9th Cir., Aug. 24, 2017)

Waymaker has extensive trial and appellate experience litigating trademark, copyright, trade dress, and trade secret disputes. Our deep experience representing plaintiffs and defendants helps us develop and execute successful strategies. We assist clients across many industries, including technology, medical device, entertainment, retail, food, fashion and many others.

We have made a strong mark on intellectual property law and are known for taking on and winning high-profile battles. In a series of legal lawsuits spanning from Washington D.C. to Chicago to Los Angeles, the firm defended a disruptive new media client in copyright litigation filed against it by the five major broadcast networks. In a ruling that the Hollywood Reporter referred to as a “legal earthquake,” a federal judge ruled for the first time that an Internet-based service may be able to operate as a “cable system.” An editorial in the Los Angeles Times reported that the ruling “could usher in a new generation of pay TV services online[.]” After several district courts split on the hotly contested question of whether an Internet-based service may fit the statutory definition of a cable system, we handled the subsequent appeals in the Ninth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, and D.C. Circuit. Following an intense two-hour D.C. Circuit oral argument (after which presiding Judge Merrick Garland commended Ryan Baker’s “excellent argument”), we successfully settled the expansive litigation for its client. As a result of his work on this and other cases, Ryan Baker was honored by Cablefax as one of the country’s “Top Lawyers” in media and communications.

In addition to handling matters in the courtroom, we are often asked to assist clients in developing and implementing strategies to protect their intellectual property assets. The firm is available to advise clients on best practices to protect one’s intellectual property and to fortify a client’s legal position should litigation arise. The firm is available to investigate and assist clients with enforcing their own intellectual property rights through cease and desist demands and other legal strategies.

Representative Engagements:

• IMD, et al. v. Cornell, et al.
  Currently representing the inventor of the only cosmetic penile enhancement implant in litigation against several parties alleged to have stolen trade secrets and misappropriated other intellectual property. Shortly after filing the complaint, we obtained a preliminary injunction to prevent further misappropriation of our clients’ intellectual property.

• Byton North America Corporation v. Breitfeld
  Currently representing an electric automobile pioneer, co-founder and former executive of an all-electric vehicle manufacturer in a lawsuit filed against him after he left the company. The plaintiff asserts claims for misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of fiduciary duty, intentional interference with contractual relations, and other claims. We have filed counterclaims, seeking to recover significant damages arising from the plaintiff’s breach of our client’s employment contract.

• Benay v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.
  Defended an Academy Award® winning director, an Academy Award® winning screenwriter and a major motion picture studio against a nine-figure copyright claim in federal court. Plaintiffs alleged our clients had infringed the copyright in plaintiffs’ screenplay and stolen their idea for what ultimately became an internationally acclaimed film. Plaintiffs sought more than $100 million in damages. We obtained summary judgment against all of the plaintiffs’ claims, which was affirmed in the Ninth Circuit. We subsequently obtained a complete defense jury verdict of Plaintiffs’ implied contract claim.

• Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FilmOn X, LLC
  Won a major victory in the Central District of California in a copyright infringement case brought by the major broadcast networks against a disruptive new media client. The federal judge granted partial summary judgment in favor of our client, holding that an Internet-based service may be eligible for a statutory copyright license as a “cable system.” Hollywood Reporter  referred to the decision as a “legal earthquake” and a “landmark ruling” that “set up a high-stakes appellate showdown with the broadcast establishment.” We settled the expansive litigation for its client on favorable terms shortly after an hours-long oral argument in the D.C. Circuit. As a part of this effort, we met with several FCC Commissioners and others at the commission, advocating for regulatory change.

• Sheffield v. ABC Cable Networks Group
  Represented NAACP Image Award winner Morris Taylor “Buddy” Sheffield in a breach of contract lawsuit against defendant ABC Cable Networks Group concerning the creation of the hit television show Hannah Montana. After winning an appeal, monetary sanctions and a court order directing the defendant to produce detailed financial discovery regarding the television show, we obtained a favorable settlement less than four weeks before trial.

• Spitfire Studios, Inc., v. Spitfire Pictures LLC
  Represented a film studio against a much larger production company and its affiliates for violation of the studio’s trademark rights. After aggressively pursuing discovery and early motion practice, we negotiated a favorable confidential settlement. The studio continues to use its marks, while the defendant was required to alter its infringing marks.

Waymaker represents plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement actions. Recognizing patent litigation as critically important but also particularly costly, the firm staffs patent cases efficiently. Applying our broad base of litigation experience, we streamline issues at the outset of an engagement to minimize expense. Several of our lawyers have technical and practical experience that is of particular importance in the patent litigation context.

We are also retained to develop and implement comprehensive strategies to protect and enforce a client’s intellectual property portfolio. We advise clients not only in the context of litigation, but also with an eye toward potential future issues, aiming to avoid costly litigation.

Based on our expertise in patent litigation, and on our broader litigation skill set, we are frequently asked to substitute or associate into active matters to correct issues created by former counsel.

Waymaker also has represented clients before the Patent and Trademark Office in Inter Partes Reviews and other proceedings.

Representative Engagements:

• eDirect Publishing, Inc. v. LiveCareer, Ltd.
  Represented plaintiff eDirect in an infringement action against LiveCareer, a competitor. Following discovery and claim construction, the parties mediated and negotiated a confidential settlement.

• Hologram USA, Inc. v. Pulse Evolution Corporation
  After several companies allegedly used the patented technology of Waymaker’s client to create a hologram of Michael Jackson for the Billboard Music Awards, the firm was retained to sue for patent infringement damages. After prolonged litigation, the parties reached a favorable business resolution.

• Hologram USA, Inc. v. Cirque de Soleil
  Represented the patent-holder in a lawsuit against Cirque de Soleil related to the use of certain hologram technology in the Michael Jackson: One Las Vegas show at Mandalay Bay. The parties eventually settled the dispute on confidential terms.

• Hologram USA, Inc. v. Twentieth Century Fox Corporation
  Represented a client in an action arising from Fox’s use of patented hologram technology to display a Homer Simpson hologram at Comicon. The case was quickly and favorably settled after filing.

Waymaker handles securities disputes for plaintiffs and defendants. We are experienced in representing banks, investment professionals, corporate investors, and individual investors. The firm’s attorneys have handled securities cases involving allegations of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, failure to comply with federal or state registration requirements, and breach of contract claims in a variety of forums – including federal court, state court, arbitration proceedings before FINRA or other arbitral bodies, and investigations before the SEC.

The firm’s attorneys include several former federal prosecutors, a former enforcement lawyer with the SEC, and seasoned civil litigators with experience before FINRA and other arbitral bodies. For example, Waymaker partner Keri Axel previously worked as an SEC enforcement attorney. In that capacity, Keri handled securities, investor, procurement, and immigration benefit fraud as well as federal tax fraud and evasion cases. In the private sector, she helps clients navigate difficult securities disputes and avoid or reduce SEC penalties, as well as civil liability.

Although some representative engagements are listed below, the firm’s work for clients is often unpublished and takes place in confidential arbitral forums. We have recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for our certain clients and have helped others avoid similar sums in liability. We take certain securities cases on a contingency or hybrid fee arrangement.

Representative Engagements:

• Assil v. Manana Media
  Represented an investor in an international media company seeking to collect on various financial instruments through which he had invested in, and loaned money to, the company. After extensive discovery and motion practice, the parties reached an agreement that permitted our client to establish priority and recover the majority of his investment.

• Cronin, et al. v. Zions Direct, Inc.
  Represented Zions Direct in FINRA arbitration against claims from an individual arising from losses in a stock trading account. Following early discovery, we negotiated a favorable resolution for our client.

• McGladrey Capital Markets v. Icon Aircraft, Inc.
  Successfully defended a client in an arbitration against multi-million dollar claims brought by an investment bank over a round of financing that had been raised for the client. After a five-day long arbitration, the arbitrator ruled in our client’s favor and ordered the bank to reimburse our client for nearly all its attorneys’ fees and costs.

While online commerce has in many ways made the world more accessible to smaller competitors, the dominance of a select few companies and wide-scale adoption of limited platforms have presented new challenges to competition, along with temptations and opportunities for monopolists and other market-dominant players to act anticompetitively.

We understand these complex and difficult challenges like few litigation firms do, having dealt with market power inequities in high-profile disputes involving online payment processors, cryptocurrency companies, film and television studios, social media and online search giants, computer and semiconductor chip manufacturers, health care providers and insurers.

Our keen understanding of emerging technologies – like Internet-based media and blockchain – position us as one of the leading antitrust litigation firms in traditional and emerging markets. Our trial lawyers are known for aggressive and efficient representation and progressive application of the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, Robinson-Patman Act and other federal laws, as well as the Cartwright Act, California’s Unfair Competition Law, and other protections under California law and other state laws. We have prosecuted and defended antitrust litigation matters on a nationwide basis in both federal and state courts.

Representative Engagements:

• United American Corp. v. Payward Ventures, Inc.
  Currently defending Payward Ventures (operator of the Kraken cryptocurrency exchange) and Jesse Powell (CEO) who are accused of conspiring with other entities and individuals in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Plaintiff alleges that defendants engaged in a bid rigging scheme and a group boycott. This closely watched action was filed in the Southern District of Florida and appears to be the first antitrust case involving cryptocurrency and blockchains.

• Image Technical Services, Inc. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
  Successfully represented a group of 11 plaintiff independent service organizations, who each serviced and repaired Kodak equipment, in a federal antitrust monopolization trial against Kodak. Plaintiffs alleged that Kodak, in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, unlawfully “leveraged” its monopoly power over equipment parts by refusing to continue to sell replacement parts to the plaintiffs, and others, in order to create or maintain a monopoly over the related servicing market for Kodak photocopier and micrographic equipment. The litigation and its multiple appeals raised novel legal theories and cutting edge issues, both in the antitrust and intellectual property arenas. The case was tried to a jury in San Francisco and the plaintiffs obtained a verdict in the amount of $71.8 million (after mandatory trebling). The trial court also issued a 10-year mandatory injunction which forced Kodak to change its parts sale policy and business practices. On appeal by Kodak, the Ninth Circuit affirmed on all liability issues and in substantial part the damages award. After the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review, a significant settlement was reached for the plaintiffs.

• Sidense Corporation v. Kilopass Technology, Inc.
  Successfully represented the plaintiff, a provider of complimentary metal-oxide-semiconductor logic embeddable antifuse one-time programmable nonvolatile memory technology, against a competitor. Plaintiff brought a federal antitrust lawsuit against the defendant under Section 2 of the Sherman Act alleging that defendant initiated a series of baseless lawsuits against the plaintiff, including patent infringement, in a coordinated campaign to drive it out of the relevant market so that defendant could monopolize that specialized market. Plaintiff had spent millions of dollars defending against the baseless infringement litigation and its business growth was severely impacted. The district court in San Francisco denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss finding that plaintiff had sufficiently pled its antitrust claim. The case was then promptly resolved resulting in a very substantial settlement for the plaintiff.

• Kentmaster Manufacturing, Co. v. Jarvis Products Corp.
  Successfully defended a major manufacturer of a broad line of slaughterhouse equipment against a federal antitrust lawsuit and related state law claims alleging predatory pricing. The trial court on a motion to dismiss found that that the “antitrust injury” requirement was lacking in the plaintiff’s complaint and dismissed the action with prejudice. On appeal to the Ninth Circuit, the dismissal without leave to amend was affirmed in all respects.

• Modesto Irrigation District v. Pacific Gas and Electric. Co.
  Represented plaintiff Modesto Irrigation District concerning competitor PG&E’s alleged unlawful refusal to allow it access to PG&E’s electric transmission lines to supply electric power through a substation in order to service a large potential customer. The case involved legal questions regarding antitrust immunity and regulatory requirements under the California Government Code. The case was also reviewed by the Ninth Circuit twice.

• Arminak & Associates., Inc. v. Saint-Gobain Calmar, Inc.
  Successfully represented the plaintiff, a small trigger sprayer manufacturer, against its monopolist competitor in an antitrust dispute under the Sherman Act. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant entered into anticompetitive exclusive dealing contracts with customers and thereby foreclosed open competition in the trigger sprayer market. After extensive party, third party and expert discovery and motion practice, the case was resolved with a very substantial settlement for plaintiff on the eve of trial.

• UniStrip Technologies, LLC v. LifeScan, Inc.
  Successfully represented the plaintiff, a manufacturer of single-use disposable blood glucose test strips, for use with defendant’s portable self-monitoring devices to manage diabetes in an antitrust action. Plaintiff sold test strips for use with the defendant’s portable self-monitoring devices to manage diabetes. Plaintiff alleged that the defendant, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, also was the dominant supplier of test strips for its meters and unlawfully entered into exclusive dealing and bundling contracts to its resellers and distributors on the condition they not purchase test strips from plaintiff and other competitors. Plaintiff contended that such exclusionary conduct violated the Sherman Act and Clayton Act. After the district court in Pennsylvania denied defendant’s motion to dismiss and limited discovery was conducted, the litigation was settled favorably for plaintiff.

• Abbey House Media, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.
  Successfully represented a group of independent e-book retailers against Apple and five major book publishing companies. Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations pursuant to Section 1 of the Sherman Act in an action in the Southern District of New York. Plaintiffs claimed they sustained significant business losses by reason of Apple’s conspiracy with the publishers to fix prices and reduce competition in the e-book industry. Extensive fact and expert discovery was conducted. After the Second Circuit’s affirmance of the Department of Justice’s trial court victory against Apple finding that it violated the price fixing prohibition of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, plaintiffs negotiated a substantial settlement with Apple.