Compass Lexecon has been involved in many of the largest and most complex antitrust litigation and financial market cases over the past thirty years. Details of recent cases in which Compass Lexecon has been involved are provided below or can be located by using the Search Bar capability.
Representative Cases View Snapshot of Cases by Year
Compass Lexecon expert Dr. Manuel A. Abdala was retained by Phillips Petroleum Company Venezuela Limited and ConocoPhillips Petrozuata B.V. ("Claimants"), two large-scale producers of heavy crude oil and related products, as quantum expert in an ICC arbitration against Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., Corpoguanipa, S.A., and PDVSA Petróleo S.A. ("Respondents" or "PDVSA"). The dispute arose from claims related to certain discriminatory actions by Venezuela for which PDVSA, as a joint partner to ConocoPhillips, had provided partial protection and guarantees. An ICC Tribunal declared that the increase in income taxes and the 2007 expropriation were discriminatory actions under the association agreements between the parties, and found PDVSA liable for $2 billion as of May 2016.
The Tribunal used Dr. Abdala's valuation model to compute compensation, which required economic interpretation on the contractual provisions related to the compensation clauses of the association agreements. The Tribunal sided with Dr. Abdala's main recommendations on the discount rate, in particular, rejecting the three main propositions advanced by opposing experts: First, it ruled that the discount rate should not include an illiquidity discount, since the assets were not in distress and Claimants were not under compulsion to divest. Second, based on Dr. Abdala's evidence, it ruled that the status of Venezuela's sovereign debt (given its near-default situation) had no place in the calculation of a country risk premium. Finally, the Tribunal shared Dr. Abdala's opinion on the fact that neither historic average returns in the oil industry nor the expected IRR could be used as discount rates, which instead had to be based on the cost of capital. The Tribunal ended up rejecting PDVSA's experts proposed 27.7% discount rate and adopted a flat rate equivalent to an 18% cost of equity, close to Dr. Abdala's recommendation of 15.2%.
Pablo López Zadicoff led the team supporting Dr. Abdala and was assisted by Carla Chavich, Mark Sheiness, Rob Mulcahy, Nick Sardi, Nicholas Dayton and Andrés Barrera. Compass Lexecon worked with Brian D. King and Elliot Friedman of Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP and Constantine Partasides QC, Jan Paulsson, and Luke Sobota of Three Crowns LLP.
Compass Lexecon Senior Consultant Professor Bradford Cornell Successfully Testified at Trial in Delaware Chancery Court
On April 23, 2018, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed, in a one sentence opinion, Vice Chancellor Laster's ruling in ACP Master, Ltd. v. Sprint Corp. This case involved a combined breach of fiduciary duty claim and appraisal action resulting from Sprint Corporation's $3.6 billion acquisition of Clearwire Corporation in July 2013. Clearwire shareholders who voted in favor of the acquisition received $5.00 per share. A large shareholder claimed the acquisition resulted from breaches of fiduciary duty by Sprint, aided and abetted by Softbank, a Japanese telecommunications company that invested $21.6 billion in Sprint the day after the Sprint-Clearwire acquisition closed. The shareholder also filed an appraisal action and claimed that the merger consideration was inadequate. At trial, plaintiffs and their experts claimed that the fair value of Clearwire was actually $16.08 per share. Compass Lexecon Senior Consultant Professor Bradford Cornell, by contrast, testified that the standalone fair value of Clearwire was $2.13 per share.
In July 2017, Vice Chancellor Laster determined the Sprint-Clearwire merger was entirely fair, found in Sprint's favor on the claim for breach of fiduciary duty, and found in Softbank's favor on the claim for aiding and abetting. Vice Chancellor Laster agreed with Professor Cornell's and defendant's conclusion that the standalone fair value of Clearwire was $2.13 per share and wrote, "[t]he court adopts Cornell's DCF valuation in full."
Professor Cornell was supported by a team at Compass Lexecon that included Kevin Dages, Jennifer Milliron, John Haut, Tim McAnally and Ed Crane. We worked with Robert S. Saunders, Jennifer C. Voss, Ronald N. Brown, III and Arthur R. Bookout of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP and Erik J. Olson, James P. Bennett, James E. Hough and James J. Beha II of Morrison & Foerster LLP.
Compass Lexecon President Daniel R. Fischel and Professor Bradford Cornell Testify at Trial
After Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., (“Lehman”) filed for bankruptcy, Trustees for 244 RMBS Trusts filed claims arising out of alleged breaches of representations and warranties on mortgages conveyed to the Trusts. In 2012, the parties agreed to a $5 billion reserve for the RMBS Trusts’ claims. Lehman and the Trustees agreed to resolve the dispute through a claims estimation proceeding under which the RMBS Trusts’ allowed claim in the bankruptcy proceeding would be set after a trial presided over by Judge Shelley C. Chapman of United States Bankruptcy Court. Lehman agreed to propose that the allowed claim be set at approximately $2.4 billion. The Trustees argued in multiple expert reports and court filings that the allowed claim should be set at a much higher value, approximately $11.6 billion.
Counsel for Lehman retained Compass Lexecon President, Professor Daniel R. Fischel and Professor Bradford Cornell. Both filed expert reports and testified at trial. At the conclusion of the trial, Judge Chapman ruled for Lehman agreeing that the allowed claim should be $2.4 billion and rejecting the Trustees’ proposed allowed claim.
At trial, Professor Fischel identified a set of comparable settlements and opined that, taking into account differences between the comparable settlements and the case here, Lehman’s proposed allowed claim of $2.4 billion was at the higher end of the range of recent settlements of comparable claims, while the Trustees’ proposed allowed claim was far outside that range. Professor Fischel also described the support of large investors in the RMBS Trusts (the “Institutional Investors”) for an earlier settlement offer from Lehman of $2.44 billion and opined that this supported estimating the allowed claim at $2.4 billion.
Professor Cornell worked with Lehman and its counsel to design scenarios that showed how often the Trustees would have to succeed on their loan level claims to achieve an aggregate allowed claim of $2.4 billion. The scenarios analyzed by Professor Cornell made different assumptions about whether the Trustees would prevail on contested issues that affected a large number of loans.
In rejecting the Trustees’ proposed allowed claim, Judge Chapman found that she had not been presented with any methodology which would enable her to estimate the allowed claim on a loan by loan basis and therefore had to look to comparable settlements and the actions of the Institutional Investors to determine the allowed claim. As a result, Judge Chapman relied upon and extensively discussed Professor Fischel’s testimony. She found that Professor Fischel demonstrated that Lehman’s proposed allowed claim of $2.4 billion was well within the range of comparable settlements and the Trustees proposed allowed claim was far outside that range. She also agreed with Professor Fischel that the Institutional Investors’ willingness to settle the RMBS Trusts’ claims for $2.44 billion was entitled to substantial weight due to their large holdings in the Trusts, their sophistication and their experience in other RMBS settlements. Judge Chapman rejected arguments by the Trustees and their experts that the settlements identified by Professor Fischel were not comparable and that the Institutional Investors’ interests were not aligned with other certificateholders in the RMBS Trusts.
Lehman Brothers was successfully represented by Todd G. Cosenza, Paul V. Shalhoub, Joseph G. Davis and Benjamin P. McCallen of Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP, William Olshan and Matthew Cantor of Lehman Brothers Holdings and Michael A. Rollin and Maritza Dominguez Braswell of Rollin Braswell Fisher LLC. Professors Fischel and Cornell were supported by a team at Compass Lexecon led by Jerry Lumer that included Neal Lenhoff, Elizabeth Wall, Kevin Hartt, Jonathan Williams, Ron Laschever, Donald Hong and Erika Morris in Compass Lexecon's Chicago office.
In the sprawling LIBOR-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation matters, Plaintiffs sought certification of three separate classes: (i) traders of Eurodollar futures and options on futures traded at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (the Exchange-Based Plaintiff Action); (ii) financial institutions that made loans paying interest based on LIBOR (the Lender Plaintiff Action); and (iii) purchasers of over-the-counter (OTC) interest rate swaps and floating-rate bonds that paid LIBOR-linked interest (the OTC Plaintiff Action). Compass Lexecon Senior Affiliate Dr. Christopher L. Culp, and Senior Consultants Professor Janusz A. Ordover and Professor Robert D. Willig provided extensive testimony on behalf of the LIBOR panel banks. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York found their testimony persuasive and cited them extensively in her opinion. Judge Buchwald denied class certification entirely for the Exchange-Based and Lender Plaintiff Actions and denied class certification in part for the OTC Plaintiff Action. Judge Buchwald denied Daubert motions filed by Plaintiffs challenging certain aspects of the testimony of Professor Willig and Dr. Culp, ruling that their testimony was reliable and admissible, while granting Defendants' Daubert motions to exclude many of Plaintiffs' experts' opinions.
Dr. Culp offered testimony in the Exchange-Based Plaintiff Action that there was no causal relationship between alleged trader-based manipulation of LIBOR and Eurodollar futures and options on futures prices based on a reliable, formulaic method for all putative class-members. Judge Buchwald found "compelling" Dr. Culp's testimony that Plaintiffs' experts did not establish the existence of a causal relationship between alleged trader-based manipulation of LIBOR and Eurodollar futures and options on futures prices and that there is no reliable, formulaic method to determine any such causal relationship for all putative class-members. She also found that Plaintiffs' motion to exclude Dr. Culp's testimony was "premised on a mischaracterization of his reports" and that none of their critiques "call into question the reliability of Dr. Culp's opinions."
Professor Ordover offered testimony in the Exchange-Based, Lender and OTC Actions that the determination of injury and damages due to the alleged persistent suppression could be made on a class-wide basis, but would require individualized inquiries. In the Exchange-Based action, Judge Buchwald cited Professor Ordover's opinions in denying class certification, ruling that Plaintiffs' causation theory "is nonsensical; this finding is confirmed by Dr. Ordover's analysis showing a lack of convergence between spot LIBOR and expected LIBOR at settlement implied by [Eurodollar futures] prices...despite increasing overlap between the time periods." In the Lender Action, Professor Ordover testified that class-wide injury could not be presumed, since many terms of highly negotiated loans would be expected to be different in a world absent the alleged LIBOR suppression. Judge Buchwald cited this opinion while excluding Plaintiff's expert's opinions which did not "meaningfully rebut Dr. Ordover's testimony." In the OTC Plaintiff Action, Judge Buchwald found Professor Ordover's testimony "more compelling" than Plaintiffs' expert regarding the individualized nature of damage calculations.
In the Exchange-Based, Lender and OTC Actions Professor Willig addressed Plaintiffs' claims that LIBOR was persistently suppressed. In each case, Professor Willig compared the banks' LIBOR submissions with their actual borrowing costs (which Professor Willig opined were "the most informative data for evaluating the accuracy of [panel banks'] LIBOR submissions"), demonstrating that common evidence cannot be used to establish that submissions were suppressed class-wide compared with borrowing costs, and showing that the determination of any suppression would require numerous individualized inquiries. Judge Buchwald dismissed Plaintiffs' challenges to Professor Willig's testimony, finding that actual borrowing cost transactions are "properly considered" in any assessment of Plaintiffs' claims and that the "argument to the contrary...is simply unavailing." She ruled that Plaintiffs' "attempted distinction between bid-initiated transactions and offer-initiated transactions is illusory and does not render Dr. Willig's analysis unreliable; its attempt to paint Dr. Willig's transaction analysis as a calculation of but-for LIBOR is a mischaracterization and fares even worse."
Dr. Culp was supported by a Chicago-based Compass Lexecon team that included David Gross, Andria van der Merwe, Andrea Neves, Jonathan Williams, Laura Yergesheva and Bettina Staerkle.
Professor Ordover was supported by a Chicago-based Compass Lexecon team that included Thomas Stemwedel, David Ross, Dzmitry Asinski, Andria van der Merwe and Erika Morris.
Professor Willig was supported by a Compass Lexecon team that included David Gross, Joseph Goodman, Ron Laschever, Laura Yergesheva, Peter Marlantes and Binbin Deng from our Chicago office and Jith Jayaratne and Maya Meidan from our Oakland office.
Dr. Culp was retained by David R. Gelfand, Robert C. Hora, Mark Villaverde and Andrew Lichtenberg of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP. Professor Ordover and Professor Willig were retained by counsel for a joint defense group and worked closely with Elai Katz of Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP; Andrew D. Lazerow and Thomas A. Isaacson of Covington & Burling LLP; Arthur J. Burke, Paul S. Mishkin, Adam Mehes and Peter J. Davis of Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP; Peter Sullivan, Eric J. Stock and Jefferson E. Bell of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Brian J. Poronsky of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP; Moses Silverman and Hallie S. Goldblatt of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP; and Paul C. Gluckow, Abram J. Ellis and Zander Li of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.
Compass Lexecon expert Dr. Manuel A. Abdala was retained by Novenergia II Energy & Environment (SCA) SICAR (Claimant) as economic and quantum expert in an Energy Charter Treaty arbitration against Spain, held under SCC rules. The dispute centered on several claims affecting the value of Claimant's investments in eight photovoltaic (PV) plants due to certain modifications in Spain's regulatory regime for renewables and the ensuing overhaul of such regime, in mid-2013.
The Tribunal found that the overhaul of the regime in mid-2013, which replaced Feed-in Tariffs (FIT) with a price system based on an allowed rate of return for benchmark PV plants implied a "radical and unexpected" departure from the regulatory regime in place at the time of investment, and that such departure had a "significant damaging economic effect" on Novenergia's plants.
Dr. Abdala's opinions assisted the Tribunal on several fronts. His testimony helped establish that the overhaul of the regime substantially deprived Claimant of its investment value on all of its PV plants, by reducing plant revenues by 24-32% between 2013 and 2016. Dr. Abdala also demonstrated that, despite Spain's experts claim to the contrary, the new regime was not less risky and did not result in higher internal rates of returns to the investor. Thus, the Tribunal ruled out the notion that the change in regime could have been beneficial to Claimant. In doing so, the Tribunal also rejected the regulatory risk premium that Spain's experts had included in the discount rate under the FIT regime.
The arguments and evidence put forward by Dr. Abdala also convinced the Tribunal that no illiquidity discount ought to be included in the valuation, given that the statistics on renewable transactions in Spain showed entirely normal exit times. The Tribunal agreed with Dr. Abdala's opinion on how the operating costs of the plant would have evolved under the FIT regime. In terms of damages valuation, the Tribunal concluded that "...it considers the DCF-model presented by Compass Lexecon to be conventional, robust and sufficiently substantiated to form the basis of the damages evaluation in this case." The Tribunal thus granted damages of €53.3 million due to the overhaul of regime, based on Dr. Abdala's quantification.
Dr. Abdala was supported by a Compass Lexecon team that was led by Carla Chavich, and included Alan Rozenberg and Andres Barrera. Claimants were represented by Fernando Mantilla-Serrano, Antonio Morales, John Adam, Rosa Espin, Aija Lejniece and Nora Fredstie of Latham & Watkins LLP.
Compass Lexecon was retained in the first two cases decided following the Delaware Supreme Court's landmark decision in In re: Appraisal of Dell, Inc. (C.A. No. 9322-VCL). The courts in both cases reached fair value determinations below the respective deal prices resulting in victories for Compass Lexecon clients, Verizon and Hewlett-Packard. Compass Lexecon experts testified in both trials.
In re: Appraisal of AOL, Inc. (C.A. No. 11204-VCG) involved a stockholder appraisal action resulting from Verizon Communications Inc.'s $4.4 billion acquisition of AOL Inc. in 2015. AOL shareholders who voted in favor of the deal received the merger consideration of $50 per share. A group of shareholders dissented and demanded appraisal, claiming that the merger consideration substantially undervalued the firm and that their shares were worth $68.98. Compass Lexecon President Daniel R. Fischel testified at trial on behalf of Verizon that based on the economic evidence, the standalone fair value of AOL shares was below the $50 merger consideration. On February 23, 2018, Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock III ruled that based on the Fischel analysis with certain minor adjustments, the fair value of AOL was $48.70 per share. Professor Fischel was supported by a team at Compass Lexecon that included Rahul Sekhar, Robin Stahl, Jonathan Polonsky, Avisheh Mohsenin, Quinn Johnson, Andrew Lin and Nabila Lotayef. We worked with William D. Savitt, Nicholas Walter and Ryan A. McLeod of Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz and Kevin R. Shannon and Christopher N. Kelly of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP who successfully represented Verizon.
In re: Appraisal of Aruba Networks, Inc. (C.A. No: 11448-VCL) involved the May 2015 acquisition of Aruba Networks, Inc. by Hewlett-Packard Company. Aruba shareholders who voted in favor of the deal received the merger consideration of $24.67 per share. A group of shareholders dissented and demanded appraisal, claiming that the merger consideration substantially undervalued the firm and that their shares were worth $32.67. Compass Lexecon expert Kevin Dages testified at trial on behalf of Hewlett-Packard, opining that the standalone fair value of Aruba shares was less than the $24.67 merger consideration. On February 15, 2018, Vice Chancellor J. Travis Laster concluded that the fair value of a share of Aruba was $17.13 per share, or 30 percent below the merger consideration. Dages was supported by a team at Compass Lexecon that included Tim McAnally, George Hickey, Jennifer Milliron and Ed Crane. We worked with Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Karen Pieslak Pohlmann and Laura Hughes McNally of Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP and Michael P. Kelly and Steven P. Wood of McCarter & English LLP who successfully represented Hewlett-Packard.
In December 2017, the Honourable Mr. Justice Myers of the Supreme Court of British Columbia declined to certify the proposed class in a class proceeding brought by a plaintiff representing direct and indirect purchasers of roll-on/roll-off (“RoRo”) vessel services used for shipping vehicles and heavy equipment from overseas to Canada. The case involved allegations that the defendant group of RoRo vessel operators had conspired to raise the price of shipping services to overseas vehicle and heavy equipment manufacturers. Plaintiffs alleged that the conspiracy led to higher prices for overseas imported vehicles and heavy equipment purchased by dealers and end-consumers.
Compass Lexecon Senior Managing Director Dr. Mark Israel submitted an affidavit on behalf of the defendant group of RoRo vessel operators addressing the issues of the alleged overcharge and pass-through, and testified at a cross-examination in response to plaintiff’s expert. Justice Myers cited to Dr. Israel’s affidavit throughout his written decision, and ultimately declined to certify the proposed class on the basis that plaintiff’s expert had not demonstrated that he would have sufficient data to implement his model of pass-through and damages, leaving Dr. Boyer’s opinion “purely theoretical."
The decision marks a rare victory for defendants in class proceeding in Canada, where defendants have struggled to prevent class certification in such cases.
Dr. Israel was supported by Jonathan Bowater, Bryan Keating, and Jon McClure in Compass Lexecon’s DC office. Compass Lexecon worked with Dr. A. Neil Campbell, Casey W. Halladay and Joan Young of McMillan LLP, Katherine L. Kay and Eliot N. Kolers of Stikeman Elliot LLP, Randall Hofley, Robin Reinertson and Litsa Kriaris of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP and Kevin Wright, Todd Shikaze and Emily Snow of DLA Piper.
Compass Lexecon Expert Dr. Elizabeth Wang Testifies Successfully at Trial
On January 11, 2018, the Intermediate People's Court in Shenzhen, China entered a ruling in favor of Compass Lexecon client Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., a leading smartphone manufacturer, in a patent infringement suit against Samsung that involved cross-licensing of wireless telecommunication patents on Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Compass Lexecon expert Dr. Elizabeth Wang submitted reports addressing economic issues and testified on behalf of Huawei at trial. The Court agreed with Dr. Wang on a range of key economic issues, including how to evaluate the relative strength of the parties' SEP patent portfolios and whether a particular past Huawei license should be considered as a comparable license.
The Court found that Samsung infringed Huawei's patent rights on two patents essential to the LTE standard. It also found that Huawei's licensing offers were consistent with FRAND and that Samsung "maliciously delayed negotiations" that constituted a breach of an obligation to license its SEPs on FRAND terms. The Court granted Huawei an injunction, ordering Samsung to immediately stop the manufacturing and sales of its infringing products in China.
Dr. Wang worked with Senior Consultant Professor Timothy Simcoe from Boston University and a team led by Kun Huang, Jason Wu, Elisabeth Browne and Allan Shampine.
In November 2017, Maple Leaf Foods Inc., which owns the Lightlife brand as well as other products, agreed to purchase Field Roast Grain Meat Company, SPC. Lightlife and Field Roast are two leading plant-based protein brands in the United States and Canada. A Compass Lexecon team provided economic and econometric analysis in support of the transaction, providing evidence on the lack of significant competition between the merging parties’ brands, the willingness of consumers to substitute not only to other brands but also across product categories and the ease with which retailers can enter the market with their own private label offerings. After engaging with antitrust authorities in the U.S., Maple Leaf Foods obtained full clearance in January 2018. The Washington, DC-based Compass Lexecon team was led by Loren Smith and included Chris Rybak, Gloriana Alvarez, Alex Asancheyev and Paige Kirby. Compass Lexecon worked closely with a legal team from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP that was led by Andrew M. Lacy, Peter C. Herrick and Andrew E. Hasty.
On December 18, 2017, Judge Richard Seeborg of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment in favor of Compass Lexecon's clients in two related matters involving alleged price fixing by manufacturers of optical disk drives ("ODDs").
In one case, Judge Seeborg granted summary judgment in favor of defendants Samsung, Toshiba, Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corporation and BenQ. A class of indirect purchasers of ODDs alleged that supracompetitive prices of ODDs sold to computer manufacturers such as Dell and HP were fully passed through at each level of the computer production and distribution chain, resulting in higher computer prices and/or a reduction in the quality of computers sold to consumers. In support of their claims, indirect purchaser plaintiffs proffered an expert report purporting to show 100% pass-through of the alleged overcharge to consumers.
Compass Lexecon expert Dr. Andres Lerner submitted a report and testified at deposition, identifying fundamental flaws in plaintiffs' expert's pass-through analyses and conclusions. Judge Seeborg agreed with Dr. Lerner's conclusions, stating that "while [plaintiffs' expert's] report conveniently theorizes 100% pass-through at every stage of the distribution chain," it failed to demonstrate that alleged ODD overcharges were passed through either in higher-priced or lower-quality computers. Judge Seeborg granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, concluding that indirect purchaser plaintiffs and their expert failed to demonstrate a "genuine issue of material fact as to pass-through, which underlies [indirect purchaser plaintiffs'] theory of causation, injury, and damages."
Judge Seeborg granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in a second price fixing case brought by retailer plaintiffs, Circuit City and Radio Shack. Retailer plaintiffs claimed that as a result of the alleged ODD conspiracy, they were injured on their direct purchases of computers and other products incorporating optical disk technology (including audio devices, DVD players, Blu-ray players and game consoles) from defendants.
Dr. Lerner described various flaws in the theories and empirical analyses of retailer plaintiffs' experts who purported to show that the alleged ODD conspiracy targeting computer manufacturers would have resulted in higher prices for products sold directly by defendants to Circuit City and Radio Shack, including computers and "Other Products" containing optical disk technology. Judge Seeborg agreed with Dr. Lerner's conclusions, ruling that retailer plaintiffs and their experts failed to present "any theory as to how the conspiracy would have affected customers other than those specifically targeted, let alone present any evidence that this actually occurred." As a result, retailer plaintiffs failed to provide "sufficient evidence to proceed with their claims based on purchases incorporating ODDs or 'Other Products.'"
Dr. Lerner was supported by a team in Compass Lexecon's Century City office led by Emmett Dacey that included Janin Wimer, Joshua Waller, Joel Moore, Pauline Rouyer, Aren Megerdichian and Renita Lee. The Compass Lexecon team worked closely with counsel representing Defendants, including Ian Simmons of O'Melveny & Myers LLP, and Belinda S. Lee and Brendan A. McShane of Latham & Watkins LLP. The joint defense team also included George Mastoris (Winston & Strawn LLP); Beko Reblitz-Richardson (Boies Schiller Flexner LLP); Mark S. Popofsky (Ropes & Gray LLP); Evan Werbel and Stuart Plunkett (Baker Botts LLP); Eric P. Enson (Jones Day); Lisa M. Kaas (Blank Rome LLP); Jason A. Levine (Vinson & Elkins LLP); and Aharon S. Kaye (Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP).