Trial Practice

While resolving a dispute through a trial or arbitration is rare, it is sometimes our client’s best (or only) alternative. Our litigators include a slate of accomplished trial lawyers who have successfully tried scores of cases to courtroom verdict or arbitration award. Often handling the most sophisticated and complex of legal and factual disputes, we are highly knowledgeable in representing both companies and individuals through the full litigation process.
Our trial lawyers bring a competitive and tireless edge to the process, thriving on setting trial strategy and presenting compelling cases to judges, juries and arbitrators. Leveraging our vast experience, know-how and passion for our client’s cause, we are well positioned to provide comprehensive trial representation in courtrooms and arbitration venues across the United States.
How We Can Help
Recognized by Chambers USA, Best Lawyers and Lawdragon 500 Leading Litigators in America, among others, our trial lawyers stand ready to address disputes from their earliest stages. Our team members — several of whom are also fellows of the prestigious American College of Trial Lawyers and Litigation Counsel of America — have a wealth of experience in front of judges, juries, arbitration tribunals and regulatory bodies. Many of our litigators have deep subject-matter knowledge across a wide array of industries and sectors, including financial services, healthcare, insurance, cybersecurity, products liability, labor and employment, and mass torts, securities, white collar defense, intellectual property, real estate and construction.
We are well-versed in the full spectrum of trial matters, such as:
- Civil jury and bench trials in state and federal courts.
- Criminal jury and bench trials in state and federal courts.
- Arbitrations.
- Hearings and other proceedings before state and federal regulatory authorities.
Representative Matters
- Represented a futures commission merchant in a state court action by traders seeking over $1 billion in damages relating to trades on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
- Represented the Philadelphia Regional Port Authority in a complex federal suit appealing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ issuance of Section 404 and 408 permits to downriver facilities, resulting in the revocation of the permits, and preservation of the client’s navigational rights.
- Represented Hyperion Bank in a significant title dispute concluding in a favorable court decision for the banking industry (Lomax v. Hyperion Bank, 282 A.3d 790 Pa., Super. 2022).
- In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, represented the only defendant who was found not guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States in an amount exceeding $10 million in which the IRS prosecuted individuals associated with the Commonwealth Trust Co. for allegedly marketing “abusive trust” tax shelters (United States v. Crim).
- Defeated a petition for injunctive relief following a four-day evidentiary hearing in which neighboring commercial property owners sought to halt a $350 million construction project.
- Tried an $80 million dispute between a marine terminal operator and its landlord port authority before a panel of three arbitrators, securing a unanimous award in the client’s favor.
- Obtained a full defense award in a JAMS arbitration on behalf of a nationwide securities firm in a 31-day arbitration involving claims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, invasion of privacy, and defamation, among others, brought by an employee and former employee claiming $27.1 million to $34.2 million in damages.
- Tried a $26 million commercial real estate dispute, securing a dismissal of all claims against a real estate developer by way of a motion for nonsuit following a four-day trial and testimony from six witnesses.
- Defended a global insurer through trial in a complex, hybrid insurance coverage/tortious interference claim alleging in excess of $25 million in damages and resulting in a complete defense verdict.
- Obtained a favorable award in a 36-day AAA hearing in favor of a broker-dealer where a customer alleged an $8.5 million selling-away claim, and the broker-dealer recovered $4.1 million based upon its counterclaim.
- Secured recoveries in excess of $3.5 million including a trial verdict and attorney fees award in favor of a major utility subcontractor against an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contractor relating to multiple solar power projects based in Long Island, New York.
- Tried a healthcare provider’s appeal of Medicare’s multimillion-dollar overpayment determinations before an administrative law judge and reduced the government’s claims by 70%.
- In an AAA arbitration, successfully defended a claim for over $1.5 million and affirmatively recovered substantial forum fees for a prominent investment adviser accused of failing to conduct due diligence, improperly marketing and misrepresenting the risks of syndicated conservation easements (a complex tax strategy designed to result in substantial write-offs) that the IRS later challenged, disallowing the investors’ deductions and assessing substantial penalties.
Notable Experience
View AllSecures SEC Dismissal in First-Ever Liquidity Rule Enforcement Action
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voluntarily dismissed charges with prejudice against two mutual fund independent trustees in the agency’s first enforcement action brought pursuant to the Liquidity Rule (Rule 22e-4) promulgated under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the Act). The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York against registered investment adviser Pinnacle Advisors, two of its officers and two independent trustees of a mutual fund that Pinnacle advised. The SEC alleged that the independent trustees aided and abetted the mutual fund’s purported misclassification of illiquid securities in violation of the Liquidity Rule. Stradley Ronon argued on behalf of the independent trustees that the SEC had no legal basis for its aiding and abetting charges as the independent trustees did not write, review, or even see the liquidity classifications that formed the basis for those charges, did not substantially assist the alleged violation, and otherwise complied with all of their obligations pursuant to the Liquidity Rule. Stradley Ronon further argued that the agency lacked the necessary congressional authority pursuant to the Act to promulgate the Liquidity Rule. The challenge to the agency’s authority to promulgate the Liquidity Rule led the Court to order additional briefing to address the framework for interpreting federal statutes established by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo. Stradley Ronon re-filed its motion to dismiss all charges on April 28 arguing that the plain text of the statute did not grant rulemaking authority related to fund liquidity and resubmitted its arguments challenging the SEC’s failure to state a claim for aiding and abetting liability against the independent trustees. Following the briefing, the SEC agreed to dismiss all charges against the independent trustees with prejudice, meaning that the SEC cannot refile the charges. “We are very pleased that the court took the merits of our arguments seriously and that the SEC responded by dismissing the complaint,” said the NYSA Fund independent trustees. “We always believed in the strength of our case and are grateful for our lead attorney Jan Folena and Stradley Ronon’s guidance, knowledge, and litigation capabilities that made this outcome possible.” Lead trial counsel Jan Folena was assisted by Eric Porter, Samantha Kats, Sara Crovitz, Dave Grim, and Eric Purple.
Stradley Ronon Team Secures High-Profile Win for PhilaPort in Port Construction Case
Featured Publications
View All