Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton stands out for its impressive global footprint – one of the most expansive in “big law,” with more offices located outside the US than within. Proudly bold in its international aspirations, its domestic-domiciled practitioners in New York, DC and San Francisco routinely attend to matters that cross borders. The firm excels in antitrust, white-collar and investigations work, securities, bankruptcy, commercial and even some intellectual property, and, unsurprisingly, it is also known as being one of the dominant forces in the international arbitration arena. “Cleary is so good,” exclaims one peer. “I’ve thought of them as more ‘transactional good’ but they also have fantastic litigation.” A client cheers the “analysis, writing and litigation strategy” of the firm’s partners.
Antitrust is one capacity in which Cleary commands a particularly towering presence, with a dominant position in agency and contested-merger work. “Aside from knowing the antitrust laws backward and forwards, the attorneys at Cleary know how to take an extremely complex set of laws and facts and describe them simply and persuasively,” testifies a client.
In the firm’s DC office, Leah Brannon has emerged as a peer and client favorite. “Leah is extremely smart, a very good writer, and a great antitrust thinker,” confirms one client. Another calls her a “great communicator” who “thinks creatively and outside the box and is very responsive to client requests.” For the better part of a decade, Brannon has been representing coffee entity Keurig in a massive multidistrict monopolization litigation in the Southern District of New York. In July and August 2021, two new opt out complaints were filed in the Eastern District of New York, and subsequently transferred into the pending multidistrict litigation. The actions already in the MDL include suits by two competitors to Keurig, a purported class of direct purchasers, and one individual purchaser. Another DC-based partner,
Jeremy Calsyn, represented Change Healthcare in defeating a federal lawsuit filed by the DoJ and two states seeking to enjoin its $13 billion merger with United Healthcare. The plaintiffs alleged that United’s acquisition of Change’s electronic data interchange network would harm competition in certain health insurance markets, and also alleged the merger would create a monopoly in first-pass claims-editing software. Following trial in August, in September 2022, the merger to merger was allowed to proceed. Based in the firm’s San Francisco office, Heather Nyong’o
represents Varsity Brands and several subsidiaries, as well as its private equity owners, in litigation brought by purported classes of indirect purchasers of Varsity’s cheerleading competition, apparel, and camp products and services.
Cleary is also known for its bankruptcy capacity and is known as one of the few to actually litigate this work. “It drives me crazy when restructuring lawyers can’t handle the court work. Like, what are you doing? Your name is on the brief but you have to turn to someone else to do the litigation? That’s not the case at Cleary!” In particular,
Lisa Schweitzer and Luke Barefoot are noted leaders in this area. This duo, independently and in tandem, has been at the forefront of some of hotly contested bankruptcy work for major players in the Latin American airline industry, dovetailing seamlessly with Cleary’s stronghold in this region of the world.
“Nobody can touch Cleary in that market,” concedes one peer. “They have such a deep concentration there, and they have relatively young partners who are also fluent Spanish speakers.” New York’s Lisa Vicens is frequently referred to as an example. “Lisa has developed a fabulous South American practice,” confirms one competitor. “She is a homegrown talent, an unusual person in that respect.” Vicens, a white-collar and investigations-oriented practitioner who also has grasp of rudimentary Portuguese, is representing Brazilian mining entity Vale in connection with investigations of allegations that the company failed to conduct appropriate diligence in advance of a strategic transaction with an entity that subsequently was discovered to have engaged in corrupt payments. Ari MacKinnon is another New York-based partner who exemplifies the firm’s dedication to this region; he is also a bilingual investigations and international arbitration specialist and is noted for “cultivating that market at an early age.” MacKinnon
acted as counsel to several Latin American entities relating to non-payment for invoices for 10 shipments of liquefied natural gas under a gas-sales agreement. Another international arbitration specialist,
Jeffrey Rosenthal, a senior figure in this area, is representing Sysco in an LCIA arbitration and related federal court litigation against affiliates of litigation funder Burford Capital. Sysco is a plaintiff in several antitrust litigations against protein suppliers pending in US federal courts. Burford invested in Sysco’s claims. In 2022, Sysco proposed settlements of certain claims against defendants in the antitrust cases, and Burford objected to the settlements and initiated an arbitration asserting a contractual right to block them. The arbitral tribunal granted a temporary restraining order and later a preliminary injunction that Burford requested. Sysco has now filed a petition to vacate the arbitral award.
Cleary is also celebrated for its white-collar and enforcement capabilities and bench strength. A high-level peer in this practice testifies, “If I were to refer a big case to a firm, Cleary would be it. If the case is of high-stakes nature, I need depth and breadth, not just a one-star system. Cleary has that in spades.” Another peer concurs, “I work a lot with the Cleary team – particularly
Victor Hou, Jonathan Kolodner and
Joon Kim – and they get very nice results for their clients and we work very well together.” Civil securities-focused
Roger Cooper and Jared Gerber represent Allergan and several of its former officers and directors in a class-action alleging that the company made misstatements and omissions concerning the health risks associated with certain breast-implant products. The action was filed after the company announced that certain breast-implant products were being withdrawn from the European market. In December 2022, the court granted the summary judgment motion that Cleary filed on behalf of defendants and dismissed the action in its entirety.
