United States (National)

Dispute resolution

A litigation boutique with offices in New York, Chicago and DC, MoloLamken has quickly become a favorite among the crowded field of litigation shops. The firm earns rave reviews from clients and peers. One client succinctly sums up the firm’s appeal: “MoloLamken has a strong reputation as being effective litigators, without the inefficiencies of a large firm.”
     New York’s Steven Molo remains its most recognized and revered trial lawyer. “Steven Molo delivers the goods,” crows one peer. “I’ve worked with him and I’ve worked against him. Either position provides a learning opportunity.” Another peer makes the observation, “I’m seeing them doing a lot more plaintiff work!” Lending support to this assertion, Molo is representing a hedge fund dealing in distressed debt, the plaintiffs in a lawsuit concerning $500 million of Venezuelan sovereign debt. Molo also represented directors of PetSmart and Argos Holdings in a $900 million dispute over their payment of dividends in the form of 20% of outstanding common stock of a PetSmart subsidiary. The dispute was with a group of bond holders who claimed the company was insolvent at the time of the transaction. The case was pending in the US District Court in Manhattan before it settled. 
     In the DC office Jeffrey Lamken, an appellate practitioner, has been in equal demand. Lamken represents VirnetX as lead appellate counsel in defending two judgments for patent infringement against Apple for $440 million and $500 million, respectively—which are on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal circuit. Also in the DC office, Robert Kry is enjoying a steady ascent in profile. Kry represents Carpatsky in a dispute with its former joint venture partner Ukrnafta concerning efforts to develop oil and gas fields in Ukraine. Ukrnafta is Ukraine’s largest oil and gas company and is indirectly majority owned by the Ukrainian government. After a dispute over profits from the joint venture arose, Carpatsky initiated arbitration proceedings in Stockholm that resulted in a $150 million arbitral awardagainst Ukrnafta. In contested proceedings in federal court in Texas, Carpatsky obtained recognition of its $150 million award and defeated Ukrnafta’s claims of fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and misappropriation of trade secrets that sought $80 million in damages from Carpatsky. In April 2020, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. Acting in tandem, Kry and Molo represent the lead plaintiffs in a securities fraud class action against Alibaba and its senior officers concerning a September 2014 $25 billion IPO, subsequent to which it emerged that Alibaba had been the subject of a regulatory proceeding in which it had received stern “administrative guidance” from Chinese regulators over the prevalence of counterfeits and other illegal goods on its online marketplaces. The regulators threatened to impose billions of dollars of fines unless Alibaba took costly remedial measures that would reduce its revenues and earnings. When the administrative guidance was revealed to the public, the company’s stock dropped substantially, and lost over $10 billion in market value. The case was settled in 2019 for $250 million.