Skip Navigation LinksServices > Litigation > Business Litigation


Business Litigation

  • OVERVIEW
  • PROFESSIONALS
Chambers USA gives Thompson Coburn top rankings, calling us a “flagship litigation group” with “an array of regional and national giants on its client roster…drawn by the group’s remarkable track record.”

Companies of all sizes—from members of the Fortune 500 and other large privately held companies to smaller businesses in a variety of industries—turn to Thompson Coburn when faced with litigation. We have tried cases in state and federal courts throughout the country, in national and international administrative tribunals, and before domestic and international arbitration panels.

Our approach is straightforward:

•  We make sure we understand the company’s business model and culture, industry, goals  
   and objectives.

•  We conduct complex litigation in a focused, methodical manner that is consistent with our clients’ 
   business goals and strategic objectives.

•  We know how to negotiate cases to a favorable disposition, recognizing the increasing pressure to    
   resolve cases without the risk and expense of a trial.

•  To support these efforts, we have developed processes that ensure we are efficient and responsive.

We welcome the opportunity to demonstrate why our group has a “remarkable track record.”

Stephen  B.  Higgins

314.552.6054

Helen  B.  Kim

310.282.9430

Todd  A.  Rowden

312.580.2229

Roman  P.  Wuller

314.552.6121

Partners
Ankney, Gordon L.
Azar Jr., Thomas L.
Bartolacci, Mike W.
Bay, William R.
Berish, Christina M.
Bonacorsi, Mary M.
Bousquet, Kimberly M.
Brown, Jeffrey N.
Cox, Daniel C.
Darrough, Matthew S.
Douglass, Thomas E.
Duffy, J. David
Fink, Jeffrey R.
Friedman, Lawrence C.
Guletz, Matthew D.
Harvey, Edwin G.
Hettinger, Amanda J.
Higgins, Stephen B.
Hohn, Christopher M.
Kim, Helen B.
Kingston, John S.
Knickmeyer, Kenton E.
Landwehr, Matthew J.
Levin, Harvey A.
Massey, Raymond L.
Masson, Jeffrey A.
Mattingly, Mark A.
Meanes, Pamela J.
Miller, Jan Paul
Morris, Michael J.
Newman, Lauren
Noelker, Timothy F.
O'Keefe, Michael D.
Oakley, James L.
Pesce, Carl J.
Rabin, Robert F.
Reinis, Richard G.
Rogers, John W.
Rosenberg, Sharon B.
Rowden, Todd A.
Rownd, David M.
Schenk, Claire M.
Schlafly, Thomas F.
Schroeder, Catherine
Shaw, Booker T.
Sherman, Steven M.
Stone, Brian C.
Strand, Sherri C.
Wagner, Robert J.
Walch, W. Stanley
Wells, W. David
Wexler, Gary A.
Wuller, Roman P.
Zschoche, Maria G.
Senior Counsel
Joerling, Dale R.
Reinis, Mitchell N.
Stein, Mitchell B.
Counsel
Baumann, Jennifer A.
Bridges, Kristine Helen
Lawrence, Paul D.
Manger, Allison N.
Pantoga, Ann Addis
Santos, Rowena G.
Associates
Ackerman, Caroline
Beatty, Mark A.
Bober, Matthew S.
Bremer, Jonathan G.
Broeker, Shaun C.
Burke, Brandi L.
DeClue, Deona T.
Gehbauer, Ryan J.
Hayes, Thomas J.
Ikhlassi, Natalie
Konstantinovich, Alicia M.
Lamping, Brian A.
Lanahan, Maria A.
Lane, Scott F.
Mangian, David M.
Mense, Audrey D.
Morgan, Scott H.
Murphy, Sean J.
Peel, Emily L.
Rivers, Nicole M.
Sanders, Diana A.
Welo, Aaron S.
Williams, Felicia R.
Senior Manager of Litigation Support Technology
Cole, Michael D.
  • AT&T
  • Bank of America
  • Charter Communications
  • Chrysler Group LLC
  • Chugach Alaska Corporation
  • Citibank
  • CKE Restaurants (Hardee’s)
  • Fifth Third Bank
  • GE Capital Solutions
  • Monsanto
  • Peabody Energy
  • PNC Bank
  • Riso
  • Scottrade
  • Sigma-Aldrich
  • Textron Financial Corporation
  • U.S. Bank
  • United HealthCare
  • Wells Fargo

 
  • Defense of Retaliation Claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
    A former employee of our client Charter Communications sued, claiming that her termination as part of a reduction-in-force was in retaliation for her alleged whistle-blowing activities. The Court granted summary judgment in Charter’s favor. The Seventh Circuit affirmed on appeal.
  • Telecom Right-of-Way and Municipal Regulation
    Our client challenged an omnibus telecommunications municipal ordinance that sought to regulate the use of the public right-of-way by telecommunications companies and to charge them for such use. The potential expense was highly significant. Thompson Coburn won the case on all grounds in district court. The city appealed and the Eighth Circuit affirmed the trial court on all grounds.
  • Representation of Corporate Plaintiff in Professional Legal Malpractice Suit
    We successfully represented our client Charter Communications in a legal malpractice action against its former counsel, Irell & Manella. The case arose from a failure to properly document a $3 billion transaction. We aggressively litigated the case and reached a favorable settlement.
  • Negotiation of Low-Cost Settlements of Significant Class Actions
    We successfully negotiated a low-cost settlement of 18 class actions involving service and rate issues pending nationwide on behalf of Charter Communications. The settlement was regarded by many in the cable industry as the best achieved by any cable company facing similar litigation.
  • “Bet the Company” Intellectual Property Defense
    The technology at issue involved complex computer data storage equipment. Our attorneys handled numerous dispositive motions, including Markman interpretations and a preliminary injunction hearing and its appeal. Appeal resulted in two landmark decisions from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. These opinions are the only Court of Appeals opinions interpreting the Computer Maintenance Competition Assurance Act.
  • Complex Bank Litigation
    Thompson Coburn represented Citibank in a high-profile, multimillion-dollar altered check case. The district court granted Citibank’s motion for summary judgment against American National Insurance Co. (ANICO) on all of its claims, holding that because ANICO was not the payee on the checks, it lacked standing to recover from Citibank. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to Citibank. The United States Supreme Court denied ANICO’s request for review.
  • Major Arbitration
    Under a 30-year supply agreement between Peabody Energy and a consortium of Western U.S. utilities, the parties can review and renegotiate certain contractual pricing mechanisms every five years. Disputes are resolved before a panel of arbitrators. The utilities rejected Peabody’s offer of a utilities price reduction and subsequently sought to recover a $50 million “overpayment” they allegedly made to Peabody from 1992-1996. The utilities also wanted a price reduction of approximately $80 million for the years 1997-2001. Peabody countered with a claim that the pricing factors should produce a price increase for 1997-2001. In 2002, the arbitration panel issued its ruling in Peabody’s favor and rejected the utilities’ $50 million “overpayment” claim. The net effect of the award resulted in a contractual price increase, with the utilities owing Peabody approximately $30 million.
  • Financial Litigation on Behalf of Transit Authority
    WMATA and other municipal transit systems nationwide faced hundreds of millions of dollars of termination liabilities arising out of the recent credit freeze. WMATA and the other systems financed their acquisition of subway cars and buses with tax-advantaged deals. The drop in the credit ratings of these sureties triggered technical defaults and extraordinary accelerated termination payment liabilities that jeopardized the systems’ continuing operations. Taking the lead nationwide, WMATA filed suit in the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. and prevailed in a temporary restraining order proceeding to prevent the first of many of these transactions from unraveling. When the court announced its intention to grant the TRO, the bank seeking payment consented to the relief.