Melissa L. Barshop

Gibson Dunn is pleased to announce that Eugene Y. Park has joined the firm’s New York office as a partner in the Business Restructuring and Reorganization and the Liability Management and Special Situations Practice Groups. Eugene leads high-profile and complex financing transactions in the rescue and distressed space. Commenting on Eugene’s arrival, Scott J. Greenberg, Global Chair of the Business Restructuring and Reorganization Practice Group, said: “Eugene is one of the industry’s next-generation stars—a well-known and highly respected distressed financing and restructuring advisor. His rare combination of experience in both areas will be invaluable to our market-leading platform. As restructurings and distressed financings continue their sharp upward trajectory, Eugene brings significant depth—particularly on the lender side—positioning us to meet the incredible global demand from our clients.” “Gibson Dunn’s momentum is palpable, and I’m excited to join a growth-minded and incredibly ambitious team to supercharge my practice,” said Eugene. “Gibson Dunn has built its restructuring practice—representing both debtors and creditors—into a leading global powerhouse that is best positioned for today and the future. Having worked across the table from Gibson Dunn lawyers, I know firsthand the team’s impressive bench strength, collaborative approach, and unparalleled market knowledge. I look forward to working alongside my new colleagues to guide clients through complex restructurings.” Steven Domanowski, Chair of the firm’s Liability Management and Special Situations Practice Group, added, “In this highly active distressed environment, Eugene’s addition will deepen our bench with an exceptionally skilled and experienced professional who will help clients address a variety of complex credit challenges.” The firm’s Business Restructuring and Reorganization Practice Group has expanded its global offering over the past few years, with Eugene as the most recent addition to the team. In May, restructuring partner Andrew Cheng rejoined the firm in Los Angeles; and in March, senior restructuring partners Chris Howard and Presley Warner joined in London. The group’s additions also include partners Lisa Stevens (London), Caith Kushner (New York), and Ryan Kim (New York), as well as the promotions of Stephen D. Silverman (New York) and Melissa L. Barshop (Century City) to partner. Gibson Dunn’s Business Restructuring and Reorganization Practice Group advises on the largest and most complex restructurings globally, dominating the market in the U.S. and Europe. It was named Lead Counsel in Debtwire’s Restructuring Advisory Mandates Report for North America in both 2023 and 2024. Within the practice, the Liability Management and Special Situations team has emerged as a pioneer in liability management, focused on devising and executing tailored solutions for ad hoc groups of debt holders and other debt investors. About Eugene Y. Park Eugene’s practice focuses on special situation and opportunistic financing transactions. He represents borrowers, equity sponsors, and credit investors in a wide range of liability management matters, opportunistic and distressed financings, and restructurings. Prior to joining Gibson Dunn, Eugene served as a partner at another international law firm. He earned his law degree from the University of Chicago Law School in 2016. Download PDF

Jul 7

2 min

Now that the Federal Trade Commission has abandoned efforts for a nationwide ban on noncompete clauses, the employment provisions remain subject to a constellation of changing state laws and can sometimes still violate federal law in certain situations. The FTC made the expected decision last month to stop defending a rule that would have banned the use of noncompete clauses in most employment contracts and rendered millions of existing clauses unenforceable. A Texas federal court set the rule aside before it took effect last year, finding that it was "arbitrary and capricious" and that the commission lacked authority to issue the rule. The move to drop the appeal was expected since the commission's current chairman, Andrew Ferguson, strongly opposed adopting the rule during the previous administration, contending it was an overreach of the agency's authority. Ferguson said in a statement when dropping the appeal that the new administration was choosing not to continue "tilting at windmills" by defending an indefensible rule and is instead trying to protect American workers by patrolling the markets for specific anticompetitive conduct. John H. Chun, a partner with Herrick Feinstein LLP, told Law360 the break from the previous administration's approach to noncompetes does not mean the current commission is going to ignore the issue. "Clearly, there were differing visions between the prior and the current chair as to how to best address abuses regarding noncompetes," Chun said. "The current FTC chair, while he was not in support of a nationwide ban, he appears to be making the curtailment of noncompete abuses a priority, on a much more case by case basis." Meredith R. Miller, a professor at Albany Law School, told Law360 the FTC's decision to drop the rule "leaves us back where we started," with a patchwork of state approaches and an increasing number of states enacting statutes to address noncompetes in some way. "So, we're back to a lot of unpredictability, really, for many employees," Miller said. Four states, including California, have effectively banned noncompetes, and Miller said a number of other states have enacted laws to restrict their use, largely through salary thresholds to ensure they do not apply to lower-paid, hourly workers. Many states also do not allow noncompetes to be enforced in the healthcare space, Miller said, based on concerns about patients having access to their choice of doctor. Chun said that noncompetes have been largely governed by state law in the past and said the states have been enacting stricter laws that had practitioners concerned about overly restrictive clauses before it became a federal issue. "Notwithstanding the FTC ban, there had been a very noticeable trend within state jurisdictions of restricting noncompetes," Chun said. "So, regardless of whether or not the FTC ban went into effect, the smart advice and the smart practice among employers was still, in most jurisdictions, to take a close look at their noncompetes and their restrictive covenants to make sure they were tailored." John Siegal, a partner with BakerHostetler's noncompete and trade secrets team, said that attention on noncompete clauses over the past several years, from the FTC, state lawmakers and state enforcers have led many companies to stop imposing blanket noncompetes across their workforces. "By and large, the use of broad, across-the-board noncompetes for all employees, regardless of salary level, is something that's evolving out of the economy," he said. When courts are left to determine if a noncompete is reasonable under common law, Miller said they focus on the postemployment duration, the geographic limits and the range of jobs it covers. The narrower the provision, the more likely it is to be enforceable, she said. The courts also look at what the employer is trying to protect, such as trade secrets or an investment in training, and consider public policy concerns like those raised by healthcare workers. These are also elements of noncompetes that the FTC has said it will be looking at when assessing the agreements. "That's why I don't really think it moves the needle, unless they take it upon themselves to go fry some of the bigger fish that are easier to point to as being abusive," Miller said. The commission did recently provide an example of an instance where enforcers believe a noncompete violated the FTC Act when it announced a settlement last month with pet cremation company Gateway Services Inc. The noncompete in that case would have prevented 1,800 employees from working in the pet cremation industry nationwide for a year following their employment. Ferguson outlined a reasonableness test in his statement for the settlement similar to the common law test, focused on geography, duration and scope. Melissa L. McDonagh, co-chair of Littler Mendelson PC's unfair competition and trade secret practice group, told Law360 the commission seemed particularly concerned with the noncompete in the pet cremation case because it applied to all employees, regardless of their access to confidential information or position within the company. She noted the settlement included a carveout allowing the use of noncompetes with certain senior management and others, highlighting that the FTC will tolerate noncompete provisions that don't hinder ranks and file employees' ability to change jobs. This speaks to the analysis performed by courts as well, when they look to see if noncompetes are narrowly tailored for a specific purpose. "I think we'll continue to learn more of what the FTC considers to be the reasonable use of noncompetes with each action they file," McDonagh said. McDonagh said companies should always try to take a tailored approach to restrictive covenants because of the potential risk that they could be found to be unenforceable. This means making sure noncompetes apply only to employees when it's necessary and seeing if nonsolicitation or confidentiality agreements could be used instead. "These are conversations that we have all the time, about what is needed and necessary for the business and what makes sense for that particular business," McDonagh said. "That's how employers have been considering them and will continue to do so." In addition to the Gateway settlement, the FTC launched a call for public input to "better understand the scope, prevalence, and effects" of noncompetes and to help identify future enforcement targets. The FTC also sent letters last month warning healthcare employers and staffing companies not to include overly broad noncompete restrictions in their employment contracts and urged them to conduct a review to ensure they comply with the law. Chun said the FTC's focus on the healthcare space makes sense, given the unique concerns raised by the industry. "I think most people can appreciate that the patient-doctor relationship is a highly respected, and maybe even sacred one, and therefore overly broad geographic restrictions on doctors that prevent a patient from being able to see his or her physician of choice is a significant burden and one that deserves careful scrutiny," Chun said. Siegal noted that the debate around noncompetes is not clearly partisan. While California has banned noncompetes since the 19th century, and fellow Democrat-led Minnesota recently enacted a ban, the other two states that ban noncompetes are North Dakota and Oklahoma, which both have Republican governors. There is, however, a distinction among states enacting new laws, he said, with blue states tending to impose salary thresholds, while Florida recently enacted a law, the Contracts Honoring Opportunity, Investment, Confidentiality and Economic Growth Act, that permits almost all noncompetes. "Florida is definitely the outlier," Siegal said. "It's very broad, unprecedented, but even that one exempts healthcare professionals." The Choice Act not only permits noncompete in most industries, it allows for a four-year postemployment term, which Siegal said is far longer than most practitioners have ever seen used. It also requires courts to issue injunctions at the outset of a dispute over the provisions, something Siegal said is unlike virtually any other law. "No court discretion, no equitable balancing. It's just a mandatory requirement," he said. "That just completely shifts the landscape between employers and employees in this area, and is just going in completely the opposite direction of basically the rest of the country." Siegal said now that we're largely back to a federalist patchwork of state law governing noncompetes, he thinks an emerging issue will be choice of law provisions in employment contracts and the extent to which states will honor one another's noncompete policies. Right now, he said, the case law has been evolving towards states not honoring out-of-state noncompetes. He also said some states, including Massachusetts, have enacted laws specifically preventing employers from requiring employees to agree to be bound by another state's laws. "That's where I think a lot of the movement's going to be over the next several years," Siegal said.

Oct 10

7 min

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP has elected 35 lawyers to its partnership, effective January 1, 2024. Commenting on the partnership class, Gibson Dunn Chair and Managing Partner Barbara L. Becker said: “These extraordinary lawyers have already made innumerable contributions to the firm and to our clients. They are integral parts of their offices and practices, and we are thrilled to celebrate this milestone achievement with them.” The newly elected partners are: Ryan S. Appleby (Litigation / Los Angeles) focuses his practice on complex civil litigation and trial advocacy and has helped clients navigate disputes in state and federal courts, as well as in domestic and international arbitrations. He received his law degree from the University of Southern California Gould School of Law in 2013. Melissa L. Barshop (Global Finance / Los Angeles) has experience in a broad range of financing transactions, including acquisition financings, secured and unsecured corporate credit facilities, Rule 144A transactions, private placements, convertible debt offerings, exchange offers, mezzanine transactions, and work-outs and debt restructurings. She earned her JD from Columbia Law School in 2006. Jeremy M. Christiansen (Litigation / Washington, D.C.) represents clients from a wide variety of industries in high-stakes litigation, appellate and administrative law matters. He graduated from the S.J. Quinney College of Law at The University of Utah in 2014. Lee R. Crain (Litigation / New York) represents clients in a broad array of high-stakes trial and appellate litigation in federal and state courts involving media and entertainment, tech, employment law, and the First Amendment. He graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 2014. Elizabeth Aislinn Dooley (Litigation / San Francisco) represents clients across industries with a focus on high-stakes employment and appellate matters. She graduated from Stanford Law School in 2013. Samuel Eckman (Appellate and Constitutional Law / Los Angeles) is an appellate litigator with extensive experience representing clients in the U.S. Supreme Court and federal and state appellate courts across the country. He graduated from The University of Chicago Law School in 2013. Melissa L. Farrar (White Collar Defense and Investigations / Washington, D.C.) represents and advises multinational corporations in internal and government investigations on a wide range of issues, including compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other anti-corruption laws, anti-money laundering, export controls and fraud. She graduated from the George Washington University Law School in 2013. Jamie E. France (Antitrust and Competition / Washington, D.C.) represents clients in antitrust merger and non-merger investigations before the Federal Trade Commission, Department of Justice, state Attorneys General and international competition authorities, as well as in complex private and government antitrust litigation. She graduated from the University of Texas School of Law in 2011. Stéphane Frank (Antitrust and Competition / Brussels) has significant experience in merger control, abuse of dominance and cartel enforcement. He received his LL.M. from the University of Chicago Law School in 2011 and a Master of Laws from Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne in 2010. Robert D. Giannattasio (Capital Markets / New York) has broad corporate and capital markets experience representing issuers and underwriters on a variety of public and private debt and equity offerings, as well as advising public companies on SEC and governance matters. He received his law degree from Boston College Law School in 2013. Matt Gregory (Appellate and Constitutional Law / Washington, D.C.) represents corporate clients in a wide range of appellate, administrative law, and litigation matters. He graduated from the University of Michigan Law School in 2014. Evan M. Gusler (Tax / New York) focuses on domestic and international tax planning for corporations, partnerships, REITs, and investment funds and their investors. He received his law degree from Columbia Law School in 2014. Natalie J. Hausknecht (Litigation / Denver) is a trial and consumer protection/privacy defense attorney, who handles high-priority investigations involving state Attorneys General and/or the Federal Trade Commission. She received her law degree from Yale Law School in 2015. Meghan M. Hungate (Technology Transactions / New York) represents both public and private companies and financial sponsors in connection with complex intellectual property and technology transactions issues. She received her JD from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2009. Andrew G.I. Kilberg (Labor and Employment / Washington, D.C.) focuses on administrative law, appellate, and litigation matters concerning labor and employment issues and has significant experience challenging federal regulations, advising on regulatory proposals, and defending agency enforcement actions and investigations. He earned his JD from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2014. Julian W. Kleinbrodt (Antitrust and Competition / San Francisco) has broad antitrust experience and represents clients in trial and appellate litigation, as well as government investigations. He received his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 2014. Jillian N. London (Litigation / Los Angeles) represents media, entertainment, and technology clients and has particular experience in media relations, First Amendment, breach of contract, antitrust, and class action disputes. She earned her law degree from Harvard Law School in 2013. Cynthia Chen McTernan (Litigation / Los Angeles) represents clients in high-exposure complex commercial actions, class actions, and mass actions, with a focus on consumer protection and employment matters. She earned her JD from Harvard Law School in 2013. Katherine Moran Meeks (Appellate and Constitutional Law / Washington, D.C.) litigates appeals in state and federal courts involving complex constitutional and statutory questions, with a particular focus on First Amendment matters. She graduated from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2012. Alex D. Meirowitz (Real Estate / New York) represents clients in a broad range of complex commercial real estate transactions, with a focus on purchase and sales, joint ventures, and borrower and lender side financings.  He earned his JD from Georgetown University Law Center in 2013. Negin Nazemi (Private Equity / Los Angeles) advises companies and private equity firms across a wide range of industries, focusing on public and private merger transactions, stock and asset deals, joint ventures, and strategic partnerships. She graduated from the University of Chicago Law School in 2011. Lissa M. Percopo (Securities Litigation / Washington, D.C.) focuses her practice on securities litigation, with an emphasis in securities class actions and shareholder derivative actions. She graduated from the George Washington University Law School in 2007. Christine Ranney (Intellectual Property / Denver) focuses on patent and appellate litigation and is knowledgeable across a range of arts and practices, including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, consumer goods, software and telecommunications. She received her JD from New York University School of Law in 2013. Sonja Ruttmann (Mergers and Acquisitions / Munich) advises on complex domestic and international cross-border mergers and acquisitions across a wide range of industries, as well as joint ventures and carve-out scenarios, private equity, and venture capital transactions. She earned her law degree at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich in 2005. Jennifer L. Sabin (Tax / New York) represents clients in a broad range of domestic and international tax matters, including taxable and tax-free mergers and acquisitions (public and private), spin-offs, joint ventures, financings, and restructurings. She received her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2011. Tina Samanta (Litigation / New York) represents financial institutions, corporations and individuals in sensitive and high-stakes securities-related investigations and litigation. She received her JD from the University of Michigan Law School in 2002. Phillip R. Sanders (Mergers and Acquisitions / New York) represents both strategic companies and private equity firms across a wide range of industries in connection with all aspects of their domestic and cross-border M&A activities. He graduated from Southern Methodist University Dedman School of Law in 2014. Carlos M. Soto (Mergers and Acquisitions / Los Angeles) advises companies, private equity firms and investment advisors on complex merger, acquisition and divestiture transactions, joint ventures and strategic investments, and partnerships. He received his JD from the University of Chicago Law School in 2009. James O. Springer (Mergers and Acquisitions / Washington, D.C.) advises public and private companies, private equity firms, boards of directors, and special committees in connection with a variety of complex transactional matters. He earned his law degree from the George Washington University Law School in 2014. Andrew Steele (Mergers and Acquisitions / Abu Dhabi and Dubai) advises on public and private mergers, acquisitions and disposals, joint ventures, private equity and sovereign wealth fund investments, securities issues, and related regulatory advice. He received his LL.B from the University of Bristol Law School in 2003. Ryan C. Stewart (Labor and Employment / Washington, D.C.) represents clients in a wide range of employment matters, including those involving wage-hour and discrimination laws, whistleblower protection statutes, and non-competition agreements. He received his law degree from Harvard Law School in 2014. Connor S. Sullivan (Media, Entertainment and Technology / New York) represents technology and media companies in a broad range of complex, high-stakes litigation in state and federal courts and has significant experience in First Amendment matters. He graduated from Yale Law School in 2013. Christopher T. Timura (International Trade / Washington, D.C.) helps clients solve legal problems that arise at the intersection of national security, foreign policy, and international trade and develop strategies for implementing ESG social commitments in their international supply chains. He received his JD from the University of Michigan Law School in 2003. Chris W. Trester (Mergers and Acquisitions / Palo Alto) focuses his corporate practice on mergers and acquisitions and emerging companies, with a specific emphasis on the tech, entertainment, and life science industries. He received his JD from the University of California College of the Law, San Francisco in 2013. Chris Whittaker (Antitrust and Competition / Orange County) represents clients in a wide range of high-stakes, complex commercial cases, with an emphasis in antitrust and competition, technology, intellectual property, and employment matters. He received his law degree from the Brigham Young University J. Reuben Clark Law School in 2011. Download PDF

Nov 13

7 min

Gibson Dunn is pleased to announce that Andrew W. Cheng has rejoined the firm’s Los Angeles office as a partner in the Business Restructuring and Reorganization Practice Group and the Liability Management and Special Situations Practice Group. “We are excited to welcome Andrew back to our team,” said Scott J. Greenberg, Global Chair of Gibson Dunn’s Business Restructuring and Reorganization Practice Group. “With restructurings and distressed financings on the rise, our market-leading platform is experiencing incredible client demand globally. Andrew is a versatile finance lawyer with extensive experience leading financing transactions in the rescue and distressed space. He will be instrumental in deepening our bench and helping clients navigate the increasingly dynamic credit environment.” “I’m thrilled to come home to Gibson Dunn,” said Andrew. “I’ve been impressed watching the Gibson Dunn team transform the restructuring practice into a global powerhouse. I look forward to working alongside this incredible, collaborative team as it continues to lead clients through complex restructurings and provide innovative, market-moving financing solutions.” Steven Domanowski, Chair of the firm’s Liability Management and Special Situations Practice Group, added, “Andrew will serve as an invaluable resource for our clients in a highly active distressed finance environment. He intimately understands the needs our clients are facing and how to craft resolutions to complex problems.” The firm’s Business Restructuring and Reorganization Practice Group has expanded its global offering over the past few years, with Andrew being the most recent addition to the team. In March, senior restructuring partners Chris Howard and Presley Warner joined in London. The group’s additions also include partners Lisa Stevens (London), AnnElyse Scarlett Gains (Washington, D.C.), Caith Kushner (New York), and Ryan Kim (New York), as well as the promotions of Stephen D. Silverman (New York) and Melissa L. Barshop (Century City) to partner. The Gibson Dunn Business Restructuring and Reorganization Practice Group advises on the largest and most complex restructurings globally, dominating the market in the U.S. and Europe. It was named Lead Counsel in Debtwire’s Restructuring Advisory Mandates Report for North America in both 2023 and 2024. Within the practice, the Liability Management and Special Situations team has emerged as a pioneer in liability management focused on devising and executing tailored solutions for ad hoc groups of debt holders and other debt investors. About Andrew Cheng Andrew’s practice focuses on distressed-related financings, including rescue and DIP financings, representing lenders in liability management transactions, restructuring of syndicated secured credit facilities, and sponsor-side acquisition financings. Prior to rejoining Gibson Dunn, Andrew served as a partner at another international law firm. Previously, he was a partner at Gibson Dunn. He earned his law degree from Harvard Law School in 2000. Download PDF

May 27

2 min

A group of landlords urged a Tennessee federal court to reject arguments lodged by several attorneys general who criticized $141.8 million worth of proposed antitrust settlements that aim to resolve multidistrict litigation accusing the landlords of using property management software company RealPage Inc.'s technology for rent price fixing. In their brief, filed on Friday in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, the landlords Greystar Management Services LLC, First Communities Management Inc., Avenue5 Residential LLC, Bozzuto Management Co., Bell Partners Inc. and BH Management Services LLC raised concerns about the statement of interest filed by the attorneys general for the District of Columbia, Maryland, Kentucky and New Jersey. The landlords argued that their settlements release them from the antitrust claims that the attorneys general filed on behalf of the residents living in those areas. These types of claims are referred to as "parens patriae" claims, which a state files on behalf of its residents. In their brief, the landlords pointed to Greystar's settlement as an example of an agreement that explicitly releases a landlord from similar parens patriae claims. "By contrast, [the landlords'] settlements do not release them from claims brought by the states in their sovereign capacities seeking injunctive relief or penalties," the landlords argued. "Greystar's release clarifies this distinction because it does not bar actions 'to vindicate sovereign or quasi-sovereign interests.'" "The remaining [landlords'] settlements include no release of claims brought in a state's sovereign (rather than representative) capacity," they added. The landlords' settlements "thus acknowledge that 'attorneys' general law enforcement powers are not claims the [MDL plaintiffs] have, and … plaintiffs do not release' them," they said, quoting from a 2007 decision by a Pennsylvania federal court involving the American Investors Life Insurance Co. Additionally, according to the landlords, their settlements releasing them from the attorneys' general antitrust claims are allowed "because those claims belong to class members and duplicate the claims asserted by MDL plaintiffs." They further argued that litigating a nationwide antitrust class action is better than individually litigating the attorneys' general claims, pointing to case law such as the U.S. Supreme Court's 1972 decision in Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co. of California. "The Supreme Court's reasoning for preferring class actions over parens patriae actions in antitrust cases applies here in spades," the landlords said. "MDL plaintiffs seek recovery for a putative nationwide class, and it would be far more efficient to resolve the claims in this court." And the four state prosecutors concede that their parens patriae actions are "unencumbered" by the procedural constraints of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that protect class members' due process rights. The landlords asked the court to block the attorneys general from prosecuting their "duplicative" claims to win damages. They also argued that the prosecutors don't have the standing to oppose the proposed settlements. One of the landlords' arguments relied on the Sixth Circuit's 2019 decision in Chapman v. Tristar Products Inc., in which the court rejected Arizona's objection to a class action settlement because the state lacked standing, unlike the class members. "In insisting that parens patriae and [the Class Action Fairness Act] give them an 'unique interest' to object to the settlements' adequacy, the four AGs recycle the same arguments that Chapman already rejected," the landlords claimed. "Chapman requires this court to reject the four AGs' adequacy objections because 'the only objections [they] make are indistinguishable from the objections which individual [class members] might raise' and the right to object belonged to only the class members," they added. The landlords further argued that their fairness act notices for their settlements were adequate, in part, because the attorneys general that are challenging the settlements have acknowledged that they've received the notices. The attorney general for the District of Columbia and counsel for the plaintiffs declined to comment Monday. Counsel for the landlords and the other attorneys general didn't immediately respond to requests for comment. Avenue5 Residential is represented by Danny David, James Kress and Paul Cuomo of Baker Botts LLP, and by John R. Jacobson and Milton S. McGee III of Riley & Jacobson PLC. Bell Partners is represented by Marguerite S. Willis, Michael A. Parente and Margaret M. Siller of Maynard Nexsen PC. Bozzuto Management is represented by James D. Bragdon and Sam Cowin of Gallagher Evelius & Jones LLP, by Philip A. Giordano of Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, and by Charles E. Elder of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP. First Communities Management is represented by Richard P. Sybert of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP. BH Management Services is represented by Ian Simmons and Patrick J. Jones of O'Melveny & Myers LLP. Greystar is represented by Karen H. Lent, Boris Bershteyn, Evan Kreiner, Sam Auld and Adam Kochman of Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, and by Joshua C. Cumby, F. Laurens Brock and Rocklan W. King III of Adams & Reese LLP. The District of Columbia is represented by John Spragens of Spragens Law PLC, and by Adam Gitlin, Mehreen Imtiaz and Ashley Walters of the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia. Maryland is represented by Schonette J. Walker and Melissa L. English of the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland. New Jersey is represented by Brian F. McDonough, David Reichenberg, Jesse J. Sierant and Douglas T. Post of the New Jersey Office of the Attorney General. Kentucky is represented by Jonathan E. Farmer of the Kentucky Attorney General's Office. The District of Columbia, Maryland and New Jersey are also represented by Emmy L. Levens, Robert A. Braun and Aaron J. Marks of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. The case is In Re: Realpage Inc. Rental Software Antitrust Litigation (No. II), case number 3:23-md-03071, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

Nov 3

4 min