David Peterson

• In re Cathode Ray Tubes (Circuit City).Represented the Liquidating Trustee of the Circuit City Estate in its opt-out action against various defendants who conspired to fix the price of cathode-ray tubes (“CRTs”), causing Circuit City to pay more for products containing CRTs (televisions and computer monitors) then it otherwise would have had to pay. Following significant discovery through the In re CRT multi-district litigation in the Northern District of California, Circuit City eventually settled its claims against every defendant for confidential terms.
• Group 1 Automotive Inc. v. DaimlerChrysler Motors Company LLC.Resolved a dispute between a group of automobile dealers against a major automobile manufacturer and its captive finance company in an Automobile Dealers Day in Court Act and antitrust price discrimination suit in Federal Court in Los Angeles.

• In re Lyondell Chemical Company. Represented Lyondell Chemical Company and its affiliates—one of the world’s largest plastics, chemicals, and refining companies—as special litigation and conflicts counsel throughout their Chapter 11 proceedings in the Southern District of New York. Peterson played a central role from filing through confirmation and emergence. He secured a then-groundbreaking injunction under 11 U.S.C. § 105 barring creditors from enforcing guarantees against European non-debtor entities—protecting those entities from insolvency and enabling a successful reorganization. Peterson also represented the estate in adversary proceedings and claim objections, including as lead counsel for the Millennium Custodial Trust in a Section 502(b) challenge to Celanese’s $31.4 million claim, which he resolved for $10.8 million—less than 35% of the amount asserted.
• Litigation on Behalf of Lehman Brothers (Europe)
  • Successfully negotiated return  of trading accounts with value of over $200 million, from Barclays Capital Inc., who had obtained them from Lehman Brothers Inc. when it sought bankruptcy protection in 2008.
  • Represented Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in administration) in a dispute against Citibank, N.A. Upon the collapse of the Lehman Brothers empire in 2008, Citibank froze LBIE’s assets in custodial accounts in 18 worldwide branches, and initiated steps to appropriate and dispose of these accounts because other Lehman Brothers entities had defaulted, not because of LBIE’s own trades. Peterson successfully argued for the return of securities to LBIE with a value of more than $2 billion.
• In re Truvo USA LLC. Tapped to serve as conflicts counsel to Truvo USA LLC in proceedings in the Southern District of New York. Peterson was specifically requested to join the Truvo team due to his experience obtaining the then-groundbreaking § 105 injunction in In re Lyondell.  Peterson obtained a similar § 105 injunction for Truvo, protecting Truvo’s European guarantors from involuntary insolvency and securing a key piece to the debtors’ reorganization process.

• Wage & Hour Class Action. Defended one of the world’s largest retailers in a federal class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act, challenging various aspects of the retailer’s wage, time-keeping, and break policies.

• Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Citigroup Capital Markets, et al.Represented Texas Instruments in litigation against global investment banks Citigroup Capital Markets, BNY Capital Markets, and Morgan Stanley to rescind the purchase of more than $500 million in Auction Rate Securities that became illiquid when financial institutions withdrew support for the auctions. Following the defendant banks’ removal to Federal Court, Peterson obtained a remand back to the state court. Peterson then defeated the defendants’ special exceptions and motions for severance. The case settled shortly after discovery concluded.
• Apollo v. Huntsman. Served as Texas counsel for Apollo and Hexion in a multi-billion-dollar dispute arising from Apollo’s invocation of a material adverse effect clause to terminate its pending acquisition of Huntsman. Apollo initiated litigation in Delaware, while Huntsman pursued parallel claims against Apollo and its financing banks in Texas. Following a trial in the Delaware Court of Chancery, the matter resolved on confidential terms. Apollo remained an active party in the Texas litigation until the eve of trial, when Peterson successfully secured its dismissal. In parallel, Peterson worked with Wachtell Lipton to support the Delaware Chancery Court trial,
• Litigation on Behalf of Eclipse Services, Inc. Represented Eclipse Services, Inc. in a lawsuit against the Estate of Harry Gray. Gray had been an investor in Eclipse and held four warrants allowing him to purchase shares of Eclipse stock. Gray had agreed to sell the warrants back to Eclipse but passed before the transaction occurred. Gray’s Estate then exercised each of the warrants, acquired the stock, and attempted to exercise a put right. The Estate then began to dispute the price at which the Estate could put its stock back to Eclipse. When the Estate initiated proceedings for pre-suit depositions, Peterson filed a lawsuit for declaratory relief in Harris County, Texas, which settled under confidential terms.

• Confidential Permian Basin Arbitrations.Represented a major oil and gas company in a series of confidential arbitrations against a major oil and gas producer relating to assets in the Permian basin. These disputes involved both upstream and midstream entities and issues. The arbitrations and their results are confidential.
• Anadarko Petroleum Corporation.
  • Arbitrated a dispute relating to natural gas liquids (NGL) allocations at a gas processing plant and the collection of drip condensate on a gathering system.
  • Resolved a dispute in Colorado state court against DCP Midstream relating to an alleged dedication of wells, areas of mutual interest, and accounting and allocation issues in the Wattenberg Field near Denver, Colorado.
• Enterprise Products Operating LLC v. Flint Hills Resources, L.P. Represented Enterprise Products Operating LLC and Mid-America Pipeline Company in a contract dispute against Flint Hills Resources (a subsidiary of Koch Industries) arising from an NGL storage and purchase agreement. After Flint Hills issued an early termination notice but refused to pay up to $30 million in contractual termination fees, Peterson and his team filed suit in Harris County, Texas seeking the full fee and attorneys’ fees. After driving the case through discovery and moving for summary judgment on liability, Peterson positioned the case for trial, leading to a confidential settlement less than a month before trial.
• Willbros v. HydroDive.  Successfully defended a Nigerian diving and oil pipeline construction subcontractor from allegations of civil RICO and participation in breach of fiduciary duty in the Southern District of Texas. With motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction pending, Peterson obtained dismissal of all claims for insufficient service of process, as his clients had been served with the lawsuit in the middle of a deposition for another matter. The dismissal also defeated the plaintiffs’ arguments for tag-jurisdiction because the in-person service was found to be improper

• Bayou Corne Louisiana Sinkhole Dispute. Previously represented the largest independent brine producer in the United States, Texas Brine Company, and its affiliates in a series of state and federal lawsuits relating to a 2012 sinkhole in Assumption Parish, Louisiana. These lawsuits included defense against claims by residents, landowners, pipeline companies, and commercial partners, as well as pursuing claims against oil and gas companies, chemical companies, and insurers. Peterson appeared in state and federal court in Texas and Louisiana in these matters. Peterson tried a three-week liability phase bench trial in Assumption Parish, resulting in a favorable allocation of responsibility.
• Louisiana Oilfield Litigation. Previously represented one of the largest oil and gas producers in the world in a series of lawsuits in Louisiana relating to legacy oilfield activities and allegations regarding coastal land loss.

• False Claims Act: Gluck v. Shepos, et al. Represents Relator Karen Gluck in a false claims act lawsuit in the Central District of California, alleging violations of the federal and California false claims acts relating to real estate developers’ bribery of a Los Angeles County real estate official in exchange for favorable treatment in County leases. Two of the defendants pled guilty to federal criminal charges stemming from information provided by the Relator to the FBI.
• ROKit World, Inc. and ROKiT World Limited v. Williams Grand Prix Engineering Limited. Successfully defended Formula One team Williams Racing and its principles and former owners against fraud claims brought by a former sponsor.

• HouseCanary v. Amrock. Won a $175 million jury verdict for HouseCanary in its trade-secret misappropriation and breach of contract lawsuit against Quicken-owned Amrock in Bexar County, Texas. The jury found that Amrock misappropriated all trade secrets alleged by HouseCanary, that Amrock breached its contract with HouseCanary, and that Amrock committed fraud against HouseCanary—marking the second jury to conclude that Amrock stole HouseCanary’s trade secrets. The case related to HouseCanary’s automated valuation model (AVM) and related technologies within the real estate tech industry. Read more.
• Black Knight, Inc. v. PennyMac Loan Services, LLC. Secured a $159 million arbitration award for Black Knight following an 8-week arbitration hearing. Black Knight’s arbitration involved trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract relating to PennyMac’s unauthorized use of Black Knight’s mortgage servicing platform and related confidential information in developing PennyMac’s mortgage servicing platform.
• MicroUnity Systems Engineering Inc. v. Apple, Inc. et al. Represented MicroUnity Systems Engineering, Inc., one of the leading innovators in the microprocessor industry, in its patent infringement lawsuit against Apple and Samsung from infringement of patents covering “mediaprocessor” technology. The case settled with the last of the defendants taking licenses just shortly before trial.
• Gemedy, Inc. v. The Carlyle Group et al. represented Gemedy, an inventor of revolutionary AI technology for military operations in a trade secret dispute with contractor Two Six and its parent the Carlyle Group in the District of Delaware. The case was successfully resolved shortly before trial.

Peterson has also been on the cutting-edge of new and expanding causes of action and issues relating to technology and the internet, including the following:

• Internet Speech Defense. Defended a leading social media website against claims for defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and public disclosure of private facts based on user comments posted to the website. The case settled shortly after Peterson filed a motion to dismiss.
• In re Heartland Payments Systems. Defended Heartland Payment Systems in a dispute relating to an alleged data breach of a credit card payment processing system. Portions of the case settled, and the court granted a motion to dismiss almost all of the other claims. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed their remaining claims following a status conference with Peterson.

• Warmack et al. v. Alight. Represented real estate developer and owner Warmack against its tenant, Alight, in a dispute relating to properties in The Woodlands, Texas and Orlando, Florida. Alight occupied the buildings under absolute triple-net leases, which required Alight to maintain the buildings (including routine maintenance and capital expenditures) during the term of the leases. The parties disputed whether Alight had maintained the buildings to the standard required by the leases. The case settled for confidential terms just days before the jury trial was scheduled to start in federal court in the Southern District of Texas.
• Downer v. Leichtenberg. Resolved contract dispute for a real estate investor in litigation against \his business partner relating to buildings in Houston, Austin, and Dallas. Through creative settlement discussions, Peterson was able to settle the dispute early on confidential terms.
• Prologis Targeted US Logistics Fund, LP v. Panalpina, Inc. Represented logistics company, Panalpina, in a dispute with its landlord, Prologis, relating to a building that Panalpina was leasing in Houston. Prologis alleged that Panalpina bore responsibility for replacing a leaky roof under a triple-net lease. However, Panalpina’s responsibility was limited to maintaining the premises “in the same working order, repair and condition,” and the roof was leaking due to defects in the roofing materials present when the roof was built. The case eventually settled on confidential terms.
• Holley v. SummerLake et al. Served as counsel to developer Ron Holley in litigation  against partnerships controlled by Jimmy Foster. The three partnership agreements contained a binding arbitration clause, so Peterson arranged a joint mediation prior to the arbitration. Following Peterson’s presentation at the mediation, the parties agreed to a settlement that involved cash and property. Peterson’s preparation for mediation allowed the parties to understand the value of Holley’s partnership interest, and resolve their dispute without the cost and business disruption of a several-day, evidentiary arbitration proceeding.
• Greenspoint Plaza Limited Partnership (GPLP) v. ExxonMobil. Secured trial win for GPLP and its parent company Hines in a commercial real estate dispute with tenant ExxonMobil. ExxonMobil alleged that an audit revealed overcharges by GPLP, and GPLP disputed these findings. Peterson argued that several affirmative defenses barred ExxonMobil from recovery. Following a two-week jury trial, the jury returned findings for the plaintiff but also found for GPLP on each of its affirmative defenses. The case eventually settled on confidential terms.
• Hartman v. Hartman REIT. Represented the founder and former CEO of a real estate investment trust (REIT). Following a coup by board members and outsiders to oust the CEO and enact a hostile takeover of the REIT, the Peterson brought claims against the REIT and its new officers and directors on behalf of the CEO. Following the first two days of a scheduled week-long bench trial in Harris County, Texas, the case settled on confidential terms.
• Accommodation Doctrine Cases. Successfully represented plaintiff landowners in Texas under the Accommodation Doctrine, which limits a mineral owner’s right to use the surface and requires the mineral owner to accommodate the existing surface uses of the surface owner. Peterson’s clients have included VDA Solar, for whom Peterson successfully resolved their dispute regarding solar farm uses after obtaining summary judgment, and La Salle County Outfitters, for whom Peterson obtained an injunction to allow for their continued use of their surface as one of the most sophisticated and successful deer management programs in the country.