Susman Godfrey has secured an $18 million settlement for clients Dov Seidman, Mats Lederhausen and Lee Feldman, concluding a significant defamation action on the eve of trial. This outcome will likely be one of the highest settlements of a defamation claim brought by individual plaintiffs this year. Even more remarkable is the non-financial components of the settlement, which is non-confidential, does not contain a “non-disparagement” provision, and lifts the protective order in the case.
The case arose from false and defamatory statements knowingly made by StartEngine CEO, Howard Marks, in connection with a separate lawsuit he joined and led against Dov, Mats, and Lee in their capacities as directors of LRN Corporation, the leading corporate ethics and compliance company Dov founded more than 30 years ago. The resolution – which includes Marks dismissing and repudiating his claims in that lawsuit – caps several years of hard-fought litigation and is the product of Susman Godfrey working closely with Dov to litigate the case according to the HOW philosophy and principles that Dov has championed to his corporate clients for decades: act with integrity, patience, resilience, honesty, and transparency.
Dov’s decades-long career has centered on helping companies and organizations, and their people, act lawfully, ethically, and respectfully. The defamatory allegations at issue struck at the core of his work and reputation. Having been defamed, Dov trusted in the legal process, and his deep partnership with Susman Godfrey, to achieve complete vindication and hold his defamer to account. On behalf of Dov, Mats and Lee, Susman Godfrey won a summary judgment ruling holding Marks liable for defamation per se. The court found that Marks “knowingly sent false statements” about them to The Financial Times. The parties were heading for a trial where the jury’s sole task would have been to determine how much to award in compensatory and punitive damages.
The dollar value of the resolution speaks for itself. But what makes the settlement so extraordinary is not ‘how much’ money was secured. Dov required a settlement with full transparency and accountability in fidelity to the HOW philosophy. In addition to a settlement that has no confidentiality and no “non-disparagement” provision, the settlement required Marks to lift any protective order restrictions on the documents and deposition testimony Marks produced in the case, enabling the full truth to come to light.
Even more remarkable, as part of the settlement, Marks did not just drop his claims against Dov, Mats and Lee in the lawsuit he joined and led; Marks utterly repudiated the lawsuit “and [his] entire participation in it,” admitting that “[w]hen I joined the lawsuit, I had no evidence to support the allegations in the lawsuit, including the ones I added to it. Now, with the evidence I have seen, this lawsuit in my view is without merit, which is why I am repudiating it.” (The full stipulation filed by the parties to dismiss Marks’ claims in that lawsuit can be found here; unlike most stipulations dismissing cases, this one lays out the facts, history, and court findings in comprehensive detail, in keeping with our clients’ commitment to transparency.)
“We have been immensely proud to work with Dov, Mats and Lee,” said partner Stephen Shackelford, who led the case. “This result is both an unprecedented resolution and an inspiring one, which serves as proof that justice can prevail in our court system, when people act with integrity, transparency, and patience.” Shackelford is a nationally recognized trial lawyer with a string of victories in high-profile disputes, including representing Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation cases against various parties and media organizations who defamed it in connection with the 2020 presidential election. About his work with Stephen, Dov said: “Stephen took on this quest for truth and justice as if it were his own, living it and breathing it with me. What is particularly notable is that Stephen and his team embodied the very principles called into question by the defamatory statement. They fought incredibly hard—but always with honor, candor, discipline, and, above all, trusted guidance and wise counsel every step of the way. I’m not only proud of this outcome, but I’m grateful.”
Partner Shawn Rabin served as co-lead trial counsel and was prepared to try the case—what would have been his sixth trial in six months—before it resolved the night before proceedings began. That trial-ready posture helped drive a favorable resolution. “Shawn has an unrivalled ability to get to the essence of the issues and what matters, and most importantly, to what’s at stake,” Dov said. “More than that, he not only gets to the essence, but he makes the essence eminently clear to the entire trial team, and especially his clients, in advance of the most consequential junctures in a case, such as deposition or trial testimony. And Shawn does all this in a way that inspires total confidence in his judgment and strategy, and trust in his integrity and commitment. It has been a genuine pleasure to have Shawn as one of our leaders.”
Associate Amanda Fischer played a central leadership role, managing the case day to day, coordinating discovery and motion practice, and driving trial preparation. Her work reflects Susman Godfrey’s model of empowering talented lawyers at every level to assume meaningful responsibility in complex, high-value disputes. “It was an enormous pleasure to work closely with Amanda throughout the case. Her work was impeccable, and her work ethic was without peer. More importantly, Amanda embodies the qualities and attributes – tenacity, judgement, brilliant intellect, insight, and equanimity – associated with the finest attorneys, including the most accomplished attorneys many years her senior. Amanda is a genuine credit to Susman Godfrey,” said Dov.
The Seidman settlement adds to Susman Godfrey’s deep track record in defamation and business tort litigation, where disciplined trial preparation and courtroom credibility consistently drive successful outcomes.
The case is Lee Feldman et al. v. Howard Marks, N21C-09-206 DJB, in the Superior Court of the State of Delaware.
