White & Case
  Commercial Litigation

The world's leading financial institutions, largest corporations, sovereign governments, executives and directors turn to our Global Commercial Litigation Practice for their most significant litigation matters. With a global team of more than 700 dispute resolution lawyers worldwide, the Practice has genuine depth and local law capability that few other major firms can match.

On the Ground Where You Need Us
Our Practice includes our highly-rated litigators and regulatory practitioners experts across the United States (based in New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, the Silicon Valley and Miami), ensuring that any exposure across your operations is handled by one team. In Europe and Asia, our team of more than 330 practitioners has significant and wide-ranging experience in litigation at all levels before national courts and judicial tribunals throughout these regions and before the European Courts in Luxembourg.

We also have extensive experience representing clients before government agencies, such as the SEC, the US Attorney General's Office, the New York Stock Exchange, the US Department of Justice, the US Departments of State, Commerce and Treasury, the US Patent & Trademark Office, the IRS, the Federal Trade Commission, the International Trade Commission, the Financial Services Authority, Bundesbank and German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority (BaFin), AMF and the European Commission.

When You Need an Industry Insider
Because we are active in so many industries, you will not need to spend time educating us. Our deep and varied experience allows us to dive in that much sooner—and that much more effectively. Simply put, we know our clients' businesses. We have won major trials and appeals for world-class companies in an array of industries—construction and engineering, consumer products, financial services, infrastructure, manufacturing, metals and mining, pharmaceuticals, sovereign and government agencies, sports media and entertainment, technology and telecommunications.

Our litigators include former in-house counsel from leading companies, a US District Judge, a Florida Supreme Court Judge, the US Deputy Attorney General, a presidentially appointed US Attorney, a Senior Associate Counsel to the US President and Legal Advisor to the US National Security Council, former trial counsel for the SEC and numerous former US state and federal prosecutors.


Stolt Nielsen SA: Representation of Stolt Nielsen SA, in a historic April 2010 US Supreme Court victory denying class arbitration of antitrust claims and squarely holding that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) does not permit arbitrators to impose class-action arbitration on parties whose arbitration agreement undisputedly is silent on the question of class arbitration. The Court reversed a Second Circuit decision and vacated the underlying international arbitration award. The Stolt-Nielsen ruling may impact an estimated 100 to 200 pending class arbitration proceedings currently underway in the United States. This precedential case has garnered significant accolades for White & Case, including "Class Action Law Firm of the Year for 2010" by Law360, and recognition as one of the most innovative litigation matters in the US in 2010 by the Financial Times.

Pfizer: Representation of Pfizer in a trial victory in its long-running patent dispute with Teva Pharmaceuticals over Pfizer’s blockbuster drug Detrol®, the world’s market leader among drugs used to treat urinary incontinence and other symptoms of overactive bladder. Detrol, together with once-daily version, Detrol LA, presently gross over $US1 billion annually for Pfizer. The United States District Court in New Jersey, ruled that Pfizer’s US patent covering the active ingredient in Detrol is not invalid, rejecting Teva’s arguments to the contrary. Teva sought US regulatory approval to market a generic version prior to the expiration of the relevant Pfizer patent in late 2012. Subject to appeal, Pfizer’s trial victory ensures that Teva is enjoined from selling generic Detrol until at least that time.

Cukurova Group: Representation of the Cukurova Group in a long-running dispute with Russia’s Alfa Group concerning the ownership of a controlling shareholding in Turkcell Iletisim A.S., Turkey's largest mobile phone company. In May 2010, the recently established Eastern Caribbean Commercial Court in the British Virgin Islands held that Cukurova was not in default under a US$1.3 billion loan facility loan agreement with Alfa and therefore Alfa's attempts to appropriate the shares (its security for the loan) were ineffective. It went on to rule that Cukurova is entitled to redeem the security for the loan. The case is now on appeal by both parties to the Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal which will hear the parties’ appeals in Antigua in December.

Intel Corporation: Representation of Intel Corporation as co-counsel in pending appeal proceedings in the European General Court (previously the Court of First Instance) against the imposition of a fine of €1.06 billion by the European Commission for abuse of a dominant position. These proceedings raise the question of what can constitute “conditional rebates” of their legality and of the proportionality of the highest fine ever imposed on a single undertaking in EU competition law history.

Toshiba Corporation: Representation of Toshiba Corporation in its pending appeal to the General Court of the European Union of a 2007 Commission decision finding that various suppliers of Gas Insulated Switchgear (GIS), including Toshiba, had engaged in a worldwide cartel. We also represent Toshiba in parallel proceedings opened by the Czech and Slovak competition authorities regarding the same cartel. These proceedings raise important questions over the pursuit of antitrust cases at a national level when proceedings have already been opened by the European Commission. In that regard, we have convinced the Regional Court of Brno to make a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the competence of national competition authorities to apply their own national law to anti-competitive conduct in a situation where the Commission has already applied Article 101 TFEU to that same conduct.