Florida counsel for Apollo Global Management and several of its affiliates in connection with state and federal securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative suits which sought damages in excess of $300,000,000.  Those claims arose from Apollo’s acquisition of ADT in 2016 and subsequent sale of a portion of ADT’s stock through an initial public offering (“IPO”) which took place in January 2018.  Shortly after the 2018 IPO, shareholders filed a number of securities fraud and related class action claims against ADT, Apollo, the underwriters for the IPO, and others.  See, e.g., In re:  ADT Inc. Shareholder Litig., Case No. 502018CA003494XXXXMB-AG (Fla. 15th Jud. Cir. 2018); Perdomo v. ADT Inc., et al, Case. No 9:18-cv-80668-DMM (S.D. Fla. 2018); Velasco v. Whall et al, Case NO. 9:18-cv-81219-DMM (S.D. Fla. 2018).

Represented Special Litigation Committee (“SLC”) that was established to investigate a variety of potential derivative claims against the directors of a 1,400-member private residential golf and country club community.  The potential derivative claims alleged, among other things, that the directors improperly allocated millions of dollars in debt obligations, funded capital improvements in violation of the club’s bylaws, and imposed disproportionate dues increases on certain member classes.  After conducting an independent investigation, the SLC determined that the board exercised its business judgment in good faith and none of the proposed derivative claims were in the best interest of the club.

Defended publicly registered alternative fuel company against a hostile takeover attempt by the company’s largest unit holder. After the unit holder refused to close on a $30,000,000 agreement for the repurchase of his interest in the company, the unit holder attempted to take control of the board of directors and asserted a variety of claims against the company, members of its board, and the company’s management, including state and federal securities fraud claims, breach of fiduciary duty claims, claims to enjoin investor votes, claims alleging certain proxy statements were misleading, and civil theft claims which sought damages in excess of $100,000,000.  See Retterath v. Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC, 2014 WL 1515522 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2014); Retterath v. Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC et al, 2014 WL 7776705 (S.D. Iowa Dec. 24, 2014); Retterath v. Homeland Energy Solutions, LLC, 84 F.Supp.3d 876 (S.D. Iowa 2014).

Prosecuted complex fraud claims against an international produce distributor located in The Netherlands.  After the trial court initially dismissed our client’s claims based on forum non conveniens, the firm obtained a reversal at the Eleventh Circuit in an opinion which changed the standard by which trial courts are now required to evaluate forum non conveniens motions.  See Fresh Results, LLC v. ASF Holland, B.V., 921 F.3d 1043 (11th Cir. 2019).  On remand, the trial court denied the defendant’s renewed forum non conveniens motion, denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, and ultimately imposed discovery sanctions against the defendant for failing to produce critical documents.  The case settled prior to trial.

Represented publicly traded home security monitoring company and its wholly owned operating subsidiary in an action which sought to enjoin an operational merger transaction.  Our clients owned a right of first refusal to purchase the assets of a target entity which a Goldman Sachs sponsored competitor sought to acquire through a transaction involving $28,000,000 in cash consideration, as well as an additional $25,000,000-$50,000,000 recapitalization of the target entity’s largest affiliate.  Security Networks, LLC v. Vison Security, LLC, Case No.: 14-cv-80453 (S.D. Fla. 2014).

Defended national mortgage company in defense of a putative RICO class action filed by 24 separate plaintiffs from different states alleging that certain mortgage companies, banks, and other financial institutions each conspired to falsely inflate real estate property appraisals so that certain consumer loans could then be packaged and sold on secondary markets as inflated mortgage-backed securities. See White v. Bank of Am. Nat. Ass’n, 599 F. App’x 379 (11th Cir. 2015).

Trial counsel for attorney in connection with cross fraud-on-the-court motions relating to manipulated email evidence in a large commercial dispute. The main issue tried was whether the attorney we represented, or his opposing counsel, manipulated certain email evidence which had been presented at a summary judgment hearing by opposing counsel in support of economic damage claims in excess of $40 million. Following a four day trial, the court found, “by clear and convincing evidence, that either [the opposing party] or [opposing counsel] … fraudulently doctored the email.” See Palm Beach Florida Hotel v. Nantucket Enterprises, Inc., 2013 WL 686433 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Feb. 25, 2013). The court struck certain of the opposing counsel’s pleadings, and also awarded attorneys’ fees to our client.

Defense of accounting firm and its CPAs against claims that our clients were individually responsible for the tax positions taken in hundreds of corporate taxpayers’ returns which involved several million dollars in tax obligations. After a four-day final arbitration hearing, which included the presentation of competing tax experts, the arbitrator found in favor of our clients and determined that they were not required to individually sign, or take personal responsibility for, the hundreds of corporate tax returns in dispute.