Manufacturing & Distribution

Routinely draft antitrust compliance policies and provide antitrust guidance on pricing and distribution practices in accordance with federal and state antitrust laws.

Assisted a textile industry client evaluate and address environmental regulatory and compliance issues concerning a facility’s repurposing and a strategy for property reuse, including procurement of environmental insurance and participation in the state’s Brownfields Program.

Advised a major electric utility company regarding New Source Review (NSR) program requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA), including a six-month audit of internal procedures and suggested compliance improvements.

CSR, Ltd v. Taylor, 411 Md. 457, 983 A.2d 492 (2009). Court of Appeals affirmed grant of motion to dismiss based on lack of personal jurisdiction, holding that actions of foreign distributor did not constitute purposeful availment under Maryland law. 

Defended a global manufacturing company against numerous claims in a two week arbitration in Washington, D.C., securing a final award millions of dollars lower than sought by the claimant.

Lead trial counsel in a federal securities claim arising out of a failure to disclose fees due to financial advisers in connection with the purchase of a publicly traded healthcare information management company. The purchaser was required to reimburse undisclosed financial advisors millions of dollars in fees due as a result of the acquisition. Coordinated claims and parties to access predecessor D&O coverage for officers and a director for failure to disclose financial advisors in representations and warranties for transaction. Favorable settlement reached after successful opposition to motions to dismiss and extensive negotiation involving complex D&O coverage issues. (Stanley Black & Decker v. Gulian, et al., USDC, District of Delaware (1:12-cv-01342))

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Benjamin, 394 Md. 59, 904 A.2d 511 (2006). Court of Appeals affirmed grant of summary judgment in favor of manufacturer of asbestos-containing products holding that express knowledge of exposure to asbestos products and diagnosis of mesothelioma constituted inquiry notice for purposes of discovery rule and commencement of limitations period for beneficiaries' survival action.

Lead national counsel defending manufacturer of multi-purpose power tools through three waves of mass tort litigation asserting claims for exposure to dust containing a variety of allegedly hazardous materials (asbestos, silica, wood and metal dusts) contained in work pieces and materials manufactured by other companies. Developed comprehensive, coordinated assertion of “no legal duty to warn” defense as a variation of evolving “component parts” and “bare metals’ defenses in state and federal claims asserted in multiple jurisdictions over nearly a decade. This strategy resulted in dozens of dismissals without payment in cases across the country and successful summary judgment decision eliminating litigation in certain jurisdictions and providing a basis for subsequent dismissals without payment in other jurisdictions. (Summary Judgment Decision – Abate v. Advanced Auto Parts, et al., Connecticut Superior Court, Bridgeport (FBT-CV10-6005674)

Lead national counsel defended a plumbing fixture manufacturer in connection with asbestos claims brought in multiple jurisdictions around the country. Conducted a forensic product-line investigation that established product defenses for the client on the merits, pursued indemnity claim against a corporate predecessor based on transaction documentation and successfully established an asset purchases defense to future cases (demonstrating direct liability of corporate predecessor). Obtained dismissals without payment on early asbestos claims on the merits. After unsuccessful indemnity litigation in California State Court with the predecessor, successfully asserted successor liability defense in future cases and obtained summary judgment (opposed by the predecessor) for the client establishing no liability for the client for product line, and direct liability of the predecessor for such claims. (Whelan v. A.O. Smith, et al., Superior Court of New Jersey, Middlesex County (L-7161-12AS))

Provided regulatory guidance and representation before the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to a potentially responsible party at site where dioxin and PCBs are contaminants of concern, including preparation of public comments at various stages of the administrative process addressing the Proposed Remedial Action Plan, Remedial Investigation, Feasibility Study, and answering Unilateral Administrative Orders.

Represented a contract pharmaceutical manufacturer in dispute with contracting party. After conducting investigation into the facts and circumstances and confronting the other party with our analysis, the disputing party abandoned their claims against our client.

Represented automotive client in two Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) litigation actions in the U.S. District Court for Eastern District of New York alleging contribution to site contamination and a $35+ million cleanup remedy.

Represented consumer product manufacturing clients in a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) litigation action in the U.S. District Court for Rhode Island, including challenging liability, the Record of Decision, and a $100+ million cleanup remedy.

Represented a producer and distributor of chemicals in prosecution of trade secret action in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland against a former sales employee who copied several hundred sensitive documents to a portable hard drive before departing the company. We obtained a temporary restraining order and ultimately consent permanent injunction barring former employee from retaining and using client’s information.

Represented an international high-end furniture manufacturer and designer in multiple suits involving claims of design patent infringement.

A Miles & Stockbridge team served as sell-side counsel for a large Maryland pest control company in the sale of the business to a Swedish-based pest control company. The deal involved sophisticated government contract matters because of the sale to an international buyer.

Lead national counsel for an industrial equipment manufacturer sued in multiple asbestos claims in multiple jurisdictions. Conducted a forensic product-line investigation to develop product defenses to the claims on the merits and developed comprehensive and coordinated assertion of the client’s asset purchaser successor liability defense. Thoughtful assertion of defense, after filing, after discovery, by motion or before trial resulted in aggregating track record of dismissals without payment from dozens of cases in most active asbestos dockets nationally. Momentum of accumulated dismissals has diminished new filings for the client and allowed for agreements to dismiss client in new cases, avoiding unnecessary defense expense.

Obtained summary judgment and favorable settlement on behalf of a Fortune 200 truck manufacturer in franchise dispute.

Lead trial counsel in a CERCLA liability trial brought by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice asserting a “divisibility defense” in connection with dioxin contamination at the Centredale Superfund Site in North Providence, Rhode Island. The trial required over 20 trial days spanning two months and live and deposition testimony of over 20 fact witnesses. The trial involved over a dozen expert witnesses covering complex issues of chemistry, molecule formation and synthesis, chemical fingerprinting, process chemistry, aerial photographic analysis, chemical fate and transport, and environmental engineering. Although the client ultimately did not prevail in establishing this rarely applied defense to CERCLA joint and several liability, the trial resulted in a 186-page opinion, express recognition by the court of “second to none” skilled management and presentation of complex issues, and the defense provided partial basis for subsequent finding of client’s good faith “sufficient care” defense to fines and penalties sought by the U.S. EPA for client’s refusal to comply with a UAO issued to it during pendency of the litigation. (Emhart Industries, Inc. v. United States Department of the Air Force v. Black & Decker, Inc. (C.A. No. 11-023 S))

Lead litigation counsel for a client pursued for perchlorate groundwater contamination in the Rialto-Colton Groundwater Basin in San Bernardino County, California. This multi-year litigation involved state judicial and administrative proceedings, as well as federal judicial and administrative proceedings. The parties included the cities of Rialto, California, and Colton, California, the County of San Bernardino, the Santa Anna Regional and State Water Board, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Defense, and over a dozen other alleged PRPs. The team extensively litigated CERCLA liability/divisibility defenses and a variety of corporate successor liability issues for multiple historic entities under the laws of multiple states. After a court-deferred resolution of successor liability issues for trial, we negotiated a favorable settlement for the client limited to implementation of an interim remedial action, utilizing a trust funded by other PRPs, including the Department of Defense, with continuing cost-sharing by the Department of Defense in capital and O&M costs. The interim action was negotiated with significant limits on scope of remedial action and re-openers and no past or future EPA oversight costs. (City of Colton v. American Promotional Events, et al., USDC, Central District California (5:09-cv-01864-SG-SS)).

Lead trial counsel in a trial against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island challenging the remedy selected by U.S. EPA for the Centredale Manor Superfund Site in North Providence, Rhode Island. This trial also required defense of an enforcement claim and a claim for over $40 million in fines and penalties for the client’s refusal to comply with an EPA Unilateral Administrative Order requiring the implementation of the challenged remedy. The trial involved EPA and client fact witnesses and experts on both sides in the areas of human health and ecological risk assessment, environmental engineering, construction and chemical fate and transport. After 13 bench trial days spanning six months, extensive briefing, and a full day of closing argument, the court found certain aspects of EPA’s remedy selection process to be arbitrary and capricious, remanded remedy to EPA, retained jurisdiction over the case through remedial design in connection with other issues, stayed enforcement of the UAO, and found objective good faith “sufficient cause” for the client to refuse to comply with that order, awarding none of the over $40 million in fines and civil penalties sought by the EPA. (Emhart Industries, Inc. v. United States Department of the Air Force v. Black & Decker, Inc. (C.A. No. 11-023 S))

When a client became the subject of an investigation by the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission seeking a civil penalty for failure to report a defective product, it came to us to represent it.  Civil penalties have been increasing, and the client was concerned because it had already been the subject of a penalty.  Our knowledge of the law and the process enabled us to negotiate a favorable settlement far below recent settlements.

The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a significant policy change at one of its public forums.  Through our contacts at the National Association of Manufacturers, we were able to mobilize a working group to oppose the policy and developed an opposition strategy.  As the first step, we drafted a letter to the chairman of the CPSC opposing the policy, and the NAM was joined by 39 trade associations on the letter.  We are continuing with our opposition strategy, which will involve Congressional opposition and potentially litigation.

Counsel to Fortune 500 tool manufacturer with regard to divestiture of manufacturing and distribution business.