The Legal 500

Twitter Logo Youtube Circle Icon LinkedIn Icon

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

WORLDWIDE PLAZA, 825 EIGHTH AVENUE, NEW YORK, NY 10019-7475, USA
Tel:
Work +1 212 474 1000
Fax:
Fax +1 212 474 3700
Email:
Web:
www.cravath.com
London, New York

Kevin Orsini

Tel:
Work (212) 474-1596
Email:
Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP

Work Department

Litigation.

Position

Kevin J. Orsini is a partner in Cravath’s Litigation Department. Mr. Orsini focuses on complex antitrust litigation, mergers and acquisitions litigation, securities litigation and other commercial disputes. Mr. Orsini’s clients have included Alcoa, American Express, Black Entertainment Television, Barnes & Noble, Crown Castle International, Goldman Sachs, HCA Inc., IBM, JPMorgan Chase & Co., Mylan, Occidental Petroleum Corporation, Novartis, Viacom and Xerox.

Mr. Orsini’s recent representations include:

Antitrust Litigation

• Representing American Express (“AmEx”) in a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York brought by the Department of Justice and 17 state attorneys general alleging that AmEx’s nondiscrimination provisions in its merchant agreements violate the antitrust laws. This case—one of the largest and most significant cases arising under Section 1 of the Sherman Act that the Government brought to trial in over a decade—culminated in a nearly two-month bench trial in July-August 2014.

• Representing AmEx in a series of putative class actions and individual lawsuits brought by large supermarket and pharmacy chains in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York alleging that AmEx imposed rules that limited merchants from steering their customers to other payment methods in violation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. Mr. Orsini also represents AmEx in related merchant arbitrations.

• Representing AmEx in a putative class action originally filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York brought on behalf of all U.S. merchants that accept AmEx cards alleging that AmEx tied acceptance of certain of its card products to acceptance of other AmEx card products in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

• Representing AmEx in a series of putative class actions in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York brought by individual holders of MasterCard, VISA and Discover credit cards, alleging that AmEx’s “anti-steering” provisions in its merchant acceptance agreements artificially inflated the cost of products and services sold by merchants who accept AmEx credit cards, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

• Represented AmEx in a putative class action alleging unlawful tying in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York in violation of the Sherman Act. The case was dismissed after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2013 that the company’s arbitration provisions in its merchant agreements, which contained a class action waiver, were valid and enforceable.

• Represented Viacom International and Black Entertainment Television in an antitrust lawsuit brought by Cablevision in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging that Viacom engaged in illegal tying and block-booking by coercing Cablevision into agreeing to distribute certain of Viacom’s allegedly less popular cable channels along with other of its more popular, “commercially critical” networks, including Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, BET and MTV.

Securities and Other Commercial Litigation

• Represented Mylan N.V. in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York challenging Mylan’s proposal to acquire Perrigo Company plc for approximately $27 billion. Perrigo sought injunctive relief for alleged violations of Section 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 concerning disclosures in Mylan’s offering materials and other public statements made in connection with the tender offer. Perrigo’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied in October 2015.

• Represented AmEx and certain of its directors in a shareholder derivative suit in New York State Supreme Court alleging breach of fiduciary duties in connection with the antitrust violations asserted in the DOJ’s enforcement action against AmEx. The court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

• Secured on behalf of JPMorgan Chase & Co. the dismissal of a securities fraud lawsuit concerning collateralized debt obligations in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Mr. Orsini currently represents JPMorgan Chase in Tennessee state court in another lawsuit concerning collateral debt obligation.

• Represented Barnes & Noble in a challenge to a poison pill adopted by the company. Following expedited discovery and other pretrial proceedings, a four-day trial was held before the Court of Chancery for the State of Delaware in July 2010. In August 2010, the court ruled in favor of the Barnes & Noble, rejecting each of the plaintiffs’ claims and upholding the company’s poison pill. That decision was affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court in March 2011. Mr. Orsini also represented Barnes & Noble in a shareholder derivative litigation in the Delaware Court of Chancery alleging breaches of fiduciary duties in connection with the company’s acquisition of Barnes & Noble College Booksellers.

• Represented Barnes & Noble in a series of cases in New York courts that were dismissed prior to the commencement of discovery. In 2012, he won the dismissal of a shareholder derivative litigation and putative class action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York alleging breaches of fiduciary duties and violations of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. He also represented Barnes & Noble and certain individual defendants in securing the dismissals of a shareholder derivative lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court concerning the company’s internal controls and financial reporting and a related securities class action in the Southern District of New York.

• Represented Goldman Sachs against multibillion-dollar claims asserted in the Lyondell bankruptcy proceedings.

• Represented Xerox in complex securities class action litigation alleging that Xerox had engaged in fraudulent accounting practices that materially inflated its stock price.

• Represented the Special Committee of Delphi Financial Group in a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit in the Delaware Court of Chancery challenging Delphi’s $2.7 billion buyout by Tokio Marine Holdings, Inc.

Career

Mr. Orsini joined Cravath in 2003 and became a partner in 2011.

Mr. Orsini was named one of seven outstanding competition lawyers under 40 in the nation by Law360 in 2016. He was also named a Rising Star by New York Law Journal in 2015 and a New York Rising Star by Super Lawyers in 2013 and 2014 for business litigation. Mr. Orsini has been recognized by Benchmark Litigation for his litigation work (2016) and by The Legal 500 United States for his work in securities litigation (2011) and M&A litigation (2012-2014).

Education

Mr. Orsini received a B.A. summa cum laude from George Washington University in 2000, where he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa, and a J.D. cum laude from New York University School of Law in 2003.


United States: Antitrust

Civil litigation/class actions

Within: Civil litigation/class actions

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLPcombines a quick and thorough grasp of clients’ issues with the ability to communicate simply, clearly and completely’. The team is particularly active in financial services litigation and American Express is a key client in this regard. Evan Chesler, Peter Barbur and Kevin Orsini advised the credit card company in a number of disputes, including its appeal of a district court judgment in a case brought by the DOJ and 17 state attorneys general alleging that the merchant acceptance rules imposed by American Express violated the Sherman Act. The pharmaceutical sector is another regular source of work, and Chesler, Rowan Wilson* and David Marriott represented Mylan in its long-running set of lawsuits alleging pay-for-delay agreements with Cephalon relating to the Provigil drug. Qualcomm and Thai Airways are also recent clients. All the lawyers named above are based in the firm’s New York office. *Since publication, Rowan Wilson has been confirmed as an Associate Judge of the New York State Court of Appeals.

[back to top]


Back to index

Legal Developments worldwide

Legal Developments and updates from the leading lawyers in each jurisdiction. To contribute, send an email request to
  • Innovation & Thailand 4.0: Value Creation for Business using Trade Secrets

    Thailand 4.0 stands for the new stage to transform the country currently relying on heavy industries (3.0 stage) into a creativity and innovation-driven economy. Trade secrets are definitively value-based and could help pursing Thailand 4.0.
  • Novelties Introduced by the Movable Pledge Law

    As of January 1, 2017, Law No. 6750 on Pledge over Movable Assets in Commercial Transactions (“Movable Pledge Law “), which was enacted on October 20, 2016, entered into force and abolished Law No.1447 on Commercial Enterprise Pledge (“Commercial Enterprise Pledge Law “). The Movable Pledge Law introduces significant changes and offers more practical methods for establishing pledge over movable assets as explained below.
  • Determination of Injury in Anti-Dumping Investigations: Turkey’s Side of the Story

    I - Introduction
  • Tax evasion: Only voluntary disclosure affords protection from severe penalties

    Anyone who has been caught for tax evasion should expect to be faced with severe penalties. Voluntary disclosure is the only way of returning to a state of normal tax affairs and avoiding penalties.
  • Turkish Health PPP Projects

    The Turkish health sector has undergone major reforms over the past ten years as part of the health transformation program. The most important pillar of such program has been the development of public-private partnership (“PPP ”) model health campus projects. More than twenty health campus projects with an investment amount of more than € 10 billion have been developed through PPP model in Turkey. They are currently at different stages ranging from tendering to operation, and more than ten health PPP projects are still in the pipeline.
  • Infrastructure REIC: An Alternative Source of Funding for Infrastructure Projects

    With the start of operation in certain BOT and other PPP model infrastructure projects in Turkey, refinancing alternatives have become more attractive and diversified. Capital market instruments and institutions are likely to have a greater share in the refinancings of projects which have become operational and the construction risks have been removed. Over the last few years, the use of capital market instruments in the infrastructure financings have gained a new impetus with the introduction of various incentives and financing solutions in this aspect. Most recently, the removal of the 1/3 and 1/5 bond issuance limits for healthcare PPP projects on 18 February 2017 represented an important step towards incentivizing the use of bonds in the healthcare sector. In line with this overall strategy, the government has also adopted various measures to make the Real Estate Investment Companies (“REICs ”) more attractive for the financing/refinancing of infrastructure projects such as BOT, BLT and other PPP projects.
  • Ankara-Niğde Highway Project

    Tender process for 330 km Ankara-Niğde Highway Project has been launched by the General Directorate of Highways upon publication of the tender announcement in the Official Gazette on December 30, 2016.
  • Establishment of the Natural Gas Spot Market in Turkey

    In line with the government’s objectives to make Turkey a regional hub for natural gas trading, a natural gas spot market has been established by the Natural Gas Organized Wholesale Market Regulation published in the Official Gazette on 31 March 2017.
  • Philippine Court of Appeals Denies Issuance of Environmental Protection Order Against Mining Company

    In a decision issued on March 8, 2017, the Philippine Court of Appeals (CA) denied the petition by NGO Ang Aroroy ay Alagaan, Inc. and certain individuals, for the issuance of a writ of kalikasan against Filminera Resources Corporation, and its directors and officers. The petitioners have claimed that Filminera, which operates in the Philippine province of Masbate, had been causing environmental damage in the conduct of its mining operations in violation of local law, and that a writ of kalikasan should be issued.
  • LIS ALIBI PENDENS UNDER THE COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) NO 44/2001 ON JURISDICTIONAND THE RECOGNITION AN

    Lis Alibi pendens is Latin for ‘suit pending elsewhere .’ Both Articles 27 and 28 of the EU Regulation 44/2001 regulate the existence of lis alibi pendens and related judicial actions. In particular it is a doctrine that regulates the jurisdictional relationship of courts hearing concurrent proceedings involving the same or related causes of action between the same parties pending in the courts of different Member States.