Bryan Westhoff is a creative, business-minded litigator with substantial experience handling a wide variety of complex domestic and international commercial law cases, arbitrations, and government investigations. He has successfully handled cases of all sizes, including multiple "bet the company" cases with more than $1 billion in potential exposure.
Bryan’s primary areas of practice include mergers and acquisitions-related litigation (pre- and post-closing), consumer false advertising and deceptive trade practice claims, securities and financial litigation, and other contract and fraud cases.
Bryan has represented clients in claims and investigations brought by multiple government bodies and agencies, including the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and state attorneys general.
He has handled numerous international matters, many of which involved complicated jurisdictional issues and choice-of-law questions.
Bryan also has considerable experience bringing and defending expedited litigation, including arguing numerous motions for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining orders.
- Represented a proprietary educational institution in a false advertising case brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) related to advertisements featuring the school's graduate employment rates.
- Represented a computer programming bootcamp in an investigation by the New York Attorney General related to the school's publication of its graduate employment rates.
- Currently representing a proprietary educational institution in consumer deceptive trade practice claims related to advertisements featuring the school's graduate employment rates.
- Represented a private equity company (Buyer) in fraud and breach of contract claims against Sellers related to acquisition of portfolio company.
- Represented an American sports apparel retail company in litigation brought by its investment bank related to the break-up of an announced $1.5 billion merger with an American specialty footwear and licensed headwear retailer.
- Represented French holding company and its affiliates against fraud claims seeking damages in excess of $1 billion arising out of the rehabilitation of Executive Life Insurance Company.
- Represented an international battery manufacturer bringing breach of contract claims against a Tier 2 supplier related to the sale of battery cells for electric cars in arbitrations proceedings before the American Arbitration Association (AAA) and the International Chamber of Commerce, International Court of Arbitration (ICC). Successfully secured an emergency court order requiring the Tier 2 supplier to continue supplying the battery cells while the parties resolve the dispute.
- Represented individual being investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) related to potential violations of the auditor independence rules.
- Represented an international energy company’s savings and pension plans in breach of fiduciary duties claims against their ERISA investment manager for losses resulting from securities lending.
- Represented an American airline in litigation against a global distribution system (GDS) related to the airline’s announced termination of an online website’s ticketing authority.
- Represented Court-appointed receiver of international investment fund and its related companies after management was arrested for perpetrating a U.S. $255 million international Ponzi scheme.
- Represented an international steel manufacturer against a breach of contract claim related to the manufacturing of specialty steel used in heavy-duty, off-road dump trucks.
- Represented an international energy company against indemnification claims related to alleged environmental contamination at a gas processing plant and separation station.
- Represented multinational power management company in litigation against an independent service provider in the uninterruptible power supply (UPS) aftermarket to enforce the company’s intellectual property rights in proprietary service software and against antitrust counterclaims alleging attempted monopolization of the service aftermarket.