Jay Bogan concentrates his practice on complex commercial litigation, with particular emphasis in civil RICO, business tort and class action cases. He has substantial experience representing clients before federal and state trial and appellate courts and coordinating the efforts of in-house and outside lawyers in significant multi-jurisdictional litigation. He has authored numerous articles on civil RICO and has tried and litigated cases through appeal that resulted in the creation of new law under both the federal and Georgia RICO statutes. Mr. Bogan is the leader of the firm's Technology Litigation team, which focuses on the litigation of trade secret and related claims, including claims for breach of nondisclosure agreements and other forms of restrictive covenants, as well as, more generally, the litigation of business tort claims between competitors. Mr. Bogan was named to Georgia Trend's 2008 "Legal Elite" for Business Law. He is listed in the 2009 and 2010 editions of Chambers USA: America's Leading Lawyers for Business for Appellate and General Commercial Litigation and he was listed as #1 in the 2011 edition for General Commercial Litigation. Mr. Bogan has been recognized as a Georgia "Super Lawyer" in the areas of General Litigation, Business Litigation and Class Action/Mass Torts in 2009 and again for Business Litigation in 2010 and 2011 by SuperLawyers magazine. He is recognized in the 2011 and 2012 editions of The Best Lawyers in America® for Commercial Litigation and is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell. Professional & Community Activities American Bar Association, Member and Former Chair of Section of Antitrust Law's Business Torts & Civil RICO Committee American Bar Foundation, Fellow Litigation Counsel of America, Fellow State Bar of Georgia, Member and Former Chair of Appellate Practice Section Industries Technology & Software Experience BellSouth Corp. v. Forsee, The firm served as lead counsel for BellSouth in a highly-publicized dispute involving Sprint's hiring of the second highestranking corporate officer at BellSouth. The case involved claims for breach of non-competition agreement and "inevitable misuse" of trade secrets. It also raised significant issues regarding the interplay between litigation and compulsory arbitration. We obtained an injunction prohibiting the executive's disclosure of confidential information to his new employer and limiting his involvement in certain activities where the confidential information might be used or disclosed. The executive has since left the competitor.
BellSouth Corp. v. Forsee, 265 Ga. App. 589, 595 S.E.2d 99 (2004). Scouten v. Amerisave Mortgage Corp., The firm served as lead counsel for Amerisave Mortgage Corp. in a dispute with a former employee who sued for violations of Georgia RICO, defamation, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Amerisave prevailed on a motion to dismiss all claims at the trial court level, and the dismissal was affirmed by the Georgia Court of Appeals. Although the defamation claims ultimately were allowed to proceed to discovery, the dismissal of the Georgia RICO claim seeking treble damages and the emotional distress claim was affirmed. The defamation claims ultimately were settled on terms favorable to the mortgage company. Trade secret misappropriation and breach of license for an aerospace manufacturing company, Trial counsel representing an aerospace products and defense parts manufacturing company, plaintiff, in a trade secret misappropriation and breach of license case. Allegations against the defendant involved claims that the defendant misused the plaintiff's trade secrets-technical data relating to a U.S. Anti-Submarine Warfare Aircraft (of which the plaintiff is the original equipment manufacturer)-to perform a direct commercial sales contract to refurbish and modernize aircraft owned by the Republic of Korea. Jury verdict for plaintiff. Case settled after trial. EyeWonder, Inc. v. John Abraham, The firm served as lead counsel for EyeWonder, Inc. in the Southern District of New York to enforce restrictive covenants when its former head of Western regional sales left to join the Los Angeles office of EyeWonder's arch-competitor, New York-based EyeBlaster, Inc. EyeWonder also initiated an arbitration proceeding in Atlanta (based on the terms of the contract). The Southern District of New York granted EyeWonder a preliminary injunction in aid of arbitration, preventing the former employee from soliciting EyeWonder's customers. After nearly a year of contentious proceedings, the arbitrator ruled in EyeWonder's favor, not only enjoining the former employee from breaching the restrictive covenants in his agreement, but also ordering him to pay all of EyeWonder's attorneys' fees and costs incurred in the arbitration. The arbitrator also concluded that all of the employee's counterclaims against EyeWonder were "without merit" and summarily dismissed them.
EyeWonder, Inc. v. John Abraham, No. 1:08-cv-03579 (S.D.N.Y. filed Apr. 14, 2008). Matsuura, et al. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Represented DuPont in "settlement fraud" case alleging federal RICO, fraud and other state law claims arising out of DuPont's alleged fraudulent inducement of hundreds of settlements of product liability claims in the early 1990s. Between 1996 and 2000, approximately 70 plaintiffs asserted "settlement fraud" claims against DuPont in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii or in Hawaii state court, and DuPont asserted claims in federal court for breach of the settlement agreement. Ultimately, all of the federal cases were consolidated under the Matsuura case style. DuPont originally prevailed in the district court on motions to dismiss the "settlement fraud" claims based on provisions in the settlement agreements. When those rulings were superseded by a ruling of the Delaware Supreme Court, DuPont filed motions for judgment on the pleadings which led to a certified question proceeding before the Hawaii Supreme Court. After the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled, the District Court granted a number of dispositive motions filed by DuPont, as did the Hawaii state court in a related case. During the pendency of appeals from those decisions, the vast majority of the Hawaii claimants settled. Similar dispositions results in Florida and Georgia litigations. Covad Comm'ns, et al. v. BellSouth Corp., et al., The firm served as lead counsel representing BellSouth in this landmark antitrust case involving essential facilities doctrine and the intersection of antitrust and telecommunication regulations, including the Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996. The United States Supreme Court ultimately decided the issue in BellSouth's favor in a companion case styled Trinko v. Verizon.
Covad Comm'ns, et al. v. BellSouth Corp., et al., No. 00-03414 (N.D. Ga. filed Dec. 22, 2000), 299 F.3d 1272 (11th Cir. 2000) vacated, 540 U.S. 1147 (2004). DuPont Kabushiki Kaisha et al. vs. Toray Industries, Inc., Represented DuPont in a dispute with a joint venture partner in Japan relative to the right of DuPont to transfer its interests in an equity affiliate as part of DuPont's sale of its textile assets to INVISTA S.A.R.L. Trade secrets litigation for a major physician staffing and placement firm, The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of a major physician staffing and placement firm in an action against a competitor and former employee to recover trade secret computer data (including customer and client data) misappropriated from our client's secure database. Litigation for Ty Cobb Regional Medical Center LLC, Represented Ty Cobb Regional Medical Center, LLC ("Ty Cobb") in an administrative appeal hearing before the Georgia Department of Community Health Certificate of Need Appeal Panel Board, in which a neighboring hospital challenged the Certificate of Need granted to Ty Cobb to consolidate two aging, rural Georgia hospitals into a single, new, $70 million hospital in Lavonia, Georgia. During a three-day, de novo hearing, the firm presented considerable evidence showing that if Ty Cobb's Certificate of Need application was not granted, both of the hospitals to be consolidated would have to close their doors, thereby depriving many of the residents of northeast Georgia of local healthcare options. The hearing officer concluded that the proposed consolidation was in the public interest and was consistent with the policy of the State of Georgia to ensure that adequate healthcare services and facilities are made available to all citizens. Accordingly, the hearing officer affirmed the Department's decision to grant Ty Cobb's CON application. Construction on the new hospital is underway, and the hospital is expected to open its doors in 2012. Arbitration for Osram Sylvania, Represented Osram Sylvania, which had entered into a long-term output contract with the Canadian, British and Vietnamese owners of the world's largest known tungsten mine located in North Vietnam near Hanoi. This ICC arbitration involved claims in excess of $300 million. MJCM, LLC v. United Community Banks, Inc., The firm served as lead counsel for United Community Banks, Inc., one of the largest bank holding companies located in Georgia, in a million dollar commercial contract dispute against an overdraft management services provider, prevailing at summary judgment before the trial court and by summary affirmance on appeal before the Fifth Circuit.
MJCM, LLC v. United Cmty. Banks, Inc., 212 Fed. Appx. 323 (5th Cir. 2007). Dee v. Sweet, Successfully represented Robert Sweet and Ralph Wright through four-week jury trial and three separate appeals in a civil RICO, fraud, libel and tortious interference case in Georgia trial court that resulted in the creation of significant new precedent under the Georgia RICO Act. In re Guantánamo Bay Detainee Litigation, The firm represents three foreign nationals who were detained by the United States government at the Guantánamo Bay detention facility. On behalf of the detainees, the firm has engaged in multidisciplinary actions across numerous venues, including habeas corpus litigation before the D.C. District Court, administrative proceedings before the "Interagency Review Team," and litigation before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The firm has also engaged in negotiations with foreign governments and non-governmental organizations in order to secure the resettlement of detainees who have been approved for release from the detention facility.
In re Guantánamo Bay Detainee Litig., Misc. No. 08-0442 (D.D.C. filed July 2, 2008). Settlement fraud litigation case for global chemical manufacturer, Represented global chemical manufacturer in "settlement fraud" litigation, securing numerous favorable rulings in connection with hundreds of claims brought in Florida, Georgia, and Hawaii. Arbitration counsel for a worldwide creator of sporting goods, The firm served as arbitration counsel for a worldwide creator of sporting goods. Parma Community General Hospital v. Premier Anesthesia of Parma, et al., Secured a significant victory for our client, Premier Anesthesia LLC ("Premier"), an anesthesiology practice management company, after a seven-day jury trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, before federal district court judge Donald Nugent. In that case, an independent, non-profit hospital located in the Cleveland, Ohio area, Parma Community General Hospital, sued Premier for fraud and mismanagement (among other claims), asserting that Premier had mismanaged the hospital's anesthesiology department and fraudulently induced the hospital to agree to a settlement agreement that significantly altered the amount of monies due between the parties as per an original agreement between them (an Anesthesiology Agreement executed between the parties in 2005). Prior to the trial, Premier secured a significant ruling on summary judgment, in which the district court found that the parties had in fact entered into a settlement. The court determined, however, that there were disputed issues of material fact concerning whether the hospital had been fraudulently induced to enter into the settlement, or that the hospital otherwise agreed to the settlement as the result of a mistake of fact. At the conclusion of the jury trial, the jury returned special interrogatories rejecting the hospital's claims for fraud and mistake and upholding the settlement agreement. The jury also rejected the hospital's claim for in excess of $1.4 million and awarded it nothing on its damages claims.
Parma Community General Hospital v. Premier Anesthesia of Parma, et al., No. 1:09-cv-00325 (N.D. Ohio filed Feb. 11, 2009). Patent litigation for a national research university, The firm served as lead counsel for a national research university, asserting a constructive trust theory to protect the university's rights in an antiviral nucleoside analogue active against HIV and HBV, under circumstances in which a pharmaceutical company had filed a U.K. patent application for the drug at issue, without naming inventors. The client's constructive trust claims survived summary judgment and the case settled on confidential terms, under which the client secured the intellectual property of its inventors. Litigation for a leading provider of interactive digital advertising products and services, The firm served as lead counsel for a leading provider of interactive digital advertising products and services in a variety of litigation matters, including complex commercial disputes, trade secret theft, and enforcement of non-compete agreements and restrictive covenants. Defense of settlement fraud case for global chemical manufacturer, Defended an international chemical manufacturer in a "settlement fraud" case, where federal RICO, fraud, and other state-law claims had been made in connection with the company's alleged fraudulent inducement of hundreds of settlements of product liability claims in the early 1990's. Between 1997 and 2000, over 200 plaintiffs asserted "settlement fraud" claims against the company in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida or in Florida state court, and the company asserted claims in federal court for breach of the settlement agreement. Ultimately, all of the federal cases were consolidated. The company prevailed in the district court on motions to dismiss the "settlement fraud" claims based on provisions in the settlement agreements. When those rulings were superseded by a ruling of the Delaware Supreme Court, the company filed motions for judgment on the pleadings in a "lead case," which the District Court granted and which the Eleventh Circuit affirmed. The company then filed summary judgment motions to have the rulings in the lead case applied to the other claimants' cases. The District Court granted those motions in 2004. During the pendency of appeals, the overwhelming majority of the Florida claimants settled. On November 27, 2006, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's summary judgment rulings as to the thirty-three remaining Florida claimants. *Experience gained by attorney prior to joining Kilpatrick Townsend Publications 08 May 2011, How to Prevent Misuse of Electronic Info - Training, Policies Help Protect Businesses from Rogue Employees
Source: Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Articles 24 April 2008, Restrictive Covenants: Non-Solicitation of Customer Clauses - Enforceability, Legal Alerts 19 February 2007, Opinions, and Dangers, in MDL Interlocutory Appeals
Source: National Law Journal, Articles 01 January 2006, Business Torts & Unfair Competition
Source: ABA Antitrust Section Handbook, Books 01 January 2006, Hiring From Competitors
Source: Intellectual Property Desk Reference, Other Publications 01 May 2004, State Antitrust Practice and Statutes
Source: ABA Section of Antitrust Law, Articles 01 January 2004, State Antitrust Practice and Statutes
Source: ABA Antitrust Treatise, Other Publications 01 January 2004, "Derivative Litigation" of Business Tort and Civil RICO Claims: The Eleventh Circuit Affirms the Dismissal of Claims Fashioned out of the Conduct of Prior Litigation
Source: Business Torts and RICO News, Articles 01 November 2002, Southern District of New York Holds That Private Plaintiffs May Obtain Injunctive Relief Under the Federal RICO Statute
Source: RICO News, Articles 01 November 2002, Sikes v. Teleline, Inc.: The Eleventh Circuit Rejects "Fraud on the Market" Theory as Device to Certify Consumer Fraud and Civil RICO Class Action
Source: RICO News, Articles 01 April 2002, Practice Aid: Avoid "Shotgun Pleading"
Source: RICO News, Articles 01 July 2001, Practice Aid: Verdict Form for a RICO Case
Source: RICO News, Articles 01 January 2001, The Right Against Self-Incrimination in Litigation
Source: ABA Antitrust Section Handbook, Other Publications 01 January 2001, The Seventh Circuit Holds That Private Plaintiffs May Obtain Injunctive Relief Under the Federal RICO Statute
Source: RICO News, Articles 01 January 2001, Avoiding the Fifth Amendment Dilemma: Stays and Protective Orders
Source: American Bar Association Publishing, Articles 01 July 2000, Update: RICO Attacks on the HMO Industry
Source: RICO News, Articles 01 January 2000, Update: Second Circuit Affirms Noer-Pennington Dismissal of Federal RICO Claims
Source: RICO News, Articles 01 June 1999, Supreme Court Grants Certiorari in Statute of Limitation and Whistleblower Cases
Source: RICO News, Articles 01 January 1995, Basics of the Federal Grand Jury
Source: Law Education Institute, Articles Corporate Espionage, Emerging Issues News 06 September 2011, Kilpatrick Townsend Earns Record-Breaking Recognition in Annual Best Lawyers in America 2012, News Releases 13 June 2011, Kilpatrick Townsend Again Earns Highest Recognition From CHAMBERS USA 2011, News Releases 02 March 2011, Kilpatrick Townsend Once Again Achieves Top Recognition in 2011 Georgia Super Lawyers, News Releases 12 August 2010, Kilpatrick Stockton Earns Record-Breaking Recognition in Annual Best Lawyers in America 2011, News Releases 14 June 2010, Kilpatrick Stockton Again Earns Highest Recognition From CHAMBERS USA 2010, News Releases 04 March 2010, Kilpatrick Stockton Ranked Number One in Five 2010 Georgia Super Lawyer Categories, News Releases 04 August 2009, Kilpatrick Stockton Earns Record-Breaking Recognition in Annual Best Lawyers in America 2010, News Releases 28 July 2009, Kilpatrick Stockton Partner Jay Bogan Named Fellow to the Prestigious Litigation Counsel of America, News Releases 15 June 2009, Kilpatrick Stockton Once Again Earns Highest Recognition From Chambers USA, News Releases 02 March 2009, Kilpatrick Stockton Ranked Number One in Five Georgia Super Lawyer Categories, News Releases Events 23 October 2008, Eleventh Circuit Appellate Practice Institute, Events |