NEXT

William T. Russell, Jr.

William T. Russell, Jr.

Bill Russell is a Partner at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP in the Firm’s Litigation Department. He represents clients in a wide variety of commercial disputes including banking litigation, bankruptcy and reorganization matters, securities litigation, and contractual and transactional disputes, and has tried cases in state and federal courts, as well as in arbitral proceedings. His clients include leading financial institutions, private equity sponsors, corporations and other businesses. He has handled cases involving derivative transactions, residential mortgage-backed securities, secured lending syndicates, M&A transactions, Ponzi schemes, apparel licensing agreements, and auction rate securities, among other issues. He was one of the leaders of the defense group in Adelphia Recovery Trust v. Bank of America, et al. and led the negotiations that resulted in a settlement of that litigation for a small fraction of the claimed damages. He also recently represented one of the lead creditors in the In re Jefferson County Chapter 9 proceedings that, at the time, were the largest municipal bankruptcy proceedings in U.S. history. He also recently obtained a $168 million judgment for a large financial institution in a case involving an interest rate derivative transaction with a Brazilian manufacturing concern and is currently representing a number of financial institutions in connection with claims arising out of their issuance of residential mortgage-backed securities. He maintains an active pro bono practice and served as Co-Chair of the Firm’s Pro Bono Committee for almost 10 years. He has represented pro bono clients in a number of areas including housing, education and discrimination matters. He represented the Campaign for Fiscal Equity in its successful constitutional challenge to the public education funding system in New York State. He has been awarded the Legal Aid Society’s Award for Outstanding Pro Bono Service and Manhattan Legal Service’s Visionary Leadership Award in connection with his pro bono and public service efforts. Bill is a member of the American Law Institute; former Chair of the New York City Bar Association’s Committee on Pro Bono and Legal Services and member of its delegation to the New York State Bar Association’s House of Delegates and current Chair of its Special Committee on Legal Services Awards; former Chairman of the Board of Manhattan Legal Services; a member of the Advisory Board of Legal Outreach, Inc.; a member of the Board of the National Center for Access to Justice and the Board of Legal Services NYC; co-chair of the New York State Bar Association’s President’s Committee on Access to Justice and a member of its Special Committee on Student Loan Assistance for the Public Interest; and a former member of the Board of Directors of the Lawyers Alliance for New York. He was selected as a David Rockefeller Fellow for 2000–2001. He currently serves as a Panel Chair on the Disciplinary Committee for the First Judicial Department and was appointed by New York State Court of Appeals Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman to the Chief Judge’s Attorney Emeritus Council. Bill was a featured speaker at the 2012 and 2014 Southeastern Bankruptcy Law Institutes. He is co-author of the monthly column “New York Court of Appeals Roundup” appearing in the New York Law Journal, which discusses significant decisions by New York’s highest court. He has been recognized as a “litigation star” in Euromoney’s Benchmark Litigation, recognized by The Legal 500, and named in New York Super Lawyers. Bill joined Simpson Thacher in 1990 and became a Partner in 1999. He received his A.B., magna cum laude, from Princeton University in 1987 and his J.D. from New York University School of Law in 1990. He is admitted to practice before the Southern, Eastern and Northern District Courts of New York, the United States District of Arizona, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second and Fourth Circuits, the United States Supreme Court and all Courts of the State of New York.

January 17, 2017 | New York Law Journal

'Stonehill Capital' Clarifies When an Agreement Is Binding and Enforceable

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Roy Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. review a decision where the court found a defendant had entered into a binding agreement and was liable for breach despite the fact that its acceptance of a bid was expressly subject to the execution of a final agreement and despite the fact that the defendant expressly reserved the right, in its sole and absolute discretion, to withdraw from sale any or all of the assets it had offered to sell.

By Roy Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

12 minute read

December 29, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Correspondent Bank Accounts and Personal Jurisdiction

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup column, Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. discuss the court's decision addressing the circumstances in which a foreign bank's use of a correspondent bank account in New York will subject it to personal jurisdiction. In a 4-3 decision, the court ruled that the manner in which the defendant used the services of New York correspondent bank accounts subjected it to personal jurisdiction in New York. The dissent in the case warned that the decision represents an “about-face” from a prior rule on which foreign banks have relied for four decades, but the majority and a concurring opinion by Judge Michael Garcia took great pains to reconcile their ruling with existing precedent. At the end of the day, the decision provides additional clarity as to the circumstances in which the use of a correspondent account will subject a foreign bank defendant to personal jurisdiction.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

13 minute read

November 15, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Complexities in Applying Champerty in Large-Scale Commercial Cases Noted

New York Court of Appeals columnists Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. analyze the court's decision dismissing a case based on the doctrine of champerty, in 'Justinian Capital SPC v. WestLB AG', a concept dating back to French feudal times. It is essentially a prohibition on the buying and selling of litigation claims and provides a defense to the party against whom the purchased or sold claim is asserted. The majority decision upholds the principles behind champerty, but recognizes that New York is a leading commercial center and center of commercial litigation and, accordingly, preserves the ability of sophisticated parties to engage in large-scale transactions that might otherwise run afoul of the prohibition on champerty.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

12 minute read

October 18, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Overturning Precedent on Meaning of Parenting

New York Court of Appeals Roundup columnists Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. discuss the significance of the Court of Appeals' decision that brings New York State in line with an increasing number of states in expanding the rights of single-sex parents with respect to child custody and visitation rights and in recognizing the evolution in the concept of "family" that has occurred in recent decades. The decision is a rare instance in which the court overturned its own earlier interpretation of a statute—something the court generally does only when the precedent was "contrary to the legislative purpose underlying the statute…unworkable or…impose[d]…hardship on litigants or the trial courts."

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

12 minute read

July 18, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Common Interest Doctrine; Juror Note; AG's Greenberg Case

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. discuss cases in which the court addressed the application of the common interest doctrine to communications shared between companies in the process of merging, affirmed the denial of summary judgment to two former AIG executives in a case brought by the Attorney General, and determined that a trial court's failure to meaningfully respond to a note from a deliberating jury does not require reversal as long as counsel had been given notice of the note's content.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

23 minute read

June 15, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Business Judgment v. Entire Fairness; Judicial Salaries Litigation

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. discuss cases in which the court addressed the standard of review for analyzing a "going-private" corporate transaction, approved the rejection of a class action settlement that did not afford non-resident class members an opportunity to opt out, and denied an effort by state judges to obtain damages for the Legislature's failure to enact judicial salary increases.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

22 minute read

May 18, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Lead Paint, Recording Conversation, Foundation for DNA Evidence

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. address cases in which the court found that there is no duty to remove lead paint from premises in which children only stay part-time, examined the requirements for establishing an evidentiary foundation for the introduction of DNA evidence, and found that parents or guardians may surreptitiously record interactions between their child and others if the child is deemed to have consented vicariously.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

22 minute read

April 20, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Smoking Ban, Ineffective Assistance Claim

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. discuss a case upholding a smoking ban in state parks in New York City, a case finding defense counsel's failure to object to stereotyped and misogynist statements during summation did not amount to ineffective assistance, and a case finding a complaint arising out of an episode of reality television sufficiently stated a claim for breach of patient-physician confidentiality.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

23 minute read

March 16, 2016 | New York Law Journal

False Arrest; Toxic Torts; Arbitration and Insurance

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. discuss cases addressing the sufficiency of the evidence necessary for false arrest and malicious prosecution claims to survive summary judgments and applying the Frye standard to expert testimony in a toxic tort case, along with a case concerning whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act precluded application of the FAA to compel arbitration of an insurance agreement.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

11 minute read

January 20, 2016 | New York Law Journal

Wade Hearings and Identification Procedures in Criminal Cases

In their New York Court of Appeals Roundup, Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr. discuss cases addressing the application of the Federal Arbitration Act, the procedure for evaluating the suggestiveness of out-of-court identifications of criminal defendants, and the legal duties owed by doctors and those who provide medical services to third parties injured by a patient.

By Roy L. Reardon and William T. Russell Jr.

12 minute read