Kazowitz Firm Ripped by DC Circuit for 'Legal Artifice' in Megabillions Whistleblower Case
The D.C. Circuit refused to revive a lawsuit that sought to wrest $90 billion in fines and penalties from four chemical companies—and to set up a $27 billion windfall for Kasowitz Benson Torres.
July 08, 2019 at 02:46 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The American Lawyer
New York-based litigation powerhouse Kasowitz Benson Torres can't revive a whistleblower lawsuit that alleged a quartet of chemical manufacturers cheated the Environmental Protection Agency out of billions in fines, a federal appeals court ruled Friday.
The ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit suggested that the firm had thrown a Hail Mary with its qui tam complaint against Dow Chemical Co., Bayer MaterialScience, BASF Corp. and Huntsman International, motivated by the prospect of multibillion-dollar whistleblower award.
“'Pecunia non satiat avaritiam, sed inritat”' translates from Latin to English as 'money doesn't satisfy greed; it stimulates it,'” wrote U.S. Circuit Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson. “This case teaches that money also stimulates legal artifice.”
Kasowitz said in a 2016 complaint that the chemical manufacturers failed to hand over information to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency about the substantial risk of injuries posed by isocyanate, a common chemical used in a variety of consumer products. While representing coal miners in a prior lawsuit, Kasowitz lawyers uncovered company documents that showed that just touching or inhaling a small amount of isocyanate could cause permanent pulmonary injury in humans.
The Kasowitz firm contended that the four companies were consequently on the hook for $90 billion in fines and penalties, a figure that could net the firm $27 billion, or 30% of the recovery.
Senior Judge Rosemary Collyer of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed Kasowitz's complaint in 2017, finding that, since the EPA had not handed out any penalties, the companies did not have an “obligation” to pay the government.
Following oral argument in May, the appeals court came to the same conclusion. The panel rejected the firm's argument that the Toxic Substances Control Act compelled the companies to pay a penalty as soon as they violated the statue, pointing to the EPA's discretion over whether to pardon or forgive civil penalties.
“We are disappointed that the courts have not held these chemical companies to account for their egregious refusal for many decades to adhere to their obligations to protect public health and safety,” the firm said in a statement.
Latham & Watkins' Gregory Garre, who argued the appeal for the defendants, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigator of the Week: A Long-Sought Win on Preemption for Monsanto at the Third Circuit
Litigators of the Week: A Defense Verdict for Dow and PPG in Quarter Century-Old Environmental Litigation
Litigators of the Week: Sullivan & Cromwell Scores International Arbitration Win for Bayer Over Assets Sold to BASF
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250