Most Innovative Public Company Legal Department of the Year Finalist: Lyft
"Lyft's growth and expansion has been astronomic over the last 18 months, and the legal team has been uncompromising in its ability to help the company achieve business goals and take us closer and closer to realizing our mission," says general counsel Kristin Sverchek.
October 31, 2019 at 07:30 AM
4 minute read
To say it was a busy year for the lawyers at ride-hailing company Lyft would be a gross understatement. The Lyft legal team led the company to an industry-first IPO, navigated the acquisition of bike-sharing company Motivate, and won a legal battle against SFMTA, which led to the launch of its new dockless bikes in San Francisco. Lyft was a finalist for Most Innovative Public Company Legal Department of the Year as part of the California Leaders in Tech Law and Innovation Awards. Lyft general counsel Kristin Sverchek recently shared how her team managed such a momentous year.
What are the distinguishing characteristics of Lyft's in-house legal department and the lawyers and staff that make it up?
Kristin Sverchek: Lyft's growth and expansion has been astronomic over the last 18 months, and the legal team has been uncompromising in its ability to help the company achieve business goals and take us closer and closer to realizing our mission. To be on Lyft's legal team requires the ability to scale just as quickly as the business does—constantly reviewing and up-leveling processes and work to match the increasing complexity of the business, the sophistication of our partners and the challenges we meet as we expand our transportation offerings into cities across North America.
Because of that, Lyft's legal team deals with disparate practice areas—personal injury, regulatory, intellectual property, employment, disability law and privacy, just to name a few. It's an extremely well-rounded team that can handle a multitude of complex legal issues.
What was the biggest challenge your in-house team faced in the past year and how did you overcome it?
When the San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency (SFMTA) refused to comply with its obligations pursuant to Lyft's contract to be the exclusive bike-share system in San Francisco:
Lyft closed its acquisition of Motivate, the bike-share system, in December 2018. And as part of this acquisition, Lyft also acquired a number of exclusive city contracts that make it the only bike-share system in a number of cities. However, when the SFMTA challenged its contract, Lyft's litigation team filed a suit to block the city from granting bike permits to other companies, including Lyft's primary competitors. Lyft won the case in San Francisco Superior Court, which led to Lyft launching their new dockless bikes in the city. The legal team's victory was a huge step towards unlocking new modes of transportation across North America—a key part of growth for the company as we continue down our journey as a public company.
Besides that challenge, what was your legal department's most significant accomplishment of the past year and why?
Becoming the first major tech company to IPO in 2019:
Lyft started preparing for its IPO in summer 2018, and officially kicked off the process that fall. Lyft's corporate team led the project, including drafting the S-1, working with underwriters' counsel on diligence, staying up to date on hot-button issues for the SEC, and managing all communications with Lyft's CFO and CEO. To make matters more complicated was a record 35-day government shutdown and Lyft's main competitor filing their S-1 on the exact same day. Of note, Lyft's S-1 had far fewer comments in general compared to the competition. And ultimately, Lyft still went public within the originally planned time frame due to the corporate team's deep experience and exceptional draft registration statements.
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 AllCollectible Maker Funko Wins Motion to Dismiss Securities Class Action
How Tony West Used Transparency to Reform Uber's Toxic Culture
What Paul Grewal Has Learned About Advocacy as Coinbase's Top Lawyer
7 minute readShowered With Stock, Tech GCs Incentivized to 'Knock It Out of the Park'
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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