Appellate Litigation

Print PDF


RK&O maintains a highly accomplished appellate litigation practice, covering civil, criminal and regulatory matters. Collectively, litigation partners at RK&O have briefed and argued dozens of cases in the federal and state courts of appeal on behalf of inter-dealer brokers, hedge funds, securities firms and other financial industry clients. We also represent trade associations, academics and other clients as amici curiae in important appellate cases, including cases before the Supreme Court of the United States and the Court of Appeals of the State of New York.


  • Inter-dealer broker NEX plc (f/k/a ICAP plc) and affiliates before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in multiple appeals stemming from the dismissal of federal court actions brought by class action plaintiffs alleging manipulation of the Yen Libor, Euroyen Tibor, Euribor, and Swiss Franc Libor benchmark rates. We successfully obtained dismissal of the underlying complaints, which alleged antitrust, Commodity Exchange Act, and RICO claims, on antitrust standing, capacity, and personal jurisdiction grounds.
  • A group of financial economists as amici curiae before U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit in Superannuation Scheme Ltd. v. Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. Petrobras (In re Petrobras Sec.), 862 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2017). Amici filed a brief supporting defendants’ argument that evidence proffered by plaintiffs was not sufficient to demonstrate market efficiency for purposes of invoking fraud on the market theory.
  • The Loan Syndications and Trading Association (LSTA) as amicus curiae before N.Y. Court of Appeals in case addressing enforceability of auction sale of loan. Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiffs and LSTA that defendant’s acceptance of plaintiffs’ bid created enforceable agreement to sell loan. Stonehill Capital Management, LLC v. Bank of the West, No. 191 (Dec. 20, 2016).
  • A group of tax economists as amici curiae before U.S. Supreme Court in Comptroller of Treasury of Maryland v. Wynne, 135 S. Ct. 1787 (2015). Supreme Court sided with position of amici and respondents that Maryland’s state income tax scheme violated the dormant Commerce Clause. Majority opinion adopted amici’s analysis of how tax scheme discriminated against interstate commerce and cited their brief.
  • Defendant Wachovia Corporation in appeal before U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit in purported antitrust class actions against financial institutions based on collapse of auction rate securities market. Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of complaints for failure to state a claim. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore v. Citigroup, Inc., 709 F.3d 129 (2d Cir. 2013).
  • A group of former SEC commissioners and officials as amici curiae before U.S. Supreme Court in Gabelli v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 133 S. Ct. 1216 (2013). In unanimous decision, Supreme Court adopted position of amici and petitioners that the five-year statute of limitations for government penalty actions does not include implied “discovery rule” for fraud claims.
  • Financial Guaranty Insurance Company (FGIC) before U.S. Court of Appeals for Second Circuit in action brought by State of Louisiana against FGIC seeking rescission of bond insurance policy. Second Circuit affirmed district court’s dismissal of complaint for failure to state a claim. Louisiana Stadium & Exposition District v. Financial Guaranty Insurance Co., 701 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2012).
  • Credit Suisse (CS) in appeal before N.Y. Appellate Division in contract action brought by CS against financial institutions based on agreement to sell distressed loan. Appellate Division affirmed denial of defendants’ motion to limit damages sought by CS. Credit Suisse First Boston v. Utecht-America Finance Co., 84 A.D.3d 579 (1st Dep’t 2011).
  • A group of former prosecutors as amici curiae before N.Y. Court of Appeals in landmark civil rights action Hurrell-Harring v. State of New York, 15 N.Y.3d 8 (2010). Court of Appeals agreed with plaintiffs and amici that allegations of systemic deficiencies in provision of indigent defense services stated cognizable claim that indigent defendants were being deprived of constitutional rights.