David J. Lewis

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Litigation

In recent years, David has focused his practice on litigation before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, including:

• serving as principal trial counsel for ExxonMobil Pipeline Company in on-going “prudence” litigation relating to $750 million pump station upgrade on the Trans Alaska Pipeline System; 
• representing the Alaska Pipeline Project in connection with FERC open season application for new Alaska gas pipeline - see 130 FERC ¶ 61,263 (2010); 
• defending crude oil and refined products pipelines in complaint case proceedings at FERC - see 127 FERC ¶ 61,288 (2009), aff’d, 636 F.3d 719 (5th Cir. 2011); 123 FERC ¶ 61,106 (2008); and 
• serving as lead trial counsel for a Northeast electrical utility in a transmission system joint venture dispute - see 118 FERC ¶ 63,027 (2007), aff’d, 122 FERC ¶61,169 (2008).

Complex Commercial Litigation

David has also handled a variety of other commercial and contract cases. His recent significant representations include:

• Bank of America in multi-district litigation growing out of the bankruptcy of the Italian company Parmalat; 
• a leading medical testing laboratory in arbitration arising under joint venture agreement; 
• a global automotive component supplier in multi-party commercial warranty litigation; 
• a U.S.–based insurance company in international arbitration brought under NAFTA; and 
• a research-based pharmaceutical company in arbitration/mediation arising under co-marketing agreement.

From 1995 to 2000, David served as national counsel for Suzuki Motor Corporation in high-profile products liability and related commercial disparagement litigation. In the 1990’s, he represented a gas pipeline company in litigation/arbitration growing out of the Great Plains Coal Gasification project. During 1993-94, David was trial counsel for Committee of Unsecured Creditors in a $500 million adversary claim proceeding as part of Columbia Gas Transmission Company bankruptcy.

David played significant roles in the Firm’s representation of AT&T in FCC, antitrust and related litigation from 1976 to 1990. A member of the trial team in U.S. v. AT&T, he also had principal pretrial responsibility in a number of private treble damages cases. David continued to represent AT&T in arbitrations relating to implementation of the Bell Operating Companies divestiture and in a Lanham Act deceptive advertising suit brought by a long-distance competitor.

Commercial Arbitration

David has been the sole arbitrator or one of three panel members in more than 35 commercial and business organization disputes, including cases in the automobile racing, entertainment, healthcare, hospitality, legal services, mortgage brokerage, pesticide and telecommunications industries. His representative cases include:

• a compensation claim by a former partner against a national law firm (sole arbitrator – 3 days of hearings);
• a dispute between a television producer and international distributor under programming distribution contract (sole arbitrator – 6 days of hearings);
• a dispute regarding exercise of right of first refusal under a radio spectrum lease agreement (sole arbitrator – 3 days of hearings);
• a dispute arising out of a contract between a television program producer and a PR firm (sole arbitrator – 10 days of hearings);
• multiparty claims arising out of an alleged breach of a hotel convention facilities contract (Panel chairman – 6 days of hearing);
• a claim based on an alleged breach of contract relating to publication of construction industry standards (Panel member – 5 days of hearing);
• an alleged breach of a joint venture agreement in the automobile racing business (Panel member – 10 days of hearings);
• a dispute relating to earn out payments under a contract for the purchase and sale of a cell phone tower business ( Panel member – 9 days of hearings);
• an indemnity action by a national mortgage brokerage firm against former branch manager (Panel Member - 9 days of hearings); and
• a dispute under a marketing agreement relating to payroll processing products (sole arbitrator – 3 days of hearings).