Lauri Sawyer is a trial lawyer who litigates complex disputes in federal and state courts, as well as in domestic and international arbitral forums. She has extensive experience litigating cases involving structured financial products and derivatives. Lauri was derivatives counsel to Lehman Brothers Holdings and its affiliated debtors and tried the first derivatives cases in the Lehman bankruptcy. Lauri's in-depth knowledge of financial issues allows her to facilitate the effective resolution of disputes prior to trial through negotiation and mediation. Lauri is a member of Jones Day's LIBOR transition task force and blockchain working group.
Lauri's trial experience extends beyond the financial arena and includes disputes involving securities, constitutional and voting issues, project finance, and asylum. She has participated in foreign court proceedings and appeals, as well as worldwide discovery and enforcement efforts. Lauri's international arbitration experience includes arbitrations pursuant to the AAA, ICC, and UNCITRAL rules. She is experienced in the enforcement of arbitration awards and collateral proceedings designed to protect arbitration clauses. Lauri also is well-versed in disputes arising under the Lanham Act, including false advertising claims. She has successfully prosecuted and defended actions in federal court and before the National Advertising Division (NAD). Lauri regularly lectures on litigation and e-discovery issues.
Lauri is strongly committed to pro bono service, especially for clients with family law and immigration issues. Lauri was recognized as an Equality Trailblazer by The National Law Journal. She also serves on several advisory and nonprofit boards, including the Hudson Valley Shakespeare Festival.
经验
The following represents experience prior to joining Jones Day.
Bechtel Corporation
Capital India Power Mauritius I v. The State of Maharashtra, No. 12913/MS (ICC International Court of Arbitration 2004)
Recovered over $100 million for a subsidiary of Bechtel Corporation for claims arising out of the failed Dabhol Power Project in India. Confirmed the award and commenced enforcement proceedings.
Capital India Power Mauritius I v. Maharashtra Power Dev. Corp. Ltd., 03 Civ. 7394 (LAK) (S.D.N.Y.)
Obtained an order compelling respondents to participate in the arbitration, as well as a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction and permanent injunction directing respondents not to interfere with the arbitration on behalf of a Bechtel subsidiary. Obtained an order of contempt for respondents’ failure to participate in the arbitration.
Capital India Power Mauritius I v. The Government of the Republic of India (UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and An Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Mauritius and the Government of the Republic of India for the promotion and protection of investments signed on 2 September 1998). Represented subsidiaries of General Electric and Bechtel in connection with violations of international law related to the expropriation of the Dabhol Power Project. Was involved with the action from the commencement of the arbitration through the favorable settlement that was finalized days before the hearing.
General Electric Capital Corporation
Bechtel Enters. Int’l (Bermuda) v. Overseas Private Invest. Corp., 50 T 195 00509 02 (American Arbitration Association 2003)
Recovered under a political risk insurance policy issued by the Overseas Private Investment Corporation for the alleged expropriation of investments in the Dabhol Power Project in India following a five-day arbitration hearing.
Capital India Power Mauritius I v. The Government of the Republic of India (UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules and An Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Mauritius and the Government of the Republic of India for the promotion and protection of investments signed on 2 September 1998). Represented subsidiaries of General Electric and Bechtel in connection with violations of international law related to the expropriation of the Dabhol Power Project. Was involved with the action from the commencement of the arbitration through the favorable settlement that was finalized days before the hearing.
JP Morgan Chase Bank
The Chase Manhattan Bank v. Motorola, 00 Civ. 4838 (ACH) (S.D.N.Y.)
Obtained a $365 million judgment following a 10-day bench trial arising from claims related to the failure of Iridium, a joint venture to provide world-wide satellite phone service.
The Chase Manhattan Bank v. Iridium Africa Corp., 00-564-JJF (D. Del.); The Chase Manhattan Bank v. Iridium Italia S.p.A., No. 02-1368 (D. Del.); The Chase Manhattan Bank v. BCE Mobile Comms. Inc., No. 02-1369 (D. Del.)
Obtained an entry of summary judgment in a $250 million breach of contract claim against a number of foreign and domestic defendants.
JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Pacific Electric Wire & Cable Co., 4:04MC34 (E.D. Tex)
Argued for and obtained an order directing an affiliate of a Taiwanese corporation to turn over all assets found in the jurisdiction in order to satisfy a $10 million default judgment.
Pollux Holding Ltd. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, 99CV11855 (S.D.N.Y.); Springwell Navigation Corp. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, 99CV11855 (S.D.N.Y.); Pollux Holding, Ltd. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, No. 01-7488 (2d Cir.); Springwell Navigation Corp. v. The Chase Manhattan Bank, No. 01-7492 (2d Cir.)
Obtained a dismissal of claims seeking over $1.2 billion in damages and successfully defended the dismissal of the action on appeal.
The Toronto Dominion Bank and TD Ameritrade
Gebbia v. The Toronto Dominion Bank, Index No. 00/604862 (NY County); Reich v. The Toronto Dominion Bank, 2001-00900 (NYSE Arbitration)
Represented the Toronto Dominion Bank and TD Waterhouse (now TD Ameritrade) in connection with employment disputes arising from the acquisition of a discount brokerage. The cases settled following mediations.
Wyeth
Wyeth v. McNeil-PPC, Inc., 03 Civ. 10149 (DAB) (S.D.N.Y.)
Sought an injunction on behalf of Wyeth for Tylenol’s advertising claim that it "starts to work" in 10 minutes.
Advised Wyeth on multiple challenges before National Advertising Council of Better Business Bureaus.
Challenged a demonstration for Tylenol Rapid Release Gels and the claim that RRGs "release powerful medicine even faster than before" was inaccurate. NAD found that McNeil had not substantiated the claim as to all pain relievers and needed to specify which pain relievers it claimed to be faster than.
Challenged Aleve's claim that it gives "prescription strength relief without a prescription." NAD found that Bayer failed to substantiate this claim.
Challenged McNeil's claim that "Tylenol Arthritis Pain is as effective as ibuprofen at fighting arthritis pain." NAD found that McNeil had substantiated this claim.
Challenged McNeil's claim that Tylenol Arthritis Pain has fewer drug interactions than Advil. NAD found that McNeil failed to substantiate this claim.
Challenged McNeil's claim regarding Doctor's Recommendations for Tylenol. NAD found that McNeil failed to substantiate this claim.
Pro Bono Representations
Obtained permission for a battered woman dying of cancer to take her son to her native New Zealand, despite the fact that she had previously been charged with kidnapping the child. Received inMotion's Commitment to Justice Award in 2001 for outstanding service for the work done on this case.
Obtained a writ of habeas corpus to recover a child after the client’s ex-husband kidnapped the child in an effort to have the client withdraw her requests for child support. Was able to permit the client to recover her son within 12 hours of notification.
Obtained a sizeable spousal support award for a woman who fled from the marital home after being held hostage at gunpoint.
Obtained a green card for a Pakistani woman who married an abusive man as part of an arranged marriage, pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act.
Obtained numerous orders of protection for battered women, many of whom do not speak English, as well as favorable child support and visitation awards.
Represented a small business owner in lower Manhattan who had his business destroyed on 9/11, in connection with his tax-related issues.
Obtained a dismissal of a wrongful death action brought against the City of New York.
Successfully resisted an attempt to have an elderly disabled woman evicted for allegedly subletting her apartment.
Represented non-party Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) in a case brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act for alleged genocide that took place in the Sudan. Successfully resisted a Request for International Judicial Assistance filed with the Netherlands court, requesting the deposition of a former employee and documents.
- September 2019
PLI's Electronic Discovery Nuts & Bolts 2019 - September 2018
PLI's Electronic Discovery Nuts & Bolts 2018 - September 2017
PLI's Electronic Discovery Nuts & Bolts 2017 - September 2016
PLI's Nuts & Bolts of Electronic Discovery 2016 - April 17-21, 2012
Jones Day Sponsors the ABA Section of International Law Spring Meeting in New York - March 7, 2011
PLI’s International Arbitration 2011 - February 2, 2007
International Investment and Transnational Litigation: Challenges of Expanding Investor-State Disputes, panelist, University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Economic Law Symposium
- Mercer University (J.D. magna cum laude 1997); University of Washington (M.A. in Russian Studies 1994); University of Denver (B.A. in International Studies cum laude 1992)
- New York and Virginia
Recognized as Equality Trailblazer (individual award) by The National Law Journal (2019)
Her Justice (formerly inMotion) Commitment to Justice Award — Firm Award (2015)
inMotion Commitment to Justice Award — Individual Award (2001)
- Law Clerk to: the Honorable Robert G. Doumar, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (1998-1999) and the Honorable Anthony A. Alaimo, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Georgia (1997-1998)
发送前请注意
*Information on www.jonesday.com is for general use and is not legal advice. The mailing of this email is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Anything that you send to anyone at our Firm will not be confidential or privileged unless we have agreed to represent you. If you send this email, you confirm that you have read and understand this notice