Keker & Van Nest represents plaintiffs and defendants in a broad range of commercial disputes. This representation includes federal and state court litigation, arbitrations, mediations, and appeals. Representative matters the firm has handled are described below.

• We represented a corporation sued by two individuals who alleged that they had been sales representatives and had been promised company stock when the company went public. After a non-binding arbitration resulted in a $96 million ruling in the sales representatives' favor, we were hired to defend the action in court. We brought a successful summary judgment motion that eliminated all of the plaintiffs' major claims and settled the single remaining claim on terms extremely favorable to our client.
• We represented the co-founder of a manufacturing company in a suit for breach of contract against the other co-founder. After a seven-week jury trial, the jury awarded our client $84 million. After reversal on appeal, we obtained a settlement during the retrial for an amount that we believe to be the largest ever for a case of this nature.
• We represented a medical inventor and corporate director in an action alleging that he had committed breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty by disclosing plaintiff's confidential product development plans to a competitor and by preventing plaintiff from competing in markets occupied by the competitor. Our client cross-claimed for unpaid royalties on products he had invented. After a jury trial lasting approximately six weeks, the jury returned a verdict in favor of our client on all claims, awarding him the complete amount of unpaid royalties and denying plaintiff any relief.
• In a contract arbitration involving rights to commercial GPS markets following the acquisition by our client of defendant's company, we represented a leading GPS technology corporation. The arbitrator awarded our client rights to all commercial survey, construction, and agricultural markets, as plead in the arbitration demand, and enjoined defendant from all use of our client's trademarks or trade names. Our client was also exonerated of any tort liability for interference with contract or prospective advantage.
• We represented a public authority in an arbitration against a sports franchise that had failed to pay some $20 million in "premium seating" revenues that were earmarked to pay off construction debt for the team's new stadium. The contracts were complex and their interrelationship a subject of dispute. The arbitrator entered an award in favor of our client, and the team appealed, claiming that the arbitrator's contract interpretation had implicitly eliminated his own jurisdiction. The California Court of Appeal affirmed the award in our client's favor.
• In an action for breach of a partnership agreement and dissolution, we represented one of the founding families of the Oakland Raiders against the general partner. The general partner contended that our clients had forfeit their right to vote or inspect records. We obtained summary adjudication on behalf of our clients, establishing their status as limited partners and restoring their right to inspect records of the partnership. The matter was recently settled on terms very favorable to our client.
• We represented the owner of a Silicon Valley office building in a commercial mortgage dispute in San Francisco County Superior Court. In January of 2005, we obtained a jury verdict of $40.8 million, including $7.8 million in compensatory damages and $33 million in punitive damages against GMAC Commercial Mortgage. The case is presently on appeal.
• We represented a technology company in an arbitration concerning a joint venture agreement for development of semiconductor manufacturing test equipment. Defendants denied the existence of any joint venture, and claimed that our client had been fully paid for its services in connection with developing the business. In the arbitration, the panel found for our client on all issues, awarded half the value of the business, imposed a royalty on products that might be developed in the future, and entered an award of attorneys' fees.
• We represented a venture capital subsidiary of a major securities firm in a contract claim for damages arising from a term sheet in which a pre-IPO technology company had agreed to provide securities in exchange for pre-IPO services. When defendant refused to honor its commitment, we prepared a complaint, threatened suit to enforce the term sheet, and resolved the matter on very favorable terms with delivery of securities within thirty days of the demand.
• We represented a software company sued for breach of an information-technology requirements contract and related fraud claims. Our client counter-claimed for breach of contract and fraud, alleging that the supplier had refused to renegotiate the contract in good faith and had billed for work not performed. After a three-week arbitration, the arbitrator awarded our client $1.4 million in damages and awarded nothing to the plaintiff.
• We represented a partnership in two consolidated actions in which our opponents were seeking to enjoin the construction of an underground parking facility in Golden Gate Park—a $50 million project. San Francisco voters had approved the project in a 1998 ballot initiative as part of a larger effort to revitalize the museums and grounds of this world-famous park. After a bench trial, the Court ruled that no injunction would be issued. The Court found in favor of the City and County of San Francisco and our client on all grounds, except for an issue relating to the entrance/exit to the garage.
• We represented a partnership in a matter that was tried in Colorado that cleared the way for the creation of the Great Sand Dunes National Park. Claims brought by parties claiming an interest in a large ranch with massive underground water reserves in Southern Colorado were defeated, allowing for sale of this ranch to the Federal Government. In a related arbitration, we had previously overcome claims by other parties, also seeking to block creation of the National Park.
• We defended a refining company in a complex breach-of-contract action brought by a consulting firm. The case raised novel issues concerning the admission of parol evidence of collateral agreements. We cross-claimed for $2 million that our client had overpaid. The district court granted summary judgment for our client on the plaintiff's main claims and for the plaintiff on our cross-claim. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit reversed both verdicts, and the case subsequently settled on terms highly favorable to our client.
• We represented a major vineyard in a suit against its former wine-maker for breach of a consulting agreement and breach of corporate opportunity. Following a bench trial, the defendant was found to have breached the consulting agreement and was ordered to pay damages for the stolen corporate opportunity.
• We represented the founder of a Silicon Valley software company in a claim for fraud and breach of contract arising from the company's sale of stock at an artificially low price in a so-called Dutch auction. We prepared a complaint, threatened litigation, and negotiated a multi-million dollar buy-out of our client's interest prior to filing a demand.
• We represented senior executives of a financial institution alleging that, following their separation from the financial institution, they were not paid certain sums due to them under their employment contracts. We threatened litigation and arbitration, and obtained an eight-figure settlement for our clients without having to file a complaint or arbitration demand.
• We represented a major consumer products company in an action to enforce a $35 million arbitration award that had been obtained against it in Mexico. We successfully moved the court to dismiss the action.
• We represented a national bank in connection with a qui tam action filed by a former employee involving U.S. Postal Service rate discounts for bulk mailings. Following an investigation and extensive negotiations with the Department of Justice acting on behalf of the U.S. Postal Service, we achieved a very favorable settlement for our client while the complaint was still under seal.
• We represented a major California title company in connection with a False Claims Act action filed against it by the City and County of San Francisco, arising from the handling of dormant funds in real estate escrow accounts. After extensive motion practice and a bench trial, a verdict was entered against our client with substantial offsets for payments previously made to the State Controller; and penalties based only upon foregone interest rather than total unescheated funds.