Ava E. Lias-Booker

Experience

• Currently serves as co-lead counsel for major financial institution in Fair Housing Act case involving allegations of racial discrimination in the maintenance of Real Estate Owned properties.
• Obtained favorable result for major financial institution in matter alleging section 1981 claims related to bank branch deposits.
• Successfully represented multinational oil and gas corporation in its appeals of more than $1.5 billion in verdicts rendered by juries in two cases stemming from a 2006 underground gasoline leak at a service station located in Jacksonville, Maryland. The plaintiffs claimed contamination of their water supply with MTBE, and claimed that the additive was a carcinogen. Currently one of the lead trial counsel for MTBE litigation pending in Maryland and served as appellate counsel successfully arguing for the reversal of adverse jury verdicts awarding plaintiffs hundreds of millions of dollars in compensatory damages and in helping to secure the reversal of over a billion dollars in punitive damages before the State’s highest appellate court.
• Lead trial counsel to oil company subsidiary engaged in solar panel manufacturing in a multimillion-dollar breach of contract action, in which solar company obtained an almost $9 million jury verdict against a St. Louis-based company for breach of a three-year silicon powder supply agreement under the Uniform Commercial Code.
• Lead hearing and trial counsel for information technology company in a shareholder action brought by two hedge funds claiming non-payment of more than $100 million in dividends and redemption payments for preferred shares, and seeking monetary relief along with receivership and dissolution of company. After extensive motions practice and a Maryland 2-502 hearing on the merits, the trial court dismissed the shareholder action upholding the recommendation of the Special Litigation Committee and dismissed with prejudice all remaining direct claims. Matter appealed and remanded for further consideration of the impact of another decision by the state’s highest court in a similar matter. Decision pending.
• Lead counsel for information technology company in a “right-to-inspect” case brought by two directors who also were principals of activist hedge fund. After company auditors resigned citing impairment to their independence as a result of interference by the investor directors, company sought and obtained a preliminary injunction to stop further interference with company’s new auditors which allowed company to obtain audited financial statements and file its Form 10-K with the Securities Exchange Commission.
• Lead counsel for plaintiff telecommunications company securing entry and payment of a consent judgment in a breach of interconnection agreement case in the amount of $2, 209, 886.44 plus post-judgment interest.
• Represented telecommunications company as co-counsel to resolve multi-state action pending in Virginia, New Jersey and Maryland and other jurisdictions and state commissions arising from interconnection agreement billing dispute.
• Co-counsel to one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in numerous individual cases asserting claims arising from alleged exposure of minor plaintiffs to Thimerosal. Judge granted summary judgment to vaccine defendants and denied plaintiff’s motion for voluntary dismissal without prejudice. The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed.
• Lead counsel for bank defendants at the trial and appellate level in an action filed by 25 plaintiffs for alleged violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and its Maryland counterpart as well as claims asserted under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Plaintiffs sought $81 million in damages. Trial court granted summary judgment on behalf of the bank defendants. Plaintiffs appealed the grant of summary judgment and the Fourth Circuit affirmed in a published opinion.
• Represented plaintiff bank and related entities as co-counsel in litigation related to insurance coverage issues against various insurers for claims seeking damages for their failure to pay defense costs and settlement expenses incurred in: 18 lawsuits filed against them following the Enron collapse; six lawsuits filed against them stemming from hedge funds that were designed to diversify investor holdings without triggering tax liability in The Exchange Fund claims; lawsuits arising from IPO claims; and lawsuits filed against brokerage for an alleged scheme and conspiracy to design, market and implement tax shelters. These claims amounted to an excess of $600 million and were all considered covered under the insurance policy. Ultimately a favorable settlement was reached with the insurers on behalf of the bank.
• Successfully excluded expert and obtained summary judgment on behalf of major financial institution in dispute involving ownership and control of the funds of an African-American megachurch.