Christopher Walsh

Mr. Walsh represents businesses in complex commercial disputes involving a wide range of issues that can bedevil virtually any successful enterprise. He seeks to achieve his clients’ goals as quickly and efficiently as possible, but he is prepared to litigate a client’s cause aggressively, through a trial or an arbitration hearing, if the circumstances require it.

His recent and current representations include: (1) successfully enforcing a restrictive covenant in the Delaware Court of Chancery for a leading provider of revenue-cycle management services for the healthcare industry; (2) successfully arbitrating a matter for an international food container manufacturer that was alleged to have breached a software-license agreement and infringed the copyrights of its software vendor, winning an award of the client’s attorneys’ fees and costs; (3) successfully arbitrating a dispute for a Medicare Advantage organization that was alleged to have violated CMS regulations when it terminated its agreement with a cardiology practice and removed the practice from its panel of providers; (4) defending a New Jersey municipality and its council members and employees against civil RICO and §1983 claims arising from a denial of liquor-license-transfer application, obtaining an early dismissal of the Complaint; and (5) defending a developer of software for medical devices, and its affiliates, against claims that the software developer breached a software development agreement.

• Mr. Walsh recently obtained, after two month of expedited discovery, an injunction from the Delaware Court of Chancery, granting full enforcement of a restrictive covenant agreement against his client’s former employee.
• Mr. Walsh recently obtained the dismissal of a civil-RICO and §1983 case against a New Jersey municipality arising from a denial of a liquor-license-transfer application.
• Mr. Walsh recently won an arbitration proceeding on behalf of a Medicare Advantage organization accused of violating CMS regulations when it removed a cardiology practice from its panel of providers.
• Mr. Walsh recently tried a case in the Delaware Chancery Court, representing the officers of an $800 million New Jersey-based real estate company and the officers’ affiliated entities. Three minority equity owners alleged that the officers had breached their fiduciary duties to the minority owners when the officers approved a complex reorganization of the company’s assets and liabilities. The case raised challenging legal issues about the scope of the fiduciary duties owed by officers of limited liability companies and equally challenging economic issues about the fairness of the reorganization to the company’s various stakeholders. The court found that, although the process for approving the reorganization was flawed, the financial terms offered to the parties involved in the transaction were fair and that the minority equity owners did not suffer any damages.
• Mr. Walsh represented Montclair State University in litigation against Oracle USA, Inc., in the District of New Jersey, substituting in as the University’s s litigation counsel after an initial complaint had been filed. Mr. Walsh filed an amended complaint against Oracle for breach of contract and fraud, arising out of a failed implementation of a $20 million enterprise resource planning (ERP) system that would have supported the University’s financial, human resources, academic, and student services functions. Technology industry press reports characterized the amended complaint as a “textbook example of how to file a legal action against a vendor for failure to deliver.” Oracle counterclaimed, seeking more than $5 million. After more than a year of motion practice and substantial discovery, the parties engaged in mediation and achieved a final resolution of their differences, resulting in a dismissal of the litigation.
• Mr. Walsh represented a former lessee of property at the World Trade Center site in litigation brought by an owner of property near the site against a handful of former owners and lessees of property at the site, as well as certain airlines. The plaintiff is seeking relief under CERCLA to compel the defendants to pay for its costs for remediating environmental contamination allegedly caused by the incineration of the defendants’ properties on September 11, 2001. The Southern District of New York originally dismissed the complaint. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sent the case back to the District Court to consider whether CERCLA’s rarely invoked “act of war” defense was also a basis for dismissing the complaint. The District Court, in a groundbreaking decision, found that the act of war defense applied to the matter and dismissed the complaint pursuant to that defense in addition to the grounds on which it had originally dismissed the case. In re Sept. 11 Litig., 931 F. Supp. 2d 496 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). The matter is currently on appeal before the Second Circuit.
• Mr. Walsh represented a foreign gun manufacturer in two separate actions brought by two New Jersey municipalities against numerous gun manufacturers. He was able to secure the early dismissal of his client from both matters.
• Mr. Walsh has prosecuted and defended several preference and fraudulent transfer matters in several bankruptcy courts. He is currently representing the Trustee of a post-bankruptcy estate in an action to recover fraudulent payments made to several of the bankrupt entities’ executive employees in what the Trustee contends was part of a Ponzi scheme.
• Mr. Walsh was an integral part of a team defending a major pharmaceutical company against a Fortune 50 competitor, which sought an injunction under the federal antitrust laws enjoining the client’s then-extant discounting program. The competitor’s motion for a preliminary injunction was denied.

Other representative cases:

• Harmon v. Borough of Belmar, 2017 WL 4782808 (D.N.J. Oct. 23, 2017)
• JDA Software, Inc. v. Sabert Holding Corp., 2017 WL 1398561 (D. Ariz. Apr. 19, 2017)
• Ross Holding & Management Co. v. Advance Realty Group, LLC, 2014 Del. Ch. LEXIS 173 (Del. Ch. Sept. 4, 2014)
• Maniscalco v. Brother Int’l Corp., 709 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2013)
• In re Sept. 11 Litig., 485 Fed. Appx. 443 (2d Cir. 2012)
• Warren Gen Hosp. v. Amgen Inc., 643 F.3d 77 (3d Cir. 2011)
• Paff v. Kaltenbach, 204 F.3d 425 (3d. Cir. 2000)
• Zubi v. AT&T Corp., 219 F.3d 220 (3d Cir. 2000)
• Zazzali v. Swenson, 451 B.R. 373 (Bankr. Del. 2011)
• Allocca v. Wachovia, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42375 (D.N.J. June 12, 2007)
• Ortho Biotech Prods., L.P. v. Amgen Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85331 (D.N.J. Nov. 21, 2006)
• Total Packaging Corp. v. Tenneco Packaging Corp., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6199 (D.N.J. Apr. 2, 2004)
• Dicino v. Aetna U.S. Healthcare, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26487 (D.N.J. June 23, 2003)
• In re Clear Techs. v. Khan, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7989 (D.N.J. Feb. 14, 2002)
• Metz v. United Counties Bancorp, 61 F. Supp. 2d 364 (D.N.J. 1999)