Gavin D. Schryver’s practice focuses on complex commercial, restructuring, real estate and malpractice litigation. Gavin represents individuals and companies in high-profile commercial disputes in state and federal courts.
Gavin is recognized as a Rising Star in New York Metro Super Lawyers.
- The borrowers in a $650 million commercial real estate foreclosure action involving the property at 20 Times Square.
- Pilgrim's Pride, one of the nation's largest chicken producers, in resolving criminal claims relating to the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division's high-profile investigation into alleged price fixing in the poultry industry.
- Creditors of Energy Future Holdings in a trial before Judge Christopher S. Sontchi, Chief U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Delaware, in successfully defeating the proposed allocation of hundreds of millions of dollars in administrative claims asserted by subsidiary company (EFIH) creditors UMB Bank, Elliott Associates, and the Energy Future Holdings/EFIH Plan Advisory Board. The Court held for Kasowitz’s Energy Future Holdings creditors on all but $18 million of the proposed allocation.
- Emergent Capital and its subsidiary White Eagle in lender liability claims in connection with a $370 million facility.
- J. Crew Group in defending claims by term lenders challenging certain strategic transactions involving J. Crew's intellectual property and asserting intentional fraudulent conveyance.
- National Grid in an action against a software vendor stemming from a $1 billion implementation of SAP software.
- TerraForm Power in its malpractice litigation against two AmLaw-100 law firms to recover over $300 million in damages caused by the firms’ negligence in handling a renewable energy M&A transaction.
- Defendants in a civil RICO action alleging a decade-long conspiracy to conceal and divert the plaintiff’s alleged share of purported marital assets. We obtained a complete dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims, with prejudice.
- A significant Napa County vineyard and its owner in an ongoing dispute with the vineyard’s lender over the lender’s right to exercise remedies in connection with the loan.