Del Monte International GmbH v. Inversiones y Procesadora Tropical S.A. (INPROTSA), International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC). This matter involved claims in arbitration by our client against one of its former exclusive pineapple growers for breach of contract, specific performance and damages resulting from the breach of restrictive covenants in the parties' agreement on termination of the contract. After a two week final hearing and extensive prehearing proceedings, the arbitral tribunal awarded our client more than $32 million, and permanent injunctive relief specifically enforcing the contractual restrictive covenants against the defendant. The arbitral tribunal's arbitral award was has been subsequently completely confirmed and approved by the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the District Court of Rotterdam in the Netherlands.
GMI, LLC, v. Republic of Argentina, et. al., United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This case involved for brokerage commissions and ancillary claims against our client arising out of our client's purchase of the exclusive television broadcast rights for Associacion Del Futbol Argentino ("AFA") soccer matches. We successfully defended our client and obtained a final order granting dismissal on grounds of foreign sovereign immunity.
E. I. du Pont de Nemours Benlate Litigation, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County; Ninth Judicial Circuit, Orange County, Florida; Eighteenth Judicial Circuit, Seminole County, Florida; Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County, Florida, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida. These cases involved claims by hundreds of farmers and nursery proprietors against our client for negligence and strict products liability for damages the plaintiffs suffered when their crops were allegedly injured or destroyed as a result of an alleged defect or contaminant in a pesticide manufactured by our client. The plaintiffs' claims in these cases totaled well in excess of $200 million. The vast majority of these cases have been settled under terms that are to remain confidential.
In re Ecuadorian Shrimp Litigation, Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County, Florida, Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal, United States District Court, Southern District of Florida, and U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. This products liability action involved 30 separate but consolidated lawsuits against multinational fungicide and pesticide manufacturers, their alleged distributors, and our client, a multinational fresh fruit distributor. The plaintiffs were Ecuadorian shrimp farm owners who claimed that fungicide run off from Ecuadorian banana plantations caused millions of dollars in damages to their shrimp beds located in the Guayaquil region of Ecuador. After years of litigating venue and jurisdictional issues, the Florida Fourth District Court of Appeal ordered the dismissal of all of the lawsuits pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The plaintiff shrimp farmers attempted to have their claims reinstated in Florida circuit court. The defendants opposed those efforts and the plaintiffs ultimately dismissed their claims with prejudice, ending the litigation.
Provident Life and Accident Insurance Co. v. United States of America, United States District Court, Eastern District of Tennessee. This case involved a claim by our client for a declaratory judgment that its claims payment method was not improper or in violation of law. The United States claimed that for a period of more than 10 years our client had improperly underpaid millions of medical claims at a cost of more than $2 billion to Medicare, which amount the United States sought to recover. In a case of first impression, we successfully argued that the government had the burden of proof at trial, and that the government was obligated to prove its right to recovery on a claim-by-claim/transaction-by-transaction basis. After a six week preliminary trial before a General Master, the government failed to establish its entitlement to recover on the vast majority of the claims and transactions there tried. Shortly after the trial the United States agreed to settle the litigation with our client for an undisclosed amount representing a minuscule portion of the amount the government sought in the litigation.
Casa Clara Condominium Association v. Marine Midland Bank of New York City, et. al., Sixteenth Judicial Circuit, Monroe County, Florida. This case was one of a series of suits brought by the plaintiffs and involved a claim against our client, among others, for negligence and strict liability as a result of the allegedly defective construction of the plaintiffs' condominium buildings. We, along with our co-defendants, successfully argued to the trial court that the plaintiff's claims were barred by the economic loss rule. The issue was ultimately litigated to the Florida Supreme Court and decided in our client's favor in one of the Florida Supreme Court's landmark economic loss rule decisions.
Angel Enriquez Villeda Aldana, et. al. v. Fresh Del Monte Produce Inc., et. al., United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. This case involved claims by former union labor leaders in Guatemala against our client alleging violations of the Alien Tort Claims Act and the Torture Victim Protection Act. The case was zealously litigated in the trial court, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. We were successful in obtaining a final order of dismissal in favor of our client.
Home Infusion Therapy Corporation v. AIG, et. al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. This case involved a claim under ERISA against our client, among others, for payment of medical services rendered. In light of our motion to dismiss arguing that the plaintiff's claims were not cognizable under ERISA, the court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiff's claims against our client.
Chiquita International Limited v. Fresh Del Monte Produce, N.V., et al., Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida, Florida Third District Court of Appeal. This lawsuit involved business tort and conspiracy claims against our client, a multinational fresh fruit company, arising out of the termination of a Philippines banana supply contract and the execution of another. The plaintiff sought more than $100 million in damages and the termination of the Philippines contract. We were successful in obtaining a final judgment in favor of our client, which was affirmed on appeal.
Andre Laager v. Peter Krüger, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida. This lawsuit involved a claim against our clients to enforce judgments from the Cayman Islands and Switzerland in excess of $35 million. We were successful in having the trial court refuse to recognize or enforce the $35 million dollar Cayman Islands judgment.
Gill v. Marquez de Gill, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Dade County, Florida. This case involved a claim by an estranged husband for an injunction and return of approximately $2 million held by our client, his wife. After a one-day bench trial, the court concluded that all of the funds were rightfully held by our client, and that our client had the unfettered right to use the funds at her sole discretion. The case was settled while on appeal.
Cuban American Bar Association, et. al., v. Warren Christopher, et. al., United States District Court, Southern District of Florida. This case involved the pro-bono representation of more than 30,000 Cuban immigrants detained at the Guantanamo Naval Base to improve their living conditions and gain their freedom.
Routly v. State, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, United States Supreme Court. This case involved the pro-bono representation of a Florida death row inmate in his appeals through the federal court system.