Bob Loeb is a partner in Orrick's Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation practice, specializing in high stakes and complex cases. He has briefed hundreds of cases and has personally argued more than 190 appeals, including cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, every federal circuit and numerous state courts.
The breadth and depth of Bob's appellate experience, and his consistent track record of success in high-stakes matters, are why clients, including top tech and energy companies, trust him with their most important cases.
The National Law Journal’s Litigator of the Week column recently recognized Bob’s appellate major wins in energy and product liability cases for Broadreach Power and Johnson & Johnson. Bob’s recent victories also include Fifth Circuit wins for energy clients Cheniere and Eni. In the Cheniere-Midship case, Bob obtained an emergency stay from the court of appeals of the regulating agency proceedings and, then after oral argument, achieved a full victory. And for Eni, Bob convinced the Fifth Circuit to vacate a $300M judgment against Eni in a dispute with another energy company. These types of big wins in the most challenging cases show why both Chambers and Legal 500 rank Bob among the Country’s top appellate advocates.
Bob has argued before the Supreme Court multiple times (including a 9-0 victory regarding application of the Fourth Amendment to rental cars), and has filed hundreds of briefs in the Supreme Court. He has also handled cases in highest state courts in California, New York, Maine, Kentucky and New Jersey.
Before joining Orrick, Bob served as one of the leaders of an elite appellate group at the Department of Justice. There, in addition to major national security, commercial, and administrative law, Bob supervised bankruptcy appeals. At Orrick, Bob has continued to handle big ticket bankruptcy matters, such as a billion-dollar dispute over whether DHL’s claim was discharged by United’s bankruptcy, appeals from the City of Stockton bankruptcy confirmation, and a Ninth Circuit matter involving the interplay of the Takings Clause and bankruptcy law.
Bob’s recent work includes matters for Johnson & Johnson, Avon, Microsoft, Eni, Cheniere Energy, Freeport LNG, Broadreach Power, LS Power, Exxon, Medidata, Renco, MSC Cruise Line, Golden 1 Credit Union, Credit Suisse, TravelCenters of America, Gannett, and the City of Stockton.
The Sabine Oil & Gas Corp. chapter 11 bankruptcy has been closely watched by many for guidance on how to structure midstream gathering agreements between upstream producers and midstream gatherers (who gather, transport and process oil and gas after it has been extracted from the land). On May 25, 2018, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the debtor, Sabine, had the right to reject gathering agreements with two midstream companies. In re Sabine, 2018 WL 2386902 (2d. Cir. May 25, 2018). In the Sabine agreements, Sabine had agreed to dedicate all of the gas produced from a designated area for processing by one of the midstream gatherers.
Looking to Texas law, the Second Circuit ruled that for the agreements to be treated as covenants “running with the land” immune from such rejection by the debtor, there would have to be horizontal privity relating to the land. For horizontal privity to exist, there must be a common interest in the land in addition to the applicable covenant at the time of the agreement. For example, horizontal privity exists where Party A conveys a fee interest in real property in fee to Party B, if as part of the same transaction Party B grants Party A a leasehold interest over the conveyed real property. Because, in the view of the Second Circuit, there was no such privity in the Sabine case, the agreements were subject to rejection.
The Second Circuit’s rationale surprised some because the district court had relied on a different theory in allowing the rejection of the agreement. Because the Second Circuit’s ruling was made by summary order and was not intended to have precedential effect, and because it speaks to Texas law, the decision will have limited, if any, precedential value. Nonetheless, this Second Circuit ruling will be looked at by other courts facing similar issues, and may have some persuasive value. As a result, practitioners may want to examine their approach to midstream gathering and services agreements and whether their agreements should be structured to ensure that horizontal privity exists between the parties.
Case History and Differing Grounds for DecisionsREAD MORE →
President Donald Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch, a federal appellate judge on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, to fill the Supreme Court seat of Justice Antonin Scalia. Our Supreme Court and appellate team, led by partner Bob Loeb, took a look at Judge Gorsuch’s track record as a judge on key business issues like securities litigation, arbitration and bankruptcy, to speculate on his future as a potential justice. To read the full article, please click here.
The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 7, 2016 in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. The case poses a question that has divided the Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits: Whether a bankruptcy court may authorize the distribution of settlement proceeds in a way that departs from the statutory priority scheme in the Bankruptcy Code, including through a so-called “structured settlement.” READ MORE →
The Supreme Court again will be addressing the powers of bankruptcy courts. At the end of the term, the Court granted certiorari in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. to decide whether a bankruptcy court may authorize the distribution of settlement proceeds in a way that violates the statutory priority scheme in the Bankruptcy Code. No. 15-649, 2016 WL 3496769 (S. Ct. June 28, 2016). The Supreme Court is expected to address this fundamental bankruptcy issue sometime early next year. READ MORE →
One of the goals of the Bankruptcy Code is to provide a debtor with a fresh start. The discharge of prepetition debts at the conclusion of a bankruptcy case is one of the most important ways to attain this fresh start. On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court made it harder for debtors to obtain a fresh start by broadening an exception to discharge.
Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that an individual debtor is not discharged from any debt “for money, property [or] services … to the extent obtained by false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud[.]” Circuits split as to whether actual fraud under Section 523(a)(2)(A) requires an affirmative misrepresentation; the Fifth Circuit had held that this was a necessary element to prevent discharge, but the Seventh Circuit had held that “actual fraud” encompassed a broader range of behaviors.
The Supreme Court resolved this split, rejecting the Fifth Circuit’s narrow interpretation and finding that the term “actual fraud” does not need to include an affirmative misrepresentation by the debtor. With this broader reading, debtors will be unable to discharge prepetition debts where there is evidence that they inappropriately siphoned of their assets prior to filing for bankruptcy. Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, No. 15-145, 2016 WL 2842452 (U.S. May 16, 2016). READ MORE →
