Robert Loeb


Washington, D.C.

Read full biography at

Bob Loeb is a partner in Orrick's Supreme Court and Appellate Litigation practice, specializing in high stakes and complex cases. 

Bob has briefed hundreds of cases and has personally argued more than 175 appeals, including appeals in the U.S. Supreme Court, every federal circuit and numerous state courts. 

His breadth and depth of appellate experience and track record of success in high-stakes matters are why clients, including top financial institutions and tech and energy companies, trust Bob with their most important cases.

Bob is currently representing Microsoft in the U.S. Supreme Court, challenging the Government’s effort to force the company to turn over customer “cloud” email content held on servers located in a foreign country, without informing the customer or the country at issue. In 2018, Bob argued to the U.S. Supreme Court in Byrd v. US, regarding the application of the Fourth Amendment to rental cars. Bob is also handling multiple billion dollar cases for a leading financial institution in New York’s highest court. Bob is also a leader on fintech issues, regularly advising fintech lending platforms, banks and investors. 

Before joining to 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 cases 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 involving the interplay of the Takings Clause and bankruptcy law.

Bob also represents the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in its battle against the big tobacco companies under the Master Settlement Agreement, winning $126 million for the Commonwealth and successfully defending that judgment through the Pennsylvania and U.S. Supreme Courts.

Bob’s current and recent work includes matters for Credit Suisse, Microsoft, Lending Club, Deloitte, EY, Gannett, Jefferies, Scoggins Group, Apple, Intel and City of Stockton.

Byrd v. United States. Argued in the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2018 regarding the Fourth Amendment rights of drivers of rental cars. 

Microsoft v. US. Representing Microsoft in the Second Circuit and in the U.S. Supreme Court in its challenge to the Government’s effort to force the company to turn over customer “cloud” email content held on servers located in a foreign country, without informing the customer or the country at issue. The case is described by The Washington Post as one of the “most intriguing, consequential, and complex legal cases having to do with technology now in the courts.”

U.S. Bank v. DJL Mortgage. Representing Credit Suisse in $1.2 billion regarding whether a RMBS trustee may bring breach of contracts claims without satisfying the mandatory contract remedial provisions within the statute of limitation period.

Pennsylvania v. Philip Morris. Winning more than $126 million for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in its challenge to an arbitration panel ruling in favor of the tobacco companies.

In re City of Stockton. Winning a major constitutional issue of first impression in the City of Stockton’s Chapter 9 bankruptcy. Also, successfully defending confirmation order in the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel.

Teixeira v. County of Alameda. Successfully represented the County in obtaining en banc reversal of the Ninth Circuit panel ruling, which had erroneously invoked heighted scrutiny to zoning laws applicable to gun shops.  

Sinotech v. Ernst & Young Hua Ming. Defeated securities fraud action against EYHM, a China-based oil extraction company audited by EYHM.

Sun v. Sinopec. Defeating $2 billion RICO and Alien Tort Statute action brought by an oil pipeline owner against Sinopec, the largest oil company in China.

DHL v. United Airlines. Defeated United’s efforts to escape liability for a $1.2 billion price fixing claim, where it concealed the claim during the bankruptcy proceeding.

City of Los Angeles v. Patel. Represented the City in the U.S. Supreme Court, defending police access to hotel registries.

United States v. June. Successfully convincing the U.S. Supreme Court that equitable tolling applies to the Federal Tort Claims Act.

PHL v. Bank of Utah. Securing major 8th Circuit victory for client and investors in life settlement industry, validating the secondary market for life insurance policies.   

Posts by: Robert Loeb

The Gorsuch Nomination: The Return of the Business Friendly Court?


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.

Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Jevic on Whether Distribution of Settlement Proceeds May Depart From Statutory Priority Scheme


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

Supreme Court to Resolve Circuit Split Over Structured Dismissals


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

Not So Fast – Supreme Court Holds Prepetition Fraudulent Transfer Precludes Post-Petition Discharge in Husky International

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