Michael J. Buchanan


Washington, D.C.

Read full biography at www.orrick.com

Michael J. Buchanan is a litigation associate in Orrick's Washington, D.C. office. 

Michael represents clients in federal and state courts across a variety of industries and through all stages of litigation. He has experience in large-scale class actions and complex commercial disputes between sophisticated entities.

Michael also maintains an active pro bono practice. He has assisted with immigration matters and has advocated on behalf of veterans' rights.

Prior to working in Orrick's Washington, D.C. office, Michael worked in Orrick's New York office.

Posts by: Michael J. Buchanan

SDNY Denies Class Certification in Royal Park Action Against Trustee Bank of New York


On February 15, Judge Gregory H. Woods in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied certificateholder Royal Park Investments SA/NV’s (“Royal Park“) renewed motion for class certification in its lawsuit against RMBS trustee Bank of New York Mellon. This was the second time Judge Woods denied Royal Park’s motion for class certification in this case, and it is consistent with other judges’ rulings on Royal Park’s class certification motions in its lawsuits against trustees. Judge Woods found that Royal Park failed to demonstrate that questions of law or fact common to class members predominated over individualized questions. Judge Woods held that liability must be determined individually on a loan-by-loan and trust-by-trust basis, and that none of the inquiries required to prove liability were susceptible to simple, class-wide proof. Further, each putative class member needed to demonstrate that it holds litigation rights, which requires the court to undertake a difficult, fact-dependent analysis of individualized legal issues. In addition, the Court found that each putative class member would present a different statute of limitations defense, and these defenses would apply different time periods under New York law because the trusts were non-residents. Finally, the Court held that the damage calculation in this case required hundreds of fact intensive inquiries that could not be answered on a class-wide basis.