Bill Gyves focuses his national practice on the litigation, arbitration and mediation of complex business disputes. For a quarter-century, Bill has represented clients from a diverse spectrum of industries, including financial services, higher education, healthcare, media, advertising, insurance, accounting, legal, consulting and hospitality. He routinely litigates a wide array of claims pertaining to complex contract disputes, fraud, business torts, unfair competition, trade secrets and bankruptcy matters.
Appointed by the New Jersey Supreme Court to serve on the New Jersey Ethics Committee (District VA) which is responsible for investigating and prosecuting ethics cases involving New Jersey attorneys, 2014-2015.
UMB Bank, N.A., v. Airplanes Limited, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81300 (S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2017)
Representing trustee for certificate holder in a failed airplane securitization vehicle, obtained pre-discovery judgment on the pleadings in a dispute arising out of what the court found to be a wrongful $185 million reserve for an “imagined” liability.
Okereke v. Ross University School of Medicine, MID-L-1137-11 (N.J. Superior Court, Sept. 30, 2016)
Denying a motion to vacate a dismissal order entered four years earlier, the court found that the alleged legal malpractice of the plaintiff’s counsel provided no basis to reopen the case.
Matijakovich v. P.C. Richard & Son, 2016 WL 3457011 (D.N.J., June 21, 2016)
Prediscovery dismissal of a putative class action brought under New Jersey’s Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.
In re KSL Media, Inc., 2016 WL 74385 (C.D. Cal., Jan. 6, 2016)
Representing a chapter 7 trustee pursuing legal malpractice and related claims against the debtors’ counsel, and persuaded the district court to deny the defendants’ motion to withdraw the reference to the bankruptcy court.
UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc. v. Asprinio, 2015 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 3165 (N.Y. Supreme Court, Aug. 31, 2015)
Denying an application for preliminary injunction and sustaining a large medical group’s billing practices against allegations that they amounted to unlawful, coercive and unprofessional conduct designed to defraud the plaintiff healthcare insurer.
Prosceno v. DeVry University, No. 843 EDA 2014 (Superior Court of Pennsylvania, 2015)
Affirming an order granting summary judgment dismissing a student’s educational malpractice claims, in which the trial court declined to “second guess” the university’s academic policies and procedures and noted the judiciary’s reluctance to intervene in purely academic matters.
Sidney Frank Importing Co., Inc. v. Beam Inc., 998 F. Supp.2d 193 (S.D.N.Y., 2014)
Federal complaint asserting claims for unfair competition, tortious interference and breach of contract sustained in a $100 million commercial dispute involving the international market for Irish whiskey.
Ross University School of Medicine v. Amini, 3:13-CV-06121 (D.N.J., 2014)
Secured a permanent injunction and order of contempt against a disgruntled former student of a medical school, who violated the federal Anti-cybersquatting Act and breached a non-disparagement agreement through his registration and use of numerous bogus websites designed to confuse prospective students by driving them to inaccurate information contained on what they assumed were legitimate websites controlled by the medical school.
Greene v. Branson, 10 BA-CV-05687 (Missouri Circuit Court, 2014)
Secured the dismissal with prejudiceof aneducational malpractice claim brought by a former student dismissed from an international veterinary medical school. Claims for fraud and age discrimination were dismissed previously.
Nielsen Co. (US), LLC v. Hudson River Group, Inc., 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3168 (N.Y. 2d Dept., May 7, 2014)
A New York appellate court reversed a summary judgment against our client, holding that the parties’ course of conduct over a six-year period raised issues of fact as to the plaintiff’s implied waiver of its contractual audit rights.
Metz v. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Index No. 651993/13 (N.Y. Supreme Court, 2014)
Pre-discovery dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds of a legal recruiter’s complaint seeking a $1.4 million commission for allegedly placing a team of attorneys in the Hong Kong office of an international law firm.
Philp v. Ross University School of Medicine, 14-CV-556 (D.N.J., 2014)
The federal court dismissed, with prejudice and prior to discovery, a civil rights complaint brought against a medical school, administrators and faculty by an expelled student who challenged the school’s grievance committee procedures.
Motichka v. MP 1291 Trust, Index No. 160158/2013, (N.Y. Supreme Court, 2014)
Defeated an emergent application to enjoin the operations of a legendary Manhattan gourmet food shop, using the testimony of an acoustics expert, architect and videographer to demonstrate that a neighboring tenant’s allegations that the business was generating excessive noise and odors were unfounded.
In re Appeal of Ethan Schwartz (N.Y.S. Commissioner of Education, 2014)
Successfully challenging a request under New York’s Freedom of Information Law on the grounds that disclosure of the proprietary information sought regarding two for-profit international medical schools would cause substantial injury to the schools’ competitive position in the marketplace.
Burkes v. New York State Dental Association, 2013 WL 3784143 (S.D.N.Y., July 18, 2013)
The court sustained a professional organization’s internal disciplinary process applied in the suspension of a dentist as a result of his guilty plea on a prescription drug charge, and dismissed claims for breach of fiduciary duty, selective enforcement, negligence, denial of due process and tortious interference.
Iatorola v. Efrosman, 2008 WL 3412267 (N.J. App. Div., Aug. 14, 2008)
The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of shareholder’s claims arising out of a foreign currency trading scam, finding that the bank owed no duty to the shareholders of a corporate account holder.
Endico v. Fonte, 485 F. Supp. 2d 411 (S.D.N.Y., 2007)
Ruling in our client’s favor that member interests in a limited liability company do not constitute securities; the court denied the plaintiff’s application for injunctive relief and dismissed federal securities claims.
Myles v. North Fork Bancorporation, Inc. Index No. 603667/06 (N.Y. Supreme Court)
Successful defense of a bank and senior executives against a $50 million finder’s fee claim relating to the formation of bank’s asset-based and structured finance business.
Pepe v. Trust Company of New Jersey, MON-L-089-05 (N.J. Superior Court)
Dismissal on federal preemption grounds of a putative class action brought under New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act.
Serio v. Black, Davis & Shue Agency, Inc., 2005 WL 3642217 (S.D.N.Y., Dec. 30, 2005)
In a case brought on behalf of the New York State Superintendent of Insurance and arising out of a failed workers’ compensation insurance program, the federal court froze the defendant’s assets based on a showing that millions of dollars in improperly withheld premiums had been transferred offshore and then disbursed to the defendant’s principals back in the United States.
Serio v. Black, Davis & Shue Agency, Inc., 2005 WL 2560390 (S.D.N.Y., Oct. 11, 2005)
A federal court granted a motion to stay counterclaims in order to facilitate the rehabilitation of an insolvent insurer by the New York State Superintendent of Insurance.
Bridgeport Capital Services, Inc. v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 790 N.Y.S.2d 809 (N.Y. App. Term., Dec. 8, 2004)
Persuaded the appellate court to reverse the trial court and dismiss the complaint. The appellate court awarded sanctions in light of the plaintiff’s knowing pursuit of frivolous claims.
Acciai Speciali Terni USA, Inc. v. Momene, 202 F. Supp. 2d 203 (S.D.N.Y., 2002)
The court granted a partial summary judgment and rejected the plaintiff’s attempt to pierce our client’s corporate veil.
SS&J Morris, Inc. v. I. Appel Corp., 2000 WL 1028680 (S.D.N.Y., July 26, 2000)
The court imposed sanctions against the defendant and defense counsel, finding their conduct at the defendant’s deposition “and their many speeches, were motivated by their desire to delay the litigation and to harass the plaintiffs” and “prevent plaintiffs’ counsel from getting answers to many legitimate questions.”