The Capital Commitment

Proskauer on Private Fund Litigation

Lee Popkin

Lee Popkin

Partner

Lee Popkin is a trial lawyer in Proskauer’s Commercial Litigation, Product Liability, and Intellectual Property groups. Lee represents clients in a wide range of industries in high-stakes trials in state and federal courts throughout the country. Lee’s experience includes developing case themes, preparing key witnesses for deposition and trial, taking and defending expert depositions, and drafting and arguing case-dispositive motions.

Lee was recently named to the Best Lawyers in America inaugural “Ones to Watch” list.

Lee’s notable representations and victories include:

  • Universal Standard Inc. v. Target. Counsel to Target in successful defense of Lanham Act trademark infringement action related to its Universal Thread clothing line.
  • Echeverria v. Johnson & Johnson. Trial counsel to Johnson & Johnson in a widely publicized product liability trial relating to the company’s talc-based products and their alleged link to ovarian cancer. After trial, the court entered judgment notwithstanding the jury verdict for the J&J defendants, and, in the alternative, granted J&J’s motion for a new trial.
  • Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. v. 1-800-Flowers.com, Inc. Successfully represented Bed, Bath & Beyond in action to enforce agreement by 1‑800-Flowers to purchase PersonalizationMall.com.
  • Global Holdings v. Church & Dwight, Co., Inc. Secured dismissal of state and federal dilution claims in Lanham Act action regarding a consumer product. The court’s decision made new law in the Second Circuit on the issue of whether a valid registration preempts state law claims of dilution.  Daniels v. Johnson & Johnson. Trial counsel to J&J in product liability trial related to the company’s talc-based products in St. Louis. The jury returned a complete defense verdict on all claims and awarded zero damages.
  • Daniels v. Johnson & Johnson. Trial counsel to J&J in product liability trial related to the company’s talc-based products in St. Louis. The jury returned a complete defense verdict on all claims and awarded zero damages.Daniels v. Johnson & Johnson. Trial counsel to J&J in product liability trial related to the company’s talc-based products in St. Louis. The jury returned a complete defense verdict on all claims and awarded zero damages.
  • Allied Lomar, Inc. v. Diageo North America, Inc. Counsel to Diageo in successful defense of Lanham Act trademark infringement action concerning Blade & Bow Whiskies and the Stitzel-Weller Distillery.
  • Diageo North America, Inc. v. Mexcor. Trial counsel to plaintiff Diageo in a Lanham Act trade dress infringement and dilution action against competitor involving Crown Royal whisky. Obtained a jury verdict and permanent injunction in favor of our client following a two‑week trial.

In addition to her active practice, Lee regularly contributes to the Firm’s false advertising blog, Watch This Space: Proskauer on Advertising Law. Lee also devotes significant time to pro bono matters, and was recognized by KIND for her work representing two sisters from El Salvador fleeing gang violence.

Before joining Proskauer, Lee served as law clerk to the Honorable Sarah S. Vance of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. She received her J.D. cum laude from Harvard Law School.

Subscribe to all posts by Lee Popkin

Veil-Piercing Under California Law – Heightened Risks for Fund Managers

We recently posted about the risks associated with veil-piercing claims and the ways in which fund managers can protect themselves from exposure to these claims. Our first post on veil-piercing focused on Delaware standards, while this post discusses California law. California law differs in several important respects from Delaware law on this topic. If a … Continue Reading

Veil Piercing/Alter Ego Determinations – How Fund Managers Can Protect Themselves

A veil piercing claim can be a worst-case scenario for a private fund manager dealing with a struggling portfolio company investment – the company fails, and ensuing legal claims are brought not only against the portfolio company, but also against the fund and its GPs. How can fund managers manage that risk? Limited liability is … Continue Reading
LexBlog