April 14, 2008 - Firm Prevails in Supreme Court Certiorari Petition.

The United States Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari filed by the United Arab Emirates and the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates in El-Hadad v. United Arab Emirates 07-853.  Petitioners sought to overturn a two million dollar verdict obtained by the firm for its client by arguing that the District of Columbia's treatment of Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") defenses conflicted with treatment by other circuits.  

Working on the opposition to the petition with trial and appellate co-counsel at Rolinski & Suarez, and with Supreme Court co-counsel at Mayer Brown and the Yale Law School Supreme Court Clinic, the firm emphasized the fact-laden nature of the appellate challenges, as well as the harmony among the circuits in their treatment of the commercial activities exception to the FSIA's immunity provisions.

August 10, 2007 — Law Firm and Client Prevail in Government Contract Bid Protest.

In Protest of Business Consulting Associates, LLC B-299758.2, The Government Accountability Office (GAO) rejected a bid protest filed by a disappointed bidder for a HUD post-closing portfolio management support services contract.  Musolino & Dessel intervened on behalf of its client, who was the successful bidder for the $15 million plus contract.  GAO rejected the protester's challenge to HUD's adjectival ratings, and affirmed the successful bidder's approach to conflicts mitigation.

July 27, 2007 — Firm Wins Affirmance in US Court of Appeals in Sovereign Immunities Case Against UAE.

In El-Hadad v. United Arab Emirates et.al. 06-7075, The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed in almost all respects the trial court's judgment after bench trial in favor of former embassy auditor El-Hadad against the United Arab Emirates and its embassy in Washington.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's findings and conclusions that the commercial activities exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA") applied, and that the defendants breached their contract with el-Hadad, defamed him and acted in bad faith. The Court of Appeals remanded solely to discount the lost future earnings portion of the $1.75 million damages award to present value. 

The firm and its co-counsel at Rolinski & Suarez successfully argued the FSIA issue for the second time in the Circuit, having received three favorable trial rulings on that issue over the 10 year history of the litigation.

January 23, 2007 — Firm Wins D.C. Jury Verdict in Illegal Activity Case.

In DCHA v. Proctor, a D.C. jury awarded the firm's public housing client possession of a unit from which illegal narcotics had been recovered.  This is the firm's fourth consecutive win for the D.C. Housing Authority in an illegal activity case tried to a jury.

March 29, 2006 — Firm Wins $1.75 Million Dollar Judgment Against United Arab Emirates.

In El-Hadad v. United Arab Emirates 96-cv1943, the firm's client - a former accountant with the Embassy of the United Arab Emirates - won a judgment in the amount of one million seven hundred fifty thousand dollars against the United Arab Emirates and others as a result of the Embassy's wrongful decision to fire him after he uncovered millions of dollars of embezzlement and diversions.  Plaintiff was awarded contract damages of $1,245,961.00, plus pre-judgment interest from 1996, and $500,00.00 in tort damages.

The case - tried after an interlocutory appeal resolved defendants' sovereign immunity claims in El-Hadad v. Embassy of the United Arab Emirates 216 F.3d 29 (D.C. Cir.2000) - included three days of videoconference testimony from Alexandria, Egypt.  The firm's own videoconferencing capabilities facilitated extensive international witness preparation.

December 1, 2005—Firm Wins $72 Million Dollar Judgment Against Sudan and State Bank.

In MFK et.al. v. Sudan et.al., in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, the firm won on behalf of two international clients a $72,000,000.00 judgment against Sudan and the Bank of Sudan.  The claim arose out of a series of promissory notes.  It was prosecuted under the commercial activities exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act.

August 30, 2005—Firm Prevails for Plaintiffs On Securities Litigation Motion to Dismiss.

In Burman et.al. v. Phoenix et.al., in a 37 page opinion, the trial court rejected in almost all respects a  motion to dismiss based in large part on the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act.  The firm, on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, is seeking to recover damages resulting from securities violations and related misconduct by a Florida company.

August 5, 2005—Firm Prevails in US Court of Appeals on Personal Jurisdiction Over Terrorists in Civil Cases.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in Mwani v. Osama bin Laden et.al. 04-5266, concluded that the Kenyan victims of the August 7, 1998 terrorist bombing of the American Embassy had established personal jurisdiction over defendants al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden.  Reversing the trial court's decision, the appellate court agreed with the firm's argument that a federal court was empowered to assess contacts nationally, rather than only in the District of Columbia.

As Judge Garland wrote:  The defendants "engaged in unabashedly malignant actions directed at and felt in this country.  Bin Laden and al Qaeda should therefore reasonably anticipate being haled into court here by those injured as a result of those actions, regardless of the plaintiffs' nationality.

"The Circuit Court also concluded that plaintiffs' claims "would appear to fall well within...the narrow set of claims..." available under the Alien Tort Claims Act, as defined by the Supreme Court in its 2004 decision in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain 124 S.Ct. 2739 (2004).

The Department of the Treasury, through its Office of Foreign Assets Control ("OFAC"), and pursuant to EOs 13224, 12947, and 13099 is currently holding millions of dollars of frozen assets of the defendants.  

May 7, 2005—Firm's Attorney Speaks at Paris Human Rights Conference.

Mr. Musolino spoke as a panel member at the annual human rights conference hosted in Paris by Diaspora Afrique.  The title of the 2005 conference was: "Des Camps de Concentration en Namibie en 1904 aux Camps de Concentration Nazi en Europe" ("From the Concentration Camps in Namibia in 1904 to the Nazi Camps in Europe")

February 25, 2005—FTC Settles Hard-Fought $12 million "Landmark Case" against Firm's Client for $750,000.

In Federal Trade Commission v. Capital City Mortgage Corporation 98-237 (GK), the FTC, after seven years of intensive litigation, agreed to accept $750,000 in settlement of its $12 million claim.  The real estate lending case, filed by the FTC in 1998 in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, was the subject of agency Congressional testimony,  and had been described by the FTC and the Washington Post as a "landmark" case.

We are very pleased that our clients have reached a settlement with the FTC on terms that do not disrupt Capital City’s ongoing operations, that are readily manageable financially, and that, most importantly, reflect the FTC’s acknowledgement that its flagship litigation of the Truth In Lending Act (TILA), the FTC Act (FTCA), the Fair Debt Collection Act (FDCPA) and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA), was, ultimately, ill-advised.

As with most litigation, each party is afforded the opportunity through discovery and through motions and pretrial practice to assess and to re-assess the strengths and the weaknesses of their case.  For Capital City, that process, including the production of over one million pages of documents, scores of depositions, and thousands of pages of motions, confirmed its confidence in a successful outcome.  For the FTC, obviously, that process led it to recognize that its loan origination claims, and its loan servicing claims, were far weaker than it had assumed when it initiated the action in 1998. 

Certainly, the FTC recognized that its loss of the single most important TILA motion in August 2003  in the case mandated reevaluation. (For a copy of the ruling, see Docket Number 757).  Equally important, as the agency learned more about lending and loan servicing in general, as well as practices at Capital City, the agency’s initial allegations on loan servicing under the FTCA also proved to be untenable. Though the FTC felt compelled to revise its loan servicing expert’s report twice, abandoning after one round of pretrial procedures fully one-third of the expert’s original claims, the agency recognized that its expert’s criticisms were unreliable.  Conceding both its inability to recover any monetary damages under the FDCPA, and the absence of any charges other than record-keeping errors under ECOA, the FTC, to its credit, agreed to a settlement amount that was not significantly in excess of the likely litigation costs for a trial estimated at six to eight weeks.  Particularly in light of Capital City’s earlier receipt from various third party defendants in this case of nearly $100,000 in settlement of indemnification claims, and six figure expert witness fees – mostly borne by the FTC – the settlement amount is a prudent minimization of litigation expenses.

The non-monetary settlement provisions require no substantive change in Capital City’s ongoing practices.  It continues to enjoy a successful commercial loan niche in the District of Columbia area, and looks forward to providing similar financial services to qualified borrowers for many years.

Though the case took seven years to resolve, the litigation was managed effectively, efficiently, and fairly by the US District Court.  The FTC's requests for extensions to seek to add parties, and to seek additional types of discovery added years to the litigation after Judge Kessler was reassigned the case from a retiring judge.  Throughout that period, however, as before, important motions were decided, and Magistrate Judge Kay worked creatively and tirelessly to forge a settlement atmosphere, and ultimately a settlement, that often appeared well beyond reach.