(212) 310-8286Tap to Call This Lawyer

Richard Levine

Richard, click here to claim your profile for free! Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

Review This Lawyer

Compare Save

Professional Experience

Partner: Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP; Current

: Current; In Re: MK Resources Company Shareholder LitigationMr. Levine lead Weil Gotshal’s team representing Leucadia National Corporation and MK Resources in defense of a putative shareholder class action alleging breaches of fiduciary duty and the companion appraisal proceeding relating to Leucadia’s 2005 buyout of the minority stockholders of MK Resources. Millennium Chemicals v. GliddenMr. Levine has primary responsibility for this litigation in which the firm represents Millennium in a dispute over indemnification obligations for lead paint nuisance, personal injury and property damage claims under a 1986 contract selling the Glidden paint business. Templeton China World Fund (Franklin Resources) v. President and Fellows of Harvard CollegeMr. Levine lead Franklin Resources’ defense of proxy contests mounted by Harvard, the largest shareholder in two closed-end Franklin-Templeton mutual funds. Mr. Levine crafted the corporate and litigation strategy and was lead counsel in the federal court litigation brought by Franklin alleging violations of various provisions of the federal securities laws by Harvard. UICIMr. Levine co-lead a Weil Gotshal team providing crisis management representation to this publicly-traded company after it discovered that an officer of a subsidiary had provided incorrect information to lenders in connection with several securitization transactions. The Weil Gotshal team was able to draft corrective public disclosure documents overnight, negotiate releases and accommodations with lenders, and generally help the client successfully navigate the crisis. Bertelsmann AGMr. Levine headed the Weil Gotshal team representing Bertelsmann in a proceeding in which Bertelsmann sought the dissolution of an investment vehicle based on claims of fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. A settlement was achieved involving the payment to Bertelsmann of tens of millions of dollars. In re DVI, Inc. and Intrepid v. DVI, Inc.Mr. Levine was the senior litigator involved in the firm’s representation of XL Capital as an insurer of securitized notes issued by a special purpose entity in connection with this large, heavily litigated bankruptcy case. Mr. Levine also lead the defense of XL Capital and Nomura Securities in the related Intrepid litigation in which the plaintiffs alleged a failure to fund under credit agreements that were assigned to the underlying securitization; following the filing of a motion to dismiss, plaintiffs agreed to dismiss Weil Gotshal’s clients from the lawsuit with prejudice. In re: Enron Corp.Mr. Levine lead a Weil Gotshal team charged with undertaking a factual and legal analysis of the case for the substantive consolidation of Enron’s subsidiaries with Enron Corp. itself. This involved the development of the facts relating to the pre-Chapter 11 inner workings of Enron. This massive investigation, accomplished in close coordination with counsel for the Creditors Committee, involved numerous interviews and an extensive review of corporate documentation. Mr. Levine also played a key role in the prosecution of Enron’s motion for confirmation of its proposed Chapter 11 plan. In re: Enron Corp.Mr. Levine played a major role in the drafting of Enron Corp.’s Nov. 2001 Form 10Q, which contained extensive first time disclosure about Enron’s off-balance sheet finances, the preparation of Enron’s complaint against Dynegy alleging breach of a merger agreement, the negotiating and papering, in a crisis atmosphere, of the Dynegy pipeline transfer settlement, the successful prosecution of a motion to obtain bankruptcy court approval of the payment of defense costs from Enron’s D&O and Fiduciary insurance policies, and the successful prosecution of a motion resulting in the retention of Special Employees Counsel to represent present and former employees in connection with the various government investigations into Enron’s collapse. In re: Minolta - QMS, Inc. Shareholder LitigationMr. Levine played a principal role in the defense of Minolta in this putative class action in Delaware Chancery Court alleging that the price paid by Minolta to buy out minority stockholders was unfair. Plaintiffs voluntarily dropped the case after Weil Gotshal filed a motion to dismiss. Brooks, Houghton & Co., Inc. v. Hollywood Media Corp. (then known as BIG Entertainment, Inc.)Mr. Levine lead the defense of this arbitration relating to a dispute over the construction of an investment banking retainer agreement. The Panel awarded Weil’s client summary judgment immediately after Mr. Levine’s opening statement at the commencement of the trial. Breeden v. Arthur AndersenMr. Levine played a leading role in the firm’s highly successful defense of numerous lawsuits against Arthur Andersen stemming from the Bennett Funding Group bankruptcy, with Mr. Levine having significant responsibility for the defense of accounting malpractice claims brought by the Bankruptcy Trustee against Andersen. Reuters v. Cantor FitzgeraldMr. Levine was the primary partner responsible for Reuters’ defense of Cantor Fitzgerald’s counterclaims, which raised very complicated contract and systems/accounting/administration issues in a complex multi-year international arbitration in which Reuters successfully sought the termination of a long term contract. Compagnia Lubrificanti S.r.l. v. Synco ChemicalsMr. Levine was lead counsel in this action in which the firm defended a manufacturing company against claims by its former Italian distributor alleging breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. The case was settled on virtually the eve of trial on highly favorable terms. DeNault v. High Speed Access Corp.Mr. Levine was responsible for the defense of this shareholder class action litigation filed in Delaware Chancery Court alleging a breach of fiduciary duty by the directors in their sale of substantially all the assets of the company, including the shepherding of the settlement through the court approval process.

Education