 |
|
|
Merril
Hirsh, Partner
Washington, DC
| p | (202) 662-2032 |
| f | (202) 662-2190 |
 DOWNLOAD V-CARD
Merril Hirsh is a partner in Ross, Dixon & Bell, LLP’s Washington, DC office. He joined the firm in 1989.
Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Hirsh was a Trial Attorney in the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice. There, he represented federal agencies and employees in courts across the country, primarily in cases challenging the validity of agency action and regulations and the constitutionality of Acts of Congress. Among other experience, Mr. Hirsh was the lead counsel representing the United States Department of Education in the eight-month school desegregation trial in Kansas City, Missouri, the lead counsel representing the Veterans Administration in a two-month trial challenging the constitutionality of an Act of Congress, and one of the primary counsel responsible for negotiating an innovative Title VII class action employment settlement that reorganized the personnel practices at a major military base.
Since coming to RDB, Mr. Hirsh has maintained an active litigation and insurance practice. Mr. Hirsh’s litigation at RDB includes significant and successful litigation on behalf of plaintiffs and defendants in antitrust, intellectual property, securities, corporate, discrimination, class action, and other cases. For example, he is one of the attorneys responsible for the False Claims Act litigation that in December 1999 resulted in a jury verdict finding that Koch Industries, Inc. submitted over 24,000 false claims on Government or Native American oil leases. He also was one of the attorneys who obtained an $85 million settlement on behalf of a class of resellers of long-distance service involving telephone rates. Mr. Hirsh has been part of the team representing Horizon Sports Technology and its principals in antitrust and False Claims Act litigation alleging price fixing for carbon fiber, and the team defending the USA Track & Field Association in an antitrust challenge to its standards for competition. He has represented the Financial Planning Association in its successful challenge before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to the SEC’s “broker-dealer” rule. His insurance practice includes representing the interests of directors and officers liability insurers in scores of matters, including complex securities, takeover and intellectual property cases, and coverage litigation and the interests of general liability carriers in asbestos litigation, and the interests of managed care errors and omissions insurers in underlying RICO litigation. He has been the lead counsel representing the primary executive liability insurance carrier in connection with the Allegheny Health, Education & Research Foundation (AHERF) bankruptcy and district court litigation and one of the primary general liability carriers in the Combustion Engineering bankruptcy proceeding.
A speaker on a number of issues, Mr. Hirsh is a chapter editor of the ABA Section of Antitrust Law’s Proof of Conspiracy Under the Federal Antitrust Laws (in publication); author of “Are False Positives Really So Negative? A Response to Kevin McDonald,” Antitrust, Vol. 17 No. 3, at 83 (Summer 2003), and “Can An Insurer and An Insured Settle an Insurance Policy?,” 11 Mealey’s Litigation Report at 15 (Oct. 28, 1997); co-author with other RDB attorneys of the appendix “Background of the Illinois Brick Decision,” ABA’s Indirect Purchaser Litigation Handbook (Aug 8, 2007); co-author with other RDB attorneys of the Sherman Act Section 2 chapter of the ABA’s Antitrust and Telecommunications Practice Guide; co-author of “I Didn’t Say Orphan Often: The Benefits of a Bright-Line Rule Banning Brand to Generic Payments in Hatch-Waxman Patent Settlements,” ABA Antitrust Health Care Chronicle, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer 2005); author of “The Essential Facilities Doctrine: Keeping the Word ‘Epithet’ from Becoming One,” March 2003; co-author with other RDB attorneys of the article “In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup: A New Form of Chicago School Education,” FindLaw and (in summary) in Corporate Counsel Magazine (December 2002) and National Law Journal (December 2002); author of “Settlement Allocation Under Directors and Officers Liability Insurance: A Return to Basics,” Coverage, March/April 1995 at 20; and author of “Settlement Allocation Under Directors’ and Officers’ Liability Policies Takes Another Turn: The Nordstrom Decision,” Coverage, May/June 1995 at 1.
Publications
|
|
8/8/2007
|
“Background of the Illinois Brick Decision,” Appendix, ABA Section of Antitrust Law’s Indirect Purchaser Litigation Handbook
|
|
8/7/2007
|
Letter on Reverse Payment Settlements, ANTITRUST Summer 2007 Issue
|
|
Summer 2005
|
“I Didn’t Say Orphan Often: The Benefits of a Bright-Line Rule Banning Brand to Generic Payments in Hatch-Waxman Patent Settlements,” ABA Antitrust Health Care Chronicle, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer 2005)
|
|
7/1/2003
|
“Are False Positives Really So Negative? A Response to Kevin McDonald,” ANTITRUST, Vol. 17 No. 3, at 83 (Summer 2003)
|
|
3/21/2003
|
The Essential Facilities Doctrine: Keeping the Word “Epithet” from Becoming One
|
|
11/1/2002
|
“In Re High Fructose Corn Syrup: A New Form of Chicago School Education,” Findlaw.com
|
|
10/28/1997
|
“Can An Insurer and An Insured Settle an Insurance Policy?,” 11 Mealey’s Litigation Report at 15
|
|
|
ABA’s Antitrust and Telecommunications Practice Guide, Sherman Act Section 2 Chapter, Co-Author
|
In The News
Events
RDB Alerts
|
|