Kenneth W. Ritt
Kenneth "Ken" Ritt is a trial lawyer who has handled a wide variety of complex commercial cases on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants. He is often involved in litigation raising claims of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, collusion, exclusion and unfair trade practices. He has conducted numerous significant trials, hearings, and appeals in federal and state courts and has participated in a variety of commercial arbitrations. He has extensive experience employing alternative dispute resolution methods to effect innovative solutions to business disputes.
In recent years, Ken has done extensive work as a New Mexico Special Assistant Attorney General, acting as trial counsel on behalf of state sovereign wealth funds in a series of cases arising from a pay-to-play scheme involving alternative and private investments.
By virtue of the size and complexity of the matters he handles, Ken has extensive experience managing large-scale document and data productions. He works closely with the firm's e-Discovery Counsel to develop solutions to clients' discovery problems that are economic, efficient, effective and – most importantly – legally defensible.
Representation of New Mexico sovereign wealth funds in connection with securities and common law claims arising from a pay-to-play scheme involving alternative and private investments
Representation of plaintiff logistics company in unfair trade practices action against special-purpose entity created by an alternative investment manager
Representation of plaintiff electronics corporation in an action against an international law firm and one of its London-based partners for assisting former officers and directors in misappropriating and hiding corporate assets
Defense of a Finnish paper company and its U.S. subsidiary in federal multi-district class action antitrust litigation and related state cases alleging price fixing in the market for publication paper
Defense of a prominent bank in the trial of a securities class action alleging the fraudulent misstatement of loan loss reserves
Representation of plaintiff reinsurers, including syndicates at Lloyds of London, in the trial, appeal and trial on remand of a landmark reinsurance fraud case that resulted in an order of rescission and a judgment for $38 million in first trial and a decision in the trial on remand that the duty of utmost good faith owed by the defendant created a fiduciary duty
Representation of plaintiff domestic reinsurance company in an action to enjoin former senior officers and their new employer from using trade secret and other confidential information
Defense of investment advisory and management firm in an action by an educational institution for alleged breach of fiduciary duty in connection with defendant's management of plaintiff's retirement and endowment accounts
Representation of plaintiff designer and manufacturer of an innovative MRI machine in an action against its exclusive sales representative for breach of contract and unfair trade practices
Defense of an antitrust class action alleging a conspiracy among a software solutions company and its insurance company licensees to restrict covered medical services and reduce the reimbursements for those services
Trial counsel for the New England Power Pool in contested hearings before an Administrative Law Judge at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission regarding a comprehensive proposal to restructure the New England wholesale electric power market, including a regional open access transmission tariff
Defense of a manufacturer of medical diagnostic equipment in an antitrust action alleging an unlawful joint venture
Defense of a software solutions company in an antitrust action brought by an independent service organization alleging an unlawful tying arrangement
Selected to the list of Connecticut Super Lawyers (Thomson Reuters), Business Litigation, 2007-2017
Selected to the list of Super Lawyers (Thompson Reuters), Corporate Counsel edition, 2010Chosen for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America (Woodward/White, Inc.), Antitrust Law, 2013
No aspect of these advertisements has been approved by the highest court of any state. See Awards Methodology.