Home

On August 5, 2026, the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri granted our client’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, removing it entirely from a lawsuit brought by an investment firm.

In early 2026, plaintiffs filed suit against our client (a law firm) and others in St. Louis County.  Our client moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction.  After full briefing and oral argument by Joe Terry, the Court granted the motion and dismissed all claims against our client.

On August 3, 2026, the Court of Appeals of Virginia issued a unanimous decision affirming the Circuit Court of Fairfax County’s order confirming an arbitration award in favor of our client, Space Adventures, Inc., and its co-defendants (collectively, “Space Adventurers”), rejecting all challenges to personal jurisdiction and service of process raised by the appellant.

The case arose from a dispute over a 2016 corporate restructuring of Space Adventures, accomplished through several agreements including a Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”).  In 2019, a group of former shareholders and directors sued in Nevada state court to challenge the restructuring and unwind the divestiture of Space Adventures’ spaceflight business.  After the Nevada court dismissed the action citing the SPA, the investors filed a demand for arbitration under that agreement.  The arbitrator dismissed the investors’ claims with prejudice and entered judgment for Space Adventurers on its counterclaim for breach of the SPA’s arbitration provisions.  Following the Supreme Court of Nevada’s affirmance of the dismissal, in July 2023 Space Adventurers moved the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, the forum specified in the SPA, to confirm the arbitration award.  The circuit court confirmed the award on May 24, 2024.

In August 2026, following oral argument by Ted Bennett and briefing led by Ricardo Leyva, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals of Virginia unanimously affirmed the circuit court’s judgment, holding that the plaintiff was bound by the SPA’s forum and service provisions because he had invoked the SPA to pursue arbitration, that the plaintiff waived his challenge to the SPA’s authenticity by acknowledging before the circuit court that the appellees held a valid arbitration award, and that service was effective.

On July 31, 2026, Judge Yvonne Williams of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia issued a Trial Order awarding our client, the Wardman Tower Residential Condominium Unit Owners Association, $356 million in damages against the developers of Wardman Tower, finding them liable for defective renovation, misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty.

In November 2020, the Association filed suit against the Developer Defendants, alleging that they defectively renovated the historic Wardman Tower Residential Condominium and concealed the building’s true condition from unit owners.  The case proceeded to a bench trial before Judge Williams beginning November 10, 2025, and concluding on March 5, 2026.  After post-trial briefing and argument, the Court issued a 148-page Trial Order finding in favor of the Association on eight of its eleven claims.  The Court found that the Developer Defendants negligently constructed and renovated Wardman Tower.  The Court further found that the Developer Defendants violated the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act by making material misrepresentations and omissions about the condition of the building, negligently misrepresented the building’s condition to prospective purchasers, breached statutory warranties against structural defects, and breached their fiduciary duties while controlling the condominium’s Board of Directors.

On July 29th, 2026, a team of Williams & Connolly associates, working in conjunction with the International Refugee Assistance Project (IRAP), achieved a milestone pro bono victory in the Eastern District of Virginia on behalf of family members of individuals who aided the United States military in Afghanistan and obtained asylum status in the U.S. after fleeing Afghanistan.  The seven families were expected to come to the U.S. through a follow-to-join process, whereby family members of asylees are given the same status.  Unfortunately, the Department of Homeland Security and State Department prohibited them from doing so based on an erroneous reading of the President’s Proclamations restricting the entry of nationals from certain countries, including Afghanistan.

Four associates at Williams & Connolly identified this problem, researched the law, and drafted a compelling complaint challenging the government’s position under the Administrative Procedures Act.  The associates filed the lawsuit in the Eastern District of Virginia, staved off the government’s motion to dismiss, handled numerous discovery conferences, and then prevailed on summary judgment.  The associates handled the arguments in court at every stage of the case.  As a result, the Court vacated the government’s policy and ordered the prompt issuance of travel documents (or State Department interviews, in two instances) to the affected families.