Christopher L. Hayes

Associate
Washington, DC

t: 202 274 1108
f: 202 237 6131

chayes@bsfllp.com

Download vCard

Areas of Practice

Litigation

Antitrust

Class Actions

Education

Duke University School of Law, J.D., magna cum laude, 2002; Order of the Coif; Faculty Award for Achievement in Property Law; Lead Articles Editor, Law & Contemporary Problems

Pomona College, B.A., cum laude, Philosophy, 1992

Clerkships

Hon. Frank Magill, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2003-2004

Hon. James Brady, United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, 2002-2003

Admissions

California, the District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania

United States Courts of Appeals: Sixth and Eighth Circuits

United States District Courts: District of Columbia

United States Supreme Court

Chris Hayes practices complex civil litigation, and has handled many disputes involving the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property law. He has successfully represented individuals, companies and plaintiff classes at all stages of litigation, in state and federal courts and before the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. Representative cases include the following:

Antitrust & Intellectual Property:

Monsanto Co. v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Pioneer Hi-Bred Int'l, (E.D. Mo.). Mr. Hayes represents DuPont and Pioneer in a hybrid patent infringement and monopolization case against Monsanto. Monsanto sued DuPont and Pioneer for patent infringement. DuPont and Pioneer are defending against the infringement claims and also countersuing to break through Monsanto's patent monopoly over Roundup Ready herbicide tolerant traits. They seek to prove Monsanto obtained its monopoly by obtaining patents by fraud or inequitable conduct. They also seek to stop Monsanto from employing a patent-hopping strategy to extend its Roundup Ready patent monopoly by coercively switching breeders, seed companies, and farmers to a repackaged second generation Roundup Ready product while simultaneously withdrawing the old Roundup Ready product from the market before the patent protecting it expires.

Molecular Diagnostics Labs. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. (D.D.C.). Mr. Hayes represented a class of direct purchasers in a successful class action seeking damages for monopoly overcharges paid for Taq DNA polymerase as a result of defendants' improper procurement and enforcement of a set of patents that yielded power over the market for the Taq enzyme. Mr. Hayes helped obtain the first decision holding direct purchasers have antitrust standing to sue companies that use patents to create and maintain illegal monopolies. Molecular Diagnostics Labs. v. Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., et al., 402 F. Supp. 2d 276 (D.D.C. 2005). The case settled for $33 million.

In re Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y.). Mr. Hayes represented a putative class of direct purchasers of guaranteed investment contracts, advance refunding escrows, swaps, and other financial products in a class action against several banks and brokerages. The plaintiff municipalities seek to recover damages resulting from a bid-rigging conspiracy affecting interest rates on municipal derivatives.

Other engagements: Mr. Hayes represented a Fortune 500 manufacturer in challenges to its wholesale and retail discount promotional programs under the Sherman Act and the Robinson-Patman Act. In one challenge, Mr. Hayes helped draft successful briefs for summary judgment, and successfully defended that judgment on appeal to the Sixth Circuit and against a petition for certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court. In a second case, Mr. Hayes also successfully defended dismissal of an attempted monopolization claim brought by a competing manufacturer before the Sixth Circuit. In a third case, Mr. Hayes defended a challenge to a retail price promotion program against price discrimination and contract claims brought by a national retailer, and helped obtain a favorable settlement.

Financial Crisis:

Genesco Inc. v. The Finish Line, Inc., et al. (Tenn. Chancery Ct.) and UBS Securities LLC v. The Finish Line, Inc. and Genesco Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). Mr. Hayes represented Genesco in successful expedited litigation against The Finish Line and its investment bank UBS to obtain specific performance of a $1.5 billion merger agreement, one of the first of such cases to be tried in the wake of the credit crisis of 2007. Defendants sought release from their obligations on the grounds that Genesco had suffered a "Material Adverse Event" and fraudulently induced defendants to agree to the merger. In a separate case, Mr. Hayes helped defend Genesco against an attempt by UBS to avoid funding the ordered merger on the basis that the combined company would be insolvent. Genesco obtained a settlement valued at roughly $225 million.

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Barclays Bank PLLC and Morgan Stanley Capital Servs. Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). Mr. Hayes represented Barclays in a dispute with Morgan Stanley over the termination of a credit default swap (CDS) that was a primary asset of a failing collateral debt obligation (CDO) to which Barclays provided liquidity, becoming the senior note holder. Barclays directed the trustee of the CDO to terminate the CDS when Morgan Stanley failed to provide credit support as CDS counterparty after suffering a series of credit downgrades. Threatened with a lawsuit by Morgan Stanley, the trustee filed an interpleader action, asking for a declaration of the parties' rights. The case settled after trial.

Constitutional Law:

McDonald v. City of Chicago (U.S. Supreme Court). Mr. Hayes represented Members of Congress as amici curiae, supporting affirmance of the court of appeals' order upholding the city of Chicago's gun regulations against a Second Amendment challenge.

District of Columbia v. Heller (U.S. Supreme Court). Mr. Hayes represented Members of Congress as amici curiae, supporting reversal of the court of appeals' order that invalidated the District of Columbia's gun regulations on Second Amendment grounds.

Oliver v. Quarterman (U.S. Supreme Court). Mr. Hayes represented Mr. Khristian Oliver in seeking review of a death sentence imposed by jurors who, as part of their deliberations, debated Bible passages calling for imposing death in circumstances close to those alleged in Mr. Oliver's case.

Schubert v. Pleasant Glade Assembly of God (U.S. Supreme Court). Mr. Hayes represented Ms. Laura Schubert in seeking review of a Texas Supreme Court decision vacating, on First Amendment free exercise grounds, a jury award compensating her for damages she suffered as a minor when members of the Pleasant Glade Assembly of God Church subjected her to "laying on of hands" against her will.