Gilman Law, LLP
(Managing Partner 2005 to present)
Beachway Professional Center Tower
Naples, Florida 34119

Gilman and Pastor, LLP
(Managing Partner 1984 – 2009)
60 State Street
Boston, Massachusetts

Blackwell Walker Powers Flick & Hoehl
(1980 – 1983)
Miami, Florida


Florida (1982 to present)
U.S. District Court (Middle District of Florida) (Current)
U.S. District Court (Southern District of Florida) (Current)
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals (Current)
Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1979 to present)
U.S. District Court District of Massachusetts (Current)
First Circuit Court of Appeals (Current)


Suffolk University Law School
Boston, Massachusetts
J.D. 1979

Boston University
Boston, Massachusetts
B.S. 1976

Representative Cases by Area of Practice (Summary Bio)

For over 35 years, Mr. Gilman has concentrated on complex civil litigation on behalf of consumers, investors, and businesses. Mr. Gilman has broad experience in the areas of: (1) antitrust and unfair competition; (2) complex business litigation; (3) construction litigation; (4) consumer protection; (5) insurance law and litigation; (6) personal injury and products liability; (7) real estate litigation and (8) securities and commodities fraud. He has litigated many cases throughout the country, including in both federal and state courts. While serving as Managing Partner, Mr. Gilman and the firm have dedicated themselves to their clients interests over the past 35 years. We have worked extremely hard for our clients and have been privileged to recover in excess of one billion dollars for our clients.

Antitrust and Consumer Protection

Mr. Gilman has represented clients in litigation involving price-fixing and other anti-competitive conduct. He has also litigated a wide range of cases involving: banking, data breaches, deceptive sales practices, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. He has also represented consumers and consumer classes in litigation and multiple class actions involving important consumer protection issues and anti-competitive conduct.

Mr. Gilman was appointed as Lead Class Counsel in Fortin v. Ajinomoto, et al., (Civil Action No. 02-2345C, Middlesex Superior Court, Mass.), and after several years of contested litigation, obtained class settlements totaling $8.2 million. In approving the Settlement, Judge Gants (former Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) commented as follows: “I find that the attorneys in this case [Gilman and Pastor LLP] were and are experienced, extremely able. The work they have done is top notch, both in terms of its written advocacy and its oral advocacy, and in terms of the quality of its legal work. I do also recognize that defense counsel is also very able with regard to each of the defendants. And frankly, it requires heavyweight counsel to compete against heavyweight defense counsel. “

Mr. Gilman was appointed as co-lead counsel by the Northern District of New York in Casey, et. al. v. Citibank, N.A., Assurant, Inc., et. al., No. 00820 (N.D. N.Y.) and successfully prosecuted a case on behalf of consumers nationwide who were the victims of forced-placed hazard, flood and wind insurance by the Defendants. The Defendants engaged in a complicated and coordinated scheme to artificially inflate the cost of insurance premiums for forced-placed insurance. After significant litigation, Plaintiffs were successful in resolving the case in 2014 for consumers nationwide and recovering damages and injunctive relief with a combined value of more than $110 million dollars. Additional cases were also prosecuted against other responsible parties.
Mr. Gilman was appointed as Lead Counsel by the Massachusetts Trial Court in the consolidated Massachusetts Indirect Purchaser Actions involving a world-wide price-fixing conspiracy by Samsung, Hynix, Infineon, Micron, and other producers of DRAM (dynamic random access memory) to artificially inflate the prices of memory chips. He was also appointed by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California to the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litigation, No. M 02-1486 (N.D. Cal.) and litigated the case on behalf of indirect purchasers nationwide. The case was settled in 2015 after extremely hard fought litigation for in excess of $500 million dollars.

Mr. Gilman was appointed as Lead Counsel by the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in In re OSB Antitrust Litigation, (Case No. 06-CV-00826, E.D. PA.) and prosecuted a case on behalf of consumers and businesses in over 20 states .who were the victims of federal and state antitrust violations by the manufacturers of oriented strand board (“OSB”), a substitute for plywood. The Defendants engaged in a complicated and coordinated scheme to reduce supply at many of its manufacturing plants nationwide and in Canada to artificially inflate prices for OSB from 2002 through 2006. Mr. Gilman was appointed to: (1) coordinate all activities; (2) manage the other 15 firms who had commenced litigation; (3) set up systems for and to engage in all discovery; (4) retain and work with experts in a variety of disciplines; (5) prepare all briefing; and (6) prepare the case for trial. After a class was certified and discovery continued for over two years, the case was successfully resolved in 2009 against Louisiana Pacific Corp., Georgia Pacific, Ainsworth, J.M. Huber, Weyerhaeuser Company and Norbord upon allegations that the companies artificially fixed prices of and reduced the supply of OSB. The District Court commended the firm and commented that counsel were “highly skilled, experienced and ably represented the class in the complex action.”

Mr. Gilman served as a member of the Plaintiffs’ Counsels’ Steering Committee in In re High Fructose Corn Syrup Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1083, (C.D. Ill.), a complex antitrust suit alleging a price fixing conspiracy on the part of manufacturers of high fructose com syrup. As a member of the Steering Committee, he litigated the case for over five years. During that time, the District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants and Plaintiffs successfully appealed the Judgment to the Seventh Circuit. After a reversal of the Summary Judgment order, Plaintiffs litigated the case and ultimately reached settlements totaling approximately $500 million.

Mr. Gilman and his co-counsel made new law on behalf of indirect purchaser consumers in the Supreme Judicial Court in and for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Vitamins Price Fixing Litigation (Ciardi v. F. Hoffman-La Roche, Ltd. and others, No.11936, D. Mass). The case involved a matter of first impression in Massachusetts. The Defendants challenged the standing of Massachusetts consumers to sue for antitrust violations under M.G.L.C. 93A Section 9. Plaintiffs successfully prevailed and after subsequently litigating the case, settled with more than $22.9 million being distributed to over 300 charitable organizations providing food and nutrition programs in Massachusetts.

In In re Microsoft Massachusetts Consumer Protection Litigation, No. 00-2456 (Middlesex Superior Court, Mass.), Mr. Gilman was appointed co-lead counsel and litigated this complex litigation and engaged in substantial discovery, before recovery of a settlement valued at $34 million.

Mr. Gilman was appointed as the Federal Equity Receiver by the Honorable District Court Judge Jose H. Gonzalez, Jr., in the Southern District of Florida in the Intercontinental Commodities Fraud Litigation. As part of his duties, Mr. Gilman was privileged to serve the Court by: (a) commencing litigation against responsible promoters and professionals; (b) working with the Department of Justice and Commodities Futures Trading Commission; (c) marshalling all assets and evidence of the multiple entities; and (d) regularly reporting to and meeting with the District Court Judge.

Mr. Gilman also served as counsel to the Federal Equity Receiver in the nationwide Lloyd Carr Commodities Fraud Litigation. After several years of litigation, Mr. Gilman was honored to subsequently serve as Special Counsel to the Department of Justice for several years in prosecuting related complex litigation in state and Federal Courts in Massachusetts and Florida. Gilman prosecuted complex cases to recover assets for the Department of Justice. The cases were successfully resolved on multiple fronts.

Mr. Gilman developed unique expertise in litigation involving fraudulent marketing schemes, including obtaining significant decisions in Webster v. Omnitrition, 79 F.3d 776, 782 (9th Cir. 1996) (holding that multi-level marketing firm could be found to be a pyramid scheme and an investment security where there was no evidence that it actually enforced “anti­ pyramid” requirements; Capone v. Nu Skin Canada, Inc., (Case No. 93-C-2855, D.Utah) (Gilman and Pastor obtained court approval of settlement of class claims against multi-level marketing firm after successfully opposing multiple motions to dismiss and for summary judgment and after extensive discovery); Rhodes v. Consumers’ Buyline, Inc., 868 F.Supp. 368 (D.Mass.) (case settled after Gilman and Pastor obtained court ruling of first impression from the Honorable Robert Keaton that contractual arbitration clause was unenforceable because distributorship agreement violated public policies against pyramid marketing schemes).

Mr. Gilman served as co-counsel and recovered $39 million dollars for consumers who purchased products containing monosodium glutamate (“MSG”) and nucleotides for price fixing and unlawful allocation of markets against three defendants: Ajinomoto Co., Inc., CJ Corp., and Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd in the State of New Mexico. Mr. Gilman served as lead counsel for the class in Anslono v. Thorn Americas, Inc., (Civil Action No. 0049, Suffolk Superior Court Department, Mass.), and obtained a class settlement of claims for false advertising of “rent to own” contracts.

Mr. Gilman served as lead counsel in Muccioli v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., No. 413148 (San Mateo Cty. California Superior Court) and obtained a substantial nationwide class settlement that provided repairs and partial refunds of past repair costs to purchasers of Sony products in an action arising out of alleged product defects, breaches of warranty, and deceptive trade practices.

Mr. Gilman served as lead counsel in Boos v. Abbott Laboratories, No.10091 (D.Mass.), which was the first case in which indirect purchasers in Massachusetts ever recovered damages arising from a price-fixing conspiracy. The case was successfully resolved for the class of Massachusetts consumers.

Insurance Law and Litigation

Mr. Gilman has been actively involved in representing consumers, businesses and nationwide classes against insurance companies to recover for multiple deceptive insurance practices. He has also defended many insurance companies in multiple litigation matters in a wide range of litigation and coverage matters. These include cases concerning: business interruption, commercial disputes, construction, coverage issues, environmental and products liability actions.

For example, Mr. Gilman was actively involved in the prosecution of numerous cases involving the sales, marketing, and operations of life insurance, including Michaels v. Phoenix Home Life Mutual Insurance Company, Index No. 5318-95 (NY.Sup.Ct., Albany County), 1997 N.Y.Misc. LEXIS 171. After extensive litigation a recovery was obtained that was valued in excess of $150 million. In re Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada Insurance Litigation, MDL No. 1102 (D.N.J.) (recovery was obtained in excess of $100 million for class); In re New England Mutual Life Insurance Company Sales Practices Litigation, MDL No. 1105 (D.Mass.) (court appointed Gilman and Pastor, LLP as liaison counsel in MDL proceeding; court subsequently approved substantial class settlement valued at over $300 Million for the class); Duhaine v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, (Civil Action No.10706-GAO, D.Mass.) (substantial class settlement obtained in excess of $350 million); Natal v. Transamerica Occidental Life Insurance Company, Index No. 694829 (CA.Sup.Ct., San Diego County) (recovery was obtained that was valued in excess of $100 Million); In re: Manufacturers Life Insurance Company Premium Litigation, MDL No. 1109 (S.D.Cal.) (substantial settlement for class in excess of $125 Million); Mr. Gilman has also defended multiple insurance companies in matters involving commercial litigation, products liability, professional liability wrongful death litigation and insurance coverage disputes.

Real Estate Litigation

Mr. Gilman has handled many complex real estate litigation matters involving a variety of issues including non-disclosure, forensic accounting, complex valuation and operational activities. He has substantial experience concerning the valuation and operation of commercial properties and hotels, with regard to all common methodologies used to evaluate and value hotels and commercial properties. Mr. Gilman has also tried eminent domain taking cases before juries in Massachusetts. The firm has also litigated complex fraudulent schemes relating to publicly traded and non-publicly traded Real Estate Investment Trusts. (“REITs”). Some examples of Mr. Gilman’s experience include the following: Adam, et al. v. Berkshire Realty Corporation, No.12864 WF (D.Mass) where Mr. Gilman was appointed as co-lead counsel, managed 10 other firms and achieved a settlement before the Honorable Chief Judge Mark Wolf valued at over ten million dollars. The case involved the analysis of multiple commercial buildings, hotels and related accounting issues.

In Re Equitec Rollup Litigation, Master File No.2064 (N.D.Cal.) where he served as co-counsel and litigated a complex roll-up of hundreds of real estate properties into a public entity and participated in the successful trial of the litigation.

Mr. Gilman was appointed to serve as one of two co-lead counsel representing a class of limited partners in In re Oxford Tax Exempt Fund Securities Litigation, No.3643 (D. Md.), a case asserting federal securities and related common law claims arising out of a complex partnership restructuring transaction involving multiple commercial properties and hotels nationwide, and obtained a settlement valued in excess of $11 million.

Mr. Gilman served as lead counsel in Sullivan, et al. v. Shearson California Radisson Plaza Partners Hotel, Limited Partnership, et al., No.5472-JMI (C.D. Cal.), a case arising out of a publicly offered limited partnership wherein claims under the 1934 Exchange Act and the 1933 Securities Act were asserted on behalf of the investors. The case involved complex issues of hotel appraisal, valuation, and cost accounting, and resulted in a settlement valued in excess of $11 million on behalf of the class.

In re Shearson Union Square Associates Securities Litigation, No.20246 (N.D.Calif) Mr. Gilman served as co-lead counsel in a complex case concerning a hotel located in San Francisco, California and the commission of deceptive practices in both offering and the operation of the hotel. The case involved the evaluation of the hotel’s income, operations and value.

Mr. Gilman successfully defended his client, Community Federal Savings and Loan Association, who along with State Street Bank and Trust Co., were sued in the Southern District of Florida for antitrust and tying violations in connection with major loans made to multiple projects of a major Florida real estate developer. After extensive discovery and a summary trial, the firm succeeded in having its client, Community Federal Savings & Loan Association, dismissed with no recovery to the plaintiffs.

In Hartley v. Stamford Towers Limited Partnership, et al., No. 2146-JPV (N.D. Cal.), an action arising out of a public limited partnership offering, Mr. Gilman served as co-lead counsel for the investor class and obtained a settlement of $6.5 million. In that litigation the plaintiffs engaged in extensive discovery and negotiations and consultation with real estate valuation experts and forensic accountants and achieved a successful result in the face of several challenging obstacles.

Products Liability, Mass Torts and Construction Litigation

Throughout his career, Mr. Gilman has successfully prosecuted and defended product liability and mass torts litigation related to many dangerous and defective products such as asbestos, aviation defects and crashes, defective automobiles, motorcycles, trucks, building products, pharmaceutical products and devices and consumer products.

Mr. Gilman has also litigated substantial construction cases including: (1) building component failures; (2) defective building products – concrete, insulation, flooring, roofing practices and components, siding and windows; (3) property damage actions and others, including related insurance coverage issues.

In Sebago, Inc., et al. v. Beazer East, Inc., et al., No. 96-10069 (D. Mass.), Mr. Gilman served as lead class counsel before the Honorable Chief Judge Mark Wolf in a suit on behalf of owners of buildings with corrosive phenolic foam roof insulation. The litigation was extremely contentious, involved numerous potentially dispositive motions, discovery motions and extensive class certification proceedings. The defendants produced hundreds of thousands of documents and engaged in hundreds of depositions. To prepare for hearings on class certification, summary judgment and trial, Gilman and Pastor marshaled testimony from many experts in a variety of disciplines, including roofing, engineering, structural engineering, materials science and corrosion, and financial analysis. The firm obtained a significant decision upholding RICO claims against the manufacturers. See Sebago, Inc. v. Beazer East, Inc., 18 F. Supp. 2d 70 (D.Mass. 1998). The District Court approved nationwide class settlements with the two manufacturers of the phenolic foam insulation, with a combined value of more than $240 million.

In In re Shake Roof Cases, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4208, (Contra Costa Cty, California Superior Court), the Court granted final approval to a $61,420,000 partial settlement fund for owners of properties on which certain manufactured cement composite roofing products were installed. Mr. Gilman’s firm was one of four firms that represented the class members. After extensive litigation on all fronts, the case was settled during a lengthy jury trial against certain defendants for over $61 million dollars.

In Coleman, et al. v. GAF Building Materials Corporation, No. 0954 (Circuit Court of Mobile County, Alabama), Mr. Gilman served as lead counsel for a nationwide class of persons who owned properties with defective roofing shingles. The case was extensively litigated for several years and a settlement was obtained for consumers in excess of $75 million.

Other cases handled by Mr. Gilman involving defective building products include Foster v. ABTco, Inc., (Civil Action No.151-M, Choctaw County, Alabama) (defective hardboard siding; nationwide class certified and class settlement approved); In re Louisiana-Pacific Corporation Inner-Seal OSB Trade Practices Litigation, (Master File No.3178-VRW, N.D.Cal.) (defective oriented strand board (OSB); nationwide class certified and settlement approved).

Mr. Gilman represented over 40,000 consumers who purchased defective Honda Goldwings motorcycles in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida, which case involved complex welding processes and defective frames used in certain Honda Goldwings from 2001 through 2005. The firm achieved a successful result requiring Honda to replace the entire frame of any Honda Goldwing manifesting a crack in the frame for the entire operating life of each Honda Goldwing nationwide. Costantini, et al. v. American Honda Motor Co., Inc., C.A. (M.D. Fl.)

Securities and Commodities Litigation

Mr. Gilman has been actively involved in litigation on behalf of defrauded investors in both class action and shareholder derivative litigation. Mr. Gilman was appointed as co-lead counsel to represent the proposed class in the consolidated class action proceeding concerning certain exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”) issued by Direxion entitled In re Direxion Shares ETF Trust Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 1:09-CV-08011-RJH (S.D.N.Y.) This case was litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and was successfully resolved immediately prior to the trial.

Mr. Gilman represented as co-counsel a class of investors in the Madoff related litigation, In Re Tremont Securities Law, State Law and Insurance Litigation, Master file No. 08-civ-11117 (S.D.NY) against Massachusetts Mutual Insurance Company, the owner of Tremont. After several years of litigation, a settlement was granted final approval whereby investors will recover over $700 million dollars.

Mr. Gilman was actively involved in the In re Granada Partnership Securities Litigation, MDL No. 837 (S.D. Tex.), in which a partial settlement in excess of $14 million was reached with certain of the defendants. This was an extremely contentious lawsuit in which every procedural step was a pitched battle. After protracted litigation with extensive motion practice, the partial settlement was reached, which accounted for virtually all of the available·financial resources of the settling defendants.

In In re Transkaryotic Therapies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No.10165-RWZ (D. Mass.), Mr. Gilman represented the lead plaintiff in a securities fraud case involving the company’s misrepresentations about correspondence from the FDA with respect to prospects for approval of one of the company’s key products. The litigation resulted in a recovery for the class of $50 million.

Mr. Gilman served as Co-Lead Counsel in In re Blech Securities Litigation, No.7696-RWS (S.D. N.Y.) asserting unique market manipulation claims against the brokerage firm of D. Blech &Co., its principals, its clearing broker, and several other alleged participants in connection with an alleged scheme to inflate the prices of various biotechnology securities. In a vigorously litigated case, the firm and its co-counsel obtained certification of a class of purchasers of 22 separate securities, successfully opposed various motions to dismiss, and, subsequently, motions for summary judgment, and after extensive discovery and trial preparation, negotiated over $15 million in cash settlements on behalf of the class. This case resulted in several reported opinions, including one that has been frequently cited and referred to by commentators on the issue of clearing broker liability. In re Blech Securities Litigation, 961 F. Supp. 569 (S.D. N.Y.).

Mr. Gilman was appointed as Co-Lead Counsel in Hynes v. The Enstar Group, Inc., et al., 90-C-1204-N (M.D. Alabama). In the face of substantial risks of an unsuccessful outcome due to the bankruptcy (and consequent immunity from suit) of Enstar and the bankruptcy of Enstar’s chairman who was the chief architect of the fraud, Mr. Gilman aggressively litigated the case on behalf of the Class and obtained settlements totaling in excess of $19 million from several defendants, including a major accounting firm, a major law firm, and former outside directors after the conclusion of extensive discovery and immediately prior to the scheduled trial. Subsequently, he obtained an additional $4.1 million for the class in collateral litigation against Michael Milken and related entities.

Mr. Gilman was Co-Lead Counsel in Cooper v. Kana, et al., Civil Action No. 3:98-CV-2804-M (N.D. Texas) on behalf of purchasers of CPS Systems, Inc. (“CPS”) stock in connection with its $8.74 million initial public offering (“IPO”) and trading on the American Stock Exchange thereafter, against CPS, its officers and directors, the underwriters for its IPO, and CPS’s independent auditors, alleging misstatements in the IPO Prospectus and subsequent press releases and SEC filings concerning CPS’s revenue recognition methods and reported revenues and earnings. After CPS restated its earnings and filed bankruptcy, the firm and its co-counsel obtained class certification, defeated various motions to dismiss, conducted discovery, engaged in two separate mediations, and ultimately recovered $3.44 million in cash settlements on behalf of the class against the remaining defendants.

Mr. Gilman served as Co-Lead Counsel in In re Hallwood Energy Partners L.P. Securities Litigation, No.1555-JFK (S.D.N.Y.) in which a $9.1 miHion settlement was obtained after five years of intensive litigation. This class action arose out of a complex merger and exchange offer transaction involving several publicly traded oil and gas limited partnership entities. The litigation challenged the fairness of the exchange and involved highly complex oil and gas valuations and methodologies. Mr. Gilman effectively managed the litigation and diligently prosecuted the case on behalf of a Class of approximately forty thousand unit holders.

Mr. Gilman served as Co-Lead Counsel in Caven v. Miller, et al., No.3464 (EW) (S.D. Tex.), a shareholder derivative action arising out of the merger of a publicly held hospital company with and into a firm in the same industry that had been privately held. After the merger, the successor firm downwardly restated its financial results due to its own previously undisclosed accounting irregularities and losses. After defeating motions to dismiss on various grounds, conducting discovery, and engaging in mediations, Plaintiffs recovered over $18 million in benefits on behalf of the successor company from various insiders of both companies involved.

Mr. Gilman served as one of four counsel who actively litigated In re Alert Income Partners Securities Litigation, No. 9150 (D. Colo.) a complex securities class action brought against promoters of a series of limited partnerships, their auditors and other parties. After extensive discovery, a settlement was reached valued at $60 million.
Mr. Gilman served as co-lead counsel representing a class of more than 4,000 investors in a series of oil and gas drilling programs in the Woodlands Energy and Development Corporation/ Inter omex Financial Corp. Litigation (encompassing several related civil actions in various federal courts in the Southern District of Texas and Northern District of California). That litigation involved complicated securities issues, as well as certain novel insurance liability questions, and was also contested vigorously by the defendants with respect to every aspect of the case. In that case, plaintiffs’ counsel overcame several rounds of briefing on motions to dismiss the pleadings and a vigorous opposition to class certification. Counsel then engaged in a long series of merits discovery, and eventually took part in intense negotiations that led to several partial settlements.

Mr. Gilman, was appointed as lead class counsel and achieved a successful settlement in the case of Hutson, et al. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, et al., No. 89 Civ. 8358 (L.M.M.) (S.D.N.Y.). That case, which arose out of the offering of limited partnership interests, involved mortgage revenue bonds issued by many state and local government agencies which were secured by participating non-recourse mortgage loans on fourteen apartment projects and retirement communities. As lead counsel, Mr. Gilman was responsible for and managed all aspects of the complex litigation which also involved the subject areas of real estate financing and valuation, secured lending and foreclosure. Despite multiple defenses, the firm obtained a settlement valued at $14 million for the class. Judge McKenna, in approving the settlement, praised plaintiffs’ counsel for their efficient work.

Other examples of the firm’s litigation ability are the dual settlements achieved in the related cases styled In re Permian Partners, L.P. Securities Litigation, No. 11373 (Del. Ch.Ct.) and Rodgers v. National Intergroup, Inc., et al., No.11653-Z (D. Mass.). Mr. Gilman was designated as lead counsel and directed and participated in every aspect of the cases. The first settlement, valued at $6.1 million, plus non-monetary benefits, arose out of an action in the Delaware Chancery Court challenging a merger of limited partnership interests. Extensive discovery was conducted in that litigation, most of which was done on an expedited basis, and Mr. Gilman consulted with experts, including authorities on oil and gas. The litigation involved many complex issues, including issues relating to the valuation of interstate and intrastate pipeline assets. The settlement was reached after the conclusion of expedited discovery and prior to a hearing on our motion for preliminary injunction. The second settlement successfully concluded litigation in the U.S District Court in Massachusetts arising out of the public offering of the partnership interests which later became the subject of the merger proposal.

Mr. Gilman has also played a major role in significant litigation challenging limited partnership roll-ups, restructurings, exchanges and mergers, including the Hallwood Energy, Oxford and Permian cases described above,; Laurence v. Brewer, No.15464 (Del. Ch. Ct.), where the firm served as co-lead counsel (challenging a tender offer by general partners for publicly traded master limited partnership, and obtaining settlement with establishment of dividend payments to limited partners); LLOV Partners v. /NCO Limited, No.4999 (NHP) (D.N.J.) (challenging tender offer by parent company for tracking stock of subsidiary); and Rosenblum v. Equis Financial Group, No.8030 (S.D. Fla.) (class and derivative settlements on behalf of three sub- classes); Costello v. Lumber Liquidators (Delaware Derivative Action).

Mr. Gilman has also been actively involved in numerous other class actions arising under the federal securities laws, including In re Painewebber Inc. Limited Partnership Litigation, No.8547 (S.D.N.Y.); In re The One Bancorp Securities Litigation, No.0315-P (D. Me.); In re VMS Securities Litigation, No. 89C 9448 (N.D. Ill.); In re Software Publishing Securities Litigation, No.20246 (N.D. Cal.); In re Prudential-Bache Energy Income Partnerships Litigation, MDL No. 888 (E.D. LA); In re T2 Medical Inc. Shareholder Litigation, No.1564 (N.D. Ga.); In re Interneuron Pharmaceuticals Securities Litigation; No.12254 (D. Mass.); In re UDC Homes Securities Litigation, No.08941 (Maricopa County, AZ Superior Ct.); and In re Towers Financial Securities Litigation, No.0810 (S.D.N.Y.).
In In re ProShares Trust Securities Litigation, Civil No. 1:09-cv-06935-JGK (S.D.N.Y.), Mr. Gilman, along with co-lead counsel represented a class of hundreds of thousands of purchasers of Defendants’ ProShares Ultra and ProShares Ultra Short exchange-traded funds (“ETFs”).

Complex Business Litigation

Mr. Gilman has substantial experience relating to complex business litigation and has represented companies in various matters including, but not limited to: antitrust and trade regulation, banking, construction litigation, corporate and business litigation, employment litigation, insurance litigation, products liability litigation, securities litigation and transactional litigation.

Mr. Gilman has also represented many businesses, corporations, private universities and governmental agencies in a wide arrange of complex commercial matters. Representative clients have included: American Airlines, Community Federal Savings & Loan Association, Disney World, Duke University, Dominos, Federated Stores, Gordon Enterprises, Hershey Foods Corporation, Kroger Companies, Napa Auto Parts, Oznemoc Corporation, Safeway, Inc., the United States Department of Justice, the United States Postal Service, United Parcel Service and the University of Miami.

Environmental and Toxic Substance Litigation

Mr. Gilman represented multiple businesses and property owners nationwide in a major action against Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Shell, Texaco and others arising out of corroded underground leaking storage tanks in the defendants’ gasoline stations, which resulted in contamination and property damage to the abutting property owners nationwide.

He has also prosecuted and defended significant cases involving multiple toxic substances.

Trusts and Estate Litigation

Mr. Gilman has been actively involved in litigation and other matters concerning asset protection, healthcare and trusts and estates.  We have provided representation to many individual and corporate personal representative, trustees and beneficiaries.  We have been involved in federal and state issues concerning trust litigation, modifications, reformations and accountings.