Gregory G. Rapawy | Kellogg Hansen

Education

Harvard Law School, J.D., magna cum laude, 2001
- Articles Chair, Harvard Law Review, 2000-2001
Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, M.P.P., 2001
Stanford University, A.B., with honors and distinction, 1997

Clerkships

Law Clerk, Justice David H. Souter, U.S. Supreme Court, 2003-2004
Bristow Fellow, U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Solicitor General, 2002-2003
Law Clerk, Judge Sandra L. Lynch, U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, 2001-2002

Admitted

2002, Massachusetts
2005, District of Columbia
2010, Supreme Court of the United States

Gregory G. Rapawy is skilled in writing legal briefs, arguing appeals, and developing winning strategies. He is a versatile and experienced litigator with a strong track record of success across a range of subject matters, including administrative law, antitrust, intellectual property, securities, sovereign immunity, and telecommunications.

Greg has an active Supreme Court practice. As one example, he successfully argued before the Supreme Court for the respondent in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin, 599 U.S. 382 (2023), which held that Native American tribes and tribally owned business entities are not immune from federal bankruptcy jurisdiction. As another, he successfully argued for the petitioner in Liu v. SEC, 591 (2020), which recognized equitable limits on the Securities and Exchange Commission’s ability to seek disgorgement for securities-law violations.

Greg has handled appeals in 12 of the 13 federal Circuits as well as several state supreme courts and is experienced in multi-district and other complex district court litigation. He also frequently briefs and argues dispositive motions in high-stakes cases. His current active matters include complex litigation for and against foreign sovereigns, defense of a federal securities class action asserting claims based on digital-asset transactions, and an appeal supporting the dismissal of a bankruptcy case for lack of good faith.

Greg’s practice also contains a substantial pro bono component, including amicus briefs for nonprofit organizations in the Supreme Court and the courts of appeals. He has advocated for nonprofit organizations working for sentencing reform and environmental protection, law professors supporting access to health care and financial stability regulation, as well as for individual criminal defendants and benefits claimants unable to afford paid counsel.

Representative Experience

Supreme Court Cases – Party Representations

Lac du Flambeau Band v. Coughlin, 599 U.S. 382 (2023) – Briefed, argued, and prevailed on question of tribal immunity from federal bankruptcy jurisdiction.
Liu v. SEC, 140 S. Ct. 1936 (2020) – Briefed, argued, and obtained favorable ruling imposing limits on SEC authority to seek monetary disgorgement and vacating disgorgement award.
Apple Inc. v. Pepper, 139 S. Ct. 1514 (2019) – Briefed and prevailed on smartphone app purchasers’ ability to bring federal antitrust claims against phone maker.
Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., 572 U.S. 915 (2014) – Briefed and prevailed on scope of secondary liability for patent infringement.
Pacific Operators Offshore, LLP v. Valladolid, 565 U.S. 207 (2012) – Briefed and prevailed on availability of compensation and benefits for spouse of deceased offshore worker.

**Supreme Court Experience – Amici Curiae Representations**

National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, 598 U.S. 356 (2023) – On behalf of veterinarians and researchers, supported successful defense of ban on inhumane pork production practices.
Burrage v. United States, 571 U.S. 204 (2014) – On behalf of sentencing reform advocates, supported successful appeal narrowing mandatory minimum sentencing statute.
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013) – On behalf of sentencing reform advocates, supported successful constitutional challenge to mandatory minimum sentencing practices.

Other Noteworthy Appellate Representations

In re LTL Management, LLC, 64 F.4th 84 (3d Cir. 2023) – Obtained reversal of decision permitting corporate reorganization to block claims of cancer victims.
Coughlin v. Lac du Flambeau Band, 33 F.4th 600 (1st Cir. 2022) – Obtained reversal of decision on tribal sovereign immunity; later successfully defended in Supreme Court.
NCUA v. Jurcevic, 867 F.3d 616 (6th Cir. 2017) – Obtained ruling permitting federal credit union regulator to pursue claims for fraud and related misconduct.
In re Magnesium Corp. of America, 682 F. App’x 24 (2d Cir. 2017) – Obtained affirmance of $200 million fraudulent-conveyance verdict against former owner of magnesium producer.
Kleen Products LLC v. International Paper Co., 831 F.3d 919 (7th Cir. 2016) – Obtained affirmance of class certification in price-fixing case against containerboard manufacturers.

Noteworthy District Court Representations

SEC v. Ripple Labs Inc., No. 1:20-cv-10832 (S.D.N.Y.) – Ongoing case; defending SEC enforcement action for offering and sale of digital currency as alleged unregistered security.
In re Bank of New York Mellon Corp. Forex Transactions Litigation, No. 1:12-md-2335 (S.D.N.Y.) – Defended multi-district litigation against global financial services provider.
In re Cathode Ray Tube Antitrust Litigation, No. 4:07-cv-05944 (N.D. Cal.) – Ongoing case; challenging unlawful price-fixing by global cartel of display makers.

News

May 21, 2024

Chinese State-Owned Enterprise Faces Potential Multi-Billion-Dollar Judgment as Sanction for “Malign” Discovery Misconduct

May 21, 2024— Chinese state-owned enterprise Irico Group Corporation and its subsidiary Irico Display Devices Co. face a potential default judgment for more than $2.4 billion in a long-running price-fixing lawsuit brought by classes of American purchasers of cathode ray tubes. Special Master Vaughn R. Walker, appointed by U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar, recommended the default judgment as a sanction for discovery misconduct. The Special Master’s report and recommendation found that Irico’s misconduct over the course of the litigation showed “contempt for th[e] court,” “defied the basic responsibilities of a civil litigant in the United States,” and reflected a “malign strategy” under which “evidence . . . grew stale” and “Irico’s own witnesses . . . disappeared.” The report included a litany of specific examples including failures to preserve and spoliation of both electronic and physical evidence, false representations to the court, an appeal that delayed the litigation for a year, and failures to produce key witnesses. It concluded that no sanction less than a default judgment would suffice as a remedy. Judge Tigar will now consider whether to adopt the Special Master’s report and recommendation. If that occurs, Irico will be required to pay plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees, and the court will determine the total damages due. The direct purchaser class of plaintiffs is represented by R. Alexander Saveri, Geoffrey C. Rushing, Matthew D. Heaphy and David Y. Hwu of Saveri & Saveri Inc.; Steven F. Benz, Gregory G. Rapawy, and Robert C. Klipper of Kellogg Hansen Todd Figel & Frederick PLLC. The indirect purchaser class of plaintiffs is represented by Mario N. Alioto and Lauren C. Capurro of Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott LLP; and Joseph W. Cotchett, Adam J. Zapala, James Gerard Beebe Dallal, and Imtiaz A. Siddiqui of Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP. The case is In re Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1917, No. 4:07-cv-05944, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. ..

May 01, 2023

Kellogg Hansen Attorneys Named to the 2022 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll

May 1, 2023— Twenty-seven Kellogg Hansen attorneys qualified for recognition on the 2022 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll for contributing fifty hours or more of pro bono work to those who cannot afford legal counsel. Nineteen Kellogg Hansen attorneys also qualified for the High Honor Roll for providing one hundred hours or more of pro bono service. The District of Columbia Courts have recognized attorneys through the Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll since 2011. The complete list of 2022 honorees can be found here. Scott K. Attaway* Daniel G. Bird* Daniel V. Dorris Matthew N. Drecun Ryan M. Folio David C. Frederick* D. Chanslor Gallenstein* Dustin G. Graber Kimberly V. Hamlett* Minsuk Han* Ashle Holman* Geoffrey M. Klineberg* Jonathan I. Liebman Eric J. Maier* Samuel A. Martin* Ariela M. Migdal Bradley E. Oppenheimer* Gregory G. Rapawy* Catherine M. Redlingshafer Derek C. Reinbold* Caroline A. Schechinger* Daniel S. Severson* Andrew C. Shen* Julius P. Taranto* Alex P. Treiger* Matthew J. Wilkins* * denotes High Honor Roll ..

May 01, 2021

Kellogg Hansen Attorneys Named to the 2020 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll

May 1, 2021— Kellogg Hansen attorneys qualified for recognition on the 2020 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll for contributing fifty hours or more of pro bono work to those who cannot afford legal counsel. Nine Kellogg Hansen attorneys also qualified for the High Honor Roll for providing one hundred hours or more of pro bono service. The District of Columbia Courts have recognized attorneys through the Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll since 2011. The complete list of 2022 honorees can be found here. Scott Attaway Daniel Bird Christine Bonomo* Matthew Drecun* Linda Elliott* Kenneth Fetterman Daniel Guarnera* Michael Guzman Julia Haines Jacob Hartman* Michael Kellogg Gerald Kerska Geoffrey Klineberg* Grace Knofczynski Sean Nadel* Bradley Oppenheimer* Ana Paul Eliana Pfeffer Gregory Rapawy Thomas Samuels* Christopher Sarma Thomas Schultz* Julius Taranto Jayme Weber Joseph Wenner* *denotes High Honor roll ..

May 01, 2020

Kellogg Hansen Attorneys Named to the 2019 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll

May 1, 2020— Kellogg Hansen attorneys qualified for recognition on the 2019 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll for contributing fifty hours or more of pro bono work to those who cannot afford legal counsel. Nine Kellogg Hansen attorneys also qualified for the High Honor Roll for providing one hundred hours or more of pro bono service. The District of Columbia Courts have recognized attorneys through the Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll since 2011. The complete list of 2022 honorees can be found here. Scott K. Attaway Christine A. Bonomo* Kimberly A. Briggs* Andrew J. Churella* Katherine C. Cooper* Daniel S. Guarnera* Michael J. Guzman* Julia Haines* Minsuk Han* T. Dietrich Hill* Mark P. Hirschboeck* Bethan R. Jones* Michael K. Kellogg* Geoffrey M. Klineberg* Grace W. Knofczynski Gabriel A. Kohan Sean A. Lev Benjamin D. Margo Ariela Migdal* Sean M. Nadel* Bradley E. Oppenheimer* Albert Y. Pak Ana N. Paul* Michael S. Qin Gregory G. Rapawy Melissa Rodriguez* Thomas B. Samuels* Thomas G. Schultz* Benjamin S. Softness James W. Webster* Collin R. White *denotes High Honor roll ..

May 13, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Rules Kellogg Hansen Clients Can Sue Apple for Monopolizing the Market for iPhone Apps

May 13, 2019— The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Kellogg Hansen’s clients in one of the most significant victories for private antitrust plaintiffs in the Court’s recent history, Apple Inc. v. Pepper, et al. In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court found that iPhone owners may sue Apple as direct purchasers under § 4 of the Clayton Act and Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977), for monopolizing the market for iPhone apps. The Court noted that “[t]he plaintiffs seek to hold retailers to account if the retailers engage in unlawful anticompetitive conduct that harms consumers who purchase from those retailers. That is why we have antitrust law.” The ruling affirmed the January 2017 opinion of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which held that “Plaintiffs are direct purchasers from Apple within the meaning of Illinois Brick and therefore have standing.” The Kellogg Hansen team included partners David Frederick, Aaron Panner, and Gregory Rapawy, and associate Benjamin Softness. Mr. Frederick argued on behalf of the consumers before the Supreme Court, and issued the following statement about the opinion: “We’re gratified the Supreme Court today recognized the right of consumers to sue Apple for the damages they sustain from Apple’s monopoly control over the distribution of applications on iPhones. The decision is important for upholding consumer protections against the dangers of monopoly retailers like Apple. Apple’s monopoly control has distorted the prices for apps and it’s time for that abuse of monopoly power to end.” The case is Apple Inc. v. Pepper, et al., No. 17-204 (U.S.). ..