Icasinc.org

Professional Profile
Mr. Lefkowitz is a litigation partner in the New York City office of Kirkland & EllisLLP. He serves on Kirkland's Worldwide Management Committee (member);Administrative Committee (co-chair); Firmwide Development Committee(member); and the New York Operations Committee (member). With more than20 years of experience, he has appeared in court in 30+ states. He has alsoappeared before several federal agencies and conducted a variety of internalinvestigations. In addition, he provides strategic counseling on regulatory andlegislative matters.
Partner
New York
Mr. Lefkowitz has successfully sued several federal agencies in both the U.S.
Phone: +1 212-446-4970 District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in casesFax: +1 212-446-4900 involving questions of administrative law. He currently represents several individuals and public companies in various matters before the SecuritiesExchange Commission and the Department of Justice, and serves as leadcounsel in several securities class action appeals and arbitrations.
Practice Areas
Mr. Lefkowitz has had a distinguished career in public service. He currently serves as President Bush's Special Envoy on Human Rights in North Korea, a position to which he was appointed on August 19, 2005, pursuant to the North From 2001-2003, Mr. Lefkowitz left Kirkland to serve in the White House as Deputy Assistant to President Bush for Domestic Policy and as General Counselin the Office of Management and Budget. In these roles, he was one of the Admissions
President's senior advisors on domestic policy, legal and internationaldevelopment issues. Earlier in his career, he served in the White House as Director of Cabinet Affairs and Deputy Executive Secretary to the Domestic Policy Council for President George H. W. Bush.
Mr. Lefkowitz's work as a lawyer and diplomat has been featured in many Education
newspapers and magazines hroughout the world. He has also been profiled in The Washington Post, "A Hard-Nosed Litigator Becomes Bush's Policy Point Man," in connection with his role as an advisor to the President; in GlobalForensics, "Subprime Crisis Stirring Up New Wave of Litigation, Says Kirkland's Lefkowitz," highlighting his expertise on the subprime crisis; in "What Ever Happened to Jay Lefkowitz?" highlighting his post-White House pursuits; in a cover story in The American Lawyer, "Blackboard Jungle," for his work successfully arguing in support of school voucher programs in Wisconsin andFlorida; in The National Law Journal, "Republican Connected and Rising;" in James A. Beard PoliticalScience Prize, 1984 Columbia College Today, "Shuttle Diplomat;" and in several Wall Street Journaleditorials.
Mr. Lefkowitz has acted as lead counsel on litigation matters for the followingclients: Representative Matters
Representative Securities Matters
United States of America v. Jeffrey Stein, et al. Mr. Lefkowitz is defending an individual investment manager in what has beendescribed as the largest criminal tax fraud prosecution in United States history. The client was charged with 17 co-defendants in a wide ranging conspiracy toevade taxes and defraud the IRS through allegedly abusive tax shelters in theSouthern District of New York. The indictment charges that the defendants —most of whom were employees of KPMG — developed sham tax sheltertransactions and marketed them to hundreds of wealthy individuals, evadingroughly $11 billion in taxes. In written opinions, the district judge has noted theunusual size of the case, which involves over 70 prosecution witnesses andmore than 24 million pages of documents, and the complexity of the allegedlyfraudulent transactions. Electronic Trading Group v. UBS Warburg Mr. Lefkowitz is defending UBS in a putative class action alleging that the firm'sprime brokerage unit violated antitrust laws by fixing prices for the interestcharged on short sales, particularly naked short sales. The district courtgranted the motion to dismiss.
Brokerage Firm Class Action Litigation Mr. Lefkowitz is representing a financial institution in a putative class actionchallenging the client's policies, procedures and agreements regarding thesweep of uninvested cash from brokerage accounts. Kirkland's motion todismiss is pending, and Kirkland has won multiple stays of discovery pendingdecision on that motion, despite the fact that it is not a PSLRA case.
NASD Procedural Rule 9800 Et Seq. Litigation NASD Procedural Rule 9800 Et Seq. Litigation Mr. Lefkowitz represented a broker-dealer that had been the subject of thefirst-ever application of NASD Procedural Rule 9800 et seq., which permits theNASD to seek "temporary cease and desist orders" under certain conditions.
Invoking that rule, the NASD's Department of Enforcement ("Enforcement") hadconducted proceedings against a broker-dealer which resulted in an order fromthe Hearing Panel that required the broker-dealer to cease various practices, butalso to collect $2 million from a non-member affiliate. When the broker-dealerfailed to comply with that order, Enforcement instituted expedited suspensionproceedings. Because the scope of the NASD's authority to impose affirmativeobligations was a matter of "first impression," the National Adjucitory Council("NAC") agreed to review the Hearing Panel's decision. The NAC agreed withour argument that Enforcement had overstepped its authority to fashion reliefunder Rule 9840 when it ordered affirmative action (in this case the unwinding ofa transaction and the collection of money from a non-member) that went wellbeyond the cessation of "ongoing violative conduct." NASDAQ-Listed Company SEC Investigation Mr. Lefkowitz successfully conducted an internal investigation of aNASDAQ-listed broker-dealer that was the subject of an SEC fraudinvestigation. Kirkland interviewed numerous witnesses here and throughoutEurope, and made numerous findings and recommendations regarding thecompany's sales practices, accounting practices, public disclosures, financialcontrols, records retention practices and personnel decisions. Kirkland workedwith and appeared before the SEC, the United States Department of Justice, theNASD and the NASDAQ Listing Qualifications Panel.
Mr. Lefkowitz is representing a client in connection with an SEC inquiry into thepropriety of a substantial convertible preferred transaction with an affiliate. Mr. Lefkowitz represented Tenet Healthcare Corporation and certain current andformer officers and directors in a formal SEC investigation concerning whetherTenet's public disclosures of Medicare outlier and stop-loss payments undermanaged care contracts were misleading or otherwise inadequate, as well aswhether certain former and current Tenet officers and directors engaged ininsider trading. The matter was settled for a small financial penalty.
Brokerage Practices California Litigation Mr. Lefkowitz is representing a financial institution in two cases in Californiachallenging the client's prime brokerage practices and interest charges on nakedshort sales under California law.
Fortune 100 Conglomerate Company SEC Investigation Mr. Lefkowitz is representing a Fortune 100 conglomerate company inresponding to an SEC investigation focused on issues of revenue recognition,earnings management, and senior executive leadership across the company'sbusiness units. Kirkland has been retained to investigate and synthesize thevoluminous factual data involved, and develop the company's response.
Mr. Lefkowitz is representing a hedge fund in an SEC investigation focused onshort trading practices associated with PIPE investments.
Representative Pharmaceutical Matters
Ranbaxy Labs & Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Leavitt, et al. Mr. Lefkowitz represented Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in a dispute with theU.S. Food and Drug Administration. Mr. Lefkowitz argued that the FDA actedarbitrarily and capriciously when it denied IVAX Pharmaceuticals (since acquiredby Teva) 180 days of marketing exclusivity for its generic version of Merck'sblockbuster drug Zocor. IVAX had been the first manufacturer to challenge thevalidity of Merck's Zocor patents with respect to several strengths of the drug,thereby securing eligibility for a 180-day period of marketing exclusivity duringwhich no other generic manufacturer could enter the market for those strengthsof the drug. Nonetheless, the FDA acceded to Merck's subsequent request toremove the challenged patents from the official list of patents claiming Zocor,and that action effectively deprived IVAX (and, post-acquisition, Teva) of itsentitlement to marketing exclusivity. The D.C. Circuit held that the agency'sconduct violated the plain language of the Hatch-Waxman Act and wasfundamentally inconsistent with the Act's incentive scheme, because it wouldallow brand-name manufacturers to deprive potential generic entrants of theirreward for undertaking the significant investments and risks inherent inchallenging listed patents and bringing more affordable generic alternatives tomarket prior to patent expiration. As a result of the decision, Teva stands to earnhundreds of millions in additional revenues from sales of generic Zocor. Apotex, Inc. v. Food and Drug Administration, et al. Mr. Lefkowitz represented Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. in their fight againstthe U.S. Food and Drug Administration over the exclusive rights to sell a genericform of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.'s Pravachol cholesterol drug. The patentedversion of the drug currently generates $1.6 billion in U.S. sales annually. Underthe Hatch-Waxman Act, the first generic company to challenge a patent claiminga branded drug is entitled to six months of exclusive generic marketing. Thatexclusivity runs from the earlier of (1) marketing the drug or (2) a court decisionin any case holding the patent is invalid or not infringed. The FDA had ruled thata stipulated dismissal of a lawsuit between Bristol-Myers Squibb and Apotex hadtriggered Teva's six months of exclusivity. In a 26-page decision, the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Columbia reversed the FDA, instead ruling that astipulated dismissal is not a "decision of a court" or a "holding" as required by theAct and granted judgment and injunctive relief to Teva. Representative Commercial Matters
Boca Raton Community Hospital, Inc. v. Tenet Healthcare Corporation Tenet Healthcare Corp.—the nation's second-largest for-profit healthcareprovider—called upon Mr. Lefkowitz for representation amidst allegations thatTenet hospitals, through their charging practices, received "too many" outlierpayments from Medicare and thereby "stole" outlier payments from the plaintiff payments from Medicare and thereby "stole" outlier payments from the plaintiffand other hospitals. The plaintiff moved for certification of a class consisting ofover 3,500 acute care hospitals nationwide, and sought treble damages of $1.98billion on behalf of the proposed class. The U.S. district court denied plaintiff'smotion to certify a nationwide class of acute care hospitals, holding that theplaintiff's proposed class definition was not workable, that there were conflictsamong proposed class-members, and that the plaintiff was an inadequaterepresentative of the proposed class. The plaintiff sought to appeal the districtcourt's ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, but the courtdenied the plaintiff's petition. In August 2007, the court granted a motion forcomplete summary judgment on behalf of Tenet and entered final judgment onthe matter. Mr. Lefkowitz was trial counsel for General Motors in a highly publicized case instate court arising out of one of the worst automobile accidents in New York Cityhistory. The 24 plaintiffs included six decedents and others with significantbrain injuries, burns and loss of limbs. Defect allegation related to the lack of abrake-transmission shift interlock in all GM 1980s vehicles. Plaintiffs soughtcompensatory and punitive damages. Favorable settlement reached after sixweeks of trial.
General Motors Crime-Fraud Proceedings Mr. Lefkowitz was trial counsel for General Motors in evidentiary benchproceedings in which the plaintiffs sought exceptions to GM's attorney-clientand/or work product privileges under the crime-fraud doctrine.
Baker v. General Motors Corporation Mr. Lefkowitz was trial counsel for General Motors in a products-liability suitfollowing the death of a passenger in an automobile accident caused by analleged faulty fuel pump. In a pre-trial motion, the plaintiff moved for productionof documents related to interviews of the manufacturer's employees — for whichGM asserted attorney client privilege and work product immunity. Even thoughsome of the materials at issue had already been publicly disseminated, GMpetitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for a writ of mandamusto protect its privileges. After briefing and argument, the petition was granted.
Representative Constitutional & Religious Liberty Matters
State of Wisconsin School Voucher Program Litigation In 1999, Mr. Lefkowitz represented the State of Wisconsin at the WisconsinSupreme Court in its successful litigation to become the first state in the countryto implement a school voucher program. Concerned Citizens of Carderock v. Hubbard In 2000, Mr. Lefkowitz defended the Adat Shalom ReconstructionistCongregation against a private unincorporated association of residential ownersin the town of Carderock, Maryland that challenged the constitutionality of azoning ordinance that amounted to an impermissible endorsement of religionwithin areas zoned for single-family residential use. The U.S. District Court forthe District of Maryland granted the defendant's motion to dismiss.
Memberships & Affiiliations
Other Distinctions
In 2004, Mr. Lefkowitz represented the U.S. at the International Conference onAnti-Semitism in Berlin, Germany, sponsored by the Organization for Securityand Cooperation in Europe. In 1990, Mr. Lefkowitz served as a member of theU.S. delegation to the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva,Switzerland. Publications
Mr. Lefkowitz has authored the following articles on law, politics and religion: "," Commentary, January 2009 "," Wall Street Journal, December23, 2008 "The New York Sun, May 5, 2008 "," The Wall Street Journal, January 25, 2008 "," Commentary, January 2008 "Science Obviates Politics," The New York Sun, January 11, 2007 " The Wall Street Journal, January 10, 2007 "Homes Away from Home," The Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2005 "The Election and the Jewish Vote," Commentary, February 2005 "," Investor's Business Daily August31, 2004 "Houses of Worship - Singled Out," The Wall Street Journal, July 30, 2004 "The Washington Times, July 25, 2004 "The Washington Times, June 24, 2004 Testimony before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe (theHelsinki Commission), "Government Actions to Combat Anti-Semitism in theOSCE Region," June 16, 2004 Testimony at the OSCE Conference on Anti-Semitism, "Workshop on PromotingTolerance: Media, i.a., Internet, NGOs and Religious Leaders," April 28, 2004 "National Review, March 18, 2004 "The Weekly Standard, January 26, 2004 "Bookshelf - Ugly and Venomous," The Wall Street Journal, January 22, 2004 "The Wall Street Journal, December 16, 2003 "Malarkey And Stem Cells," The Washington Post, November 8, 2003 "The Washington Post, October 30, 2003 "Does the Jewish Vote Count?," Commentary, March 2001 "A Critique of the FCC's Decision to Retain Limits on National Television StationOwnership," Telecommunications & Electronic Media News, Fall 2000 "Bookshelf: The Supreme Court and Its Most Famous Justice, Law WithoutValues," by Albert W. Alschuler, The Wall Street Journal, December 14, 2000 "It's The Law, Stupid, How many lawyers does it take to win an election?," TheWeekly Standard, November 20, 2000 "Books in Review: Jew vs. Jew: The Struggle for the Soul of American Jewry,"by Samuel G. Freedman, Commentary, October 2000 "Clinton, Not the Courts, Is Condemning Elian," The Wall Street Journal, June 2,2000 "Bookshelf: The Warren Court and American Politics, by Lucas A. Powe, Jr., Ifthe Legislature Won't Do It, We Will," The Wall Street Journal, March 20, 2000 "A Modest Tort Proposal," The Weekly Standard, August 16, 1999 "Bookshelf: The Lord Will Gather Me In, by David Klinghoffer, Torah and Truth," The Wall Street Journal, December 15, 1998 "Supreme Court on School Choice: 50 Years of Precedents," The Wall StreetJournal, November 23, 1998 "Treason of a Clerk, On the Vast, Right-Wing Conspiracy at the Supreme Court," The Weekly Standard, April 27, 1998 "The NPR Log Book, No: All Opinions Are Not Entitled To Equal Air Time," ABAJournal, June 1996 "Decade of Greed?," The Public Interest, No. 124, Summer 1996 "Books in Review: Ultimate Answers, Think A Second Time, by Dennis Prager," Commentary, Vol. 101, No. 5, May 1996 "Overcoming Posner," The Public Interest, No. 120, Summer 1995 "The Paradox of a Great Ethnic Success," The Wall Street Journal, May 10,1995 "Managed Competition Is Unhealthy – for Baseball," The Washington Times,August 2, 1994 "Books in Review: Romancing the State, The Fatal Embrace,: Jews and TheState," by Benjamin Ginsberg, Commentary, January 1994 "Books in Review: The Baseball Business, Play Ball: The Life and TroubledTimes of Major League Baseball," by John Feinstein, Commentary, Vol. 96, No.
Times of Major League Baseball," by John Feinstein, Commentary, Vol. 96, No.
3, September 1993 "GOP Jujitsu Strategy," The Washington Post, June 23, 1993 "Where Dad Belongs," The Wall Street Journal, June 18, 1993 "Our Students, Still at Risk," The New York Times, May 3, 1993 "The Next Rebellion: Parents vs. The Liberals," The Washington Times, April23, 1993 "Jewish Voters & the Democrats," Commentary, April 1993 "The Missing Linkage," The Jerusalem Report, March 14, 1991 "Law Review Errs With Affirmative-Action Plan," Manhattan Lawyer, May 23,1989 "Affirmative Action Can Hurt Those It Is Intended to Help," The Times Union,February 7, 1989 "Shultz Had Legal Right to Bar Arafat," The Jewish Week, Inc., December 9,1988 Seminars
Columbia University’s Kraft Lecture Series – Panelist, “Is Religion Political?”March 2006 American Bar Association’s Annual National Conference – Presented“Preserving Exclusivity: Navigating What’s at Stake Under the Hatch-WaxmanAct,” January 2006 American Bar Association’s Aviation and Space Law Committee Conference –Panelist, “Aviation Security and Privacy and Discrimination,” October 2005.
Manhattan Institute’s Center for Legal Policy Conference “9/11 VictimCompensation Fund: Successes, Failures, and Lessons for Tort Reform” –Opening Remarks, January 2005.
Manhattan Institute’s Center for a Digital Economy Conference “Avoiding aTragedy of the Telecommons” – Panelist, “How are Regulatory IncentivesAffecting Competition and Investment?” May 2004 U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Alternatives to Litigation Conference – Panelist,“Administrative Compensation Systems,” April 2004 Prior Experience
Mr. Lefkowitz served as a consultant to the Bradly Foundation in 1993. From1987 - 1991, he was a litigation associate at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &Garrison. United States Supreme Court as well as numerous federal district and appellatecourts.

Source: http://www.icasinc.org/bios/lefkowitz.pdf