• Share
  • Email
  • Print

Glenn R. Reichardt

Of Counsel
+1.202.778.9065
Fax +1.202.778.9100

Mr. Reichardt is a litigator and advocate who has represented a wide range of clients in federal and state courts, before the U.S. Department of Justice and federal administrative agencies, and in domestic and international arbitrations and mediations.

Since joining K&L Gates more than 30 years ago, Mr. Reichardt's practice has focused on Government enforcement investigations, securities class action litigation, securities arbitration proceedings, antitrust litigation, internal investigations and consumer finance issues. Mr. Reichardt has represented banks, brokerage firms, mutual funds, investment advisors, portfolio managers, biotech and real estate companies, appraisal management companies, mortgage lenders and their affiliates as well as corporate officers and other individuals in False Claims Act investigations, class action litigation, securities enforcement investigations, insider trading inquiries, SEC injunctive actions, CFPB investigations, customer arbitrations and mediation proceedings. He has represented one of the world's largest financial services firms in class action proceedings before trial courts and appellate courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Reichardt has served as counsel to bankruptcy examiners and corporate committees responsible for reviewing shareholder derivative demands and regulatory complaints. Throughout his career, Mr. Reichardt has also represented and counseled clients in other complex areas of the law, including federal and state competition laws and U.S. trade laws, and he has represented individuals and business clients in a variety of commercial litigation matters. Mr. Reichardt has appeared as counsel in federal or state courts or in other legal proceedings in Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia.

Professional/Civic Activities

  • Listed in Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers (2012-2015)
  • District of Columbia Bar – Corporation, Finance and Securities Law Section
  • Board Member, Council for Court Excellence (Washington, D.C.) (2006-2013)
  • TCF National Bank v. Market Intelligence, Inc. -- In a case involving real estate asset verifications, persuaded the trial judge to grant summary judgment in our clients’ favor as to all claims made against them (see TCF National Bank v. Market Intelligence, Inc., 2014 WL 5205442 (D. Minn. 2014). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s judgment on February 4, 2016 (No. 14-3519).
  • SEC v. Kelly – Counsel for an individual defendant in an SEC civil injunctive action in which the trial judge granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the SEC’s fraud claims (see SEC v. Kelly, 817 F. Supp. 2d 340 (S.D.N.Y. 2011)).
  • In re Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litigation – Counsel for individual defendants in a civil antitrust case in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in which the trial judge granted, in whole or in part, various motions to dismiss  private civil claims the class plaintiffs filed after the defendants settled CFTC claims concerning the trading of milk futures (see In re Dairy Farmers of America Inc. Cheese Antitrust Litigation, 767 F. Supp. 2d 880 (N.D. Ill. 2011)).
  • Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc. – Counsel for Merrill Lynch & Co. as amicus curiae before the U.S. Supreme Court in what the New York Times called “the most important securities fraud case in years” (see Stoneridge Investment Partners, LLC  v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., 552 U.S. 148 (2008)).
  • In re Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated Securities Litigation – Counsel for a biotech firm and certain officers and directors in a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed with prejudice in December 2008 after the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims.
  • Credit Suisse First Boston Ltd. v. Billing – Counsel for Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated in a Supreme Court case that affirmed the antitrust immunity of activities subject to regulation by the SEC (see Credit Suisse First Boston Ltd. v. Billing, 551 U.S. 264 (2007)).
  • Payne v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated – Counsel for Merrill Lynch in obtaining the dismissal, by federal and state courts in Maryland, of federal and state law claims by a purported class action plaintiff and the affirmance of that dismissal by Maryland’s appellate courts (see Payne v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Case No. 2231, Md. Ct. Special Appeals) (Jan. 13, 2006), cert. denied, Md. Ct. Appeals (May 12, 2006)).
  • In re Eaton Vance Corporation Securities Litigation – Counsel for Eaton Vance Management, certain Eaton Vance mutual funds and Eaton Vance officers in connection with a class action alleging misvaluation of certain senior loans held as assets by those funds (the class claims were settled on favorable terms in December 2005).
  • In re Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation – Counsel for a biotech firm and certain officers and directors in a purported class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts that the trial judge dismissed for failure to state claims upon which relief could be granted (see In re Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Securities Litigation, 357 F. Supp. 2d 343 (D. Mass. 2005)).
  • In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation – Counsel for Merrill Lynch & Co, Inc. in obtaining the dismissal, in 2005 and 2006, of federal and state law claims, consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, that Merrill Lynch and other broker-dealer defendants had facilitated improper market-timing of mutual fund trades.
  • Angra v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. – Counsel for Merrill Lynch in connection with the dismissal of multi-million dollar claims made in an NASD arbitration proceeding and the subsequent confirmation of the award in Merrill Lynch’s favor by the District of Columbia Superior Court, including confirmation of an award of attorneys’ fees to Merrill Lynch (see Angra v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., Case No. 04-CA-2364) (D.C. Superior Court) (2004)).
  • Brock v. Merrill Lynch & Co. – Counsel for Merrill Lynch in a securities class action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in which the plaintiff alleged that more than a dozen national and regional securities firms had charged excessive markups on U.S. Treasury securities sold to municipal entities that issued advance refunding bonds (the class claims were settled on favorable terms in April 2001). 
  • In the Matter of Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated – Counsel for Merrill Lynch, which, along with several other Wall Street firms, agreed to a global settlement with the SEC, the Internal Revenue Service, the U.S. Department of Justice, and a qui tam relator, to resolve claims that they had charged excessive markups on U.S. Treasury securities sold to issuers of advance refunding bonds (see Admin. Proc. File No. 3-10180) (April 6, 2000)).