Ben Reichard, a partner in our Litigation Section, thrives on being told a case is unwinnable, a theory of liability is unprovable, or a defendant is untouchable. Ben excels on the firm’s most challenging cases by immersing himself in the facts of the case and then following every lead that might help his client’s cause. He practices primarily in the fields of investor fraud, class action, and environmental litigation, areas where his determination and creativity are on full display. He has represented a range of clients—from individual investors to hedge funds to banks—in proceedings against prime brokers, auditors, clearing brokers, broker-dealers, and financial advisors. He also has extensive experience in complex ERISA and antitrust litigation.
J.D., high honors, from Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2008
- Order of the Coif
- B.A. in Classics, magna cum laude, from Amherst College, 2001
Ben has handled a number of interesting matters, including representing:
- Individuals and the Official Stanford Investor’s Committee against five banks, with particular concentration on claims against Trustmark National Bank and Independent Bank of Texas (formerly known as Bank of Houston), in a lawsuit alleging the banks’ aiding and abetting of the $7 billion Ponzi scheme perpetrated by R. Allen Stanford; settlements of $100 million were reached with both Trustmark and Bank of Houston in early 2023, with total recoveries from all five bank defendants (The Toronto-Dominion Bank, Société Générale Private Banking (Suisse) S.A., HSBC Bank plc, Trustmark, and Bank of Houston) amounting to more than $1.6 billion;
- The Board of Commissioners of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East in a highly-publicized coastal land loss case against dozens of oil and gas production and development corporations and in a related challenge to a recently-enacted Louisiana statute;
- Individual landowners in claims involving large scale environmental damage caused by oil and gas operations on their property; and
- An energy-transport startup company against Cargill, Inc. and Cargill’s local affiliate, asserting breach of contract and tortious interference with contract following collapse of a transportation facilities project valued at $1 billion.