Brandon L. Arnold litigates complex civil and commercial cases, including trials and appeals in state and federal courts across the country. Brandon’s work spans a wide range of issues, including distressed-debt litigation, breach of contract and quasi-contract claims in the entertainment and financial industries, and claims under the federal False Claims Act and similar state statutes. He also coordinates extensively with foreign counsel prosecuting actions abroad and initiating actions in U.S. courts to obtain discovery for use in foreign actions.
Brandon has substantial experience representing clients in cases concerning complex commercial documents and financial instruments. For example, he represented Aurelius Capital in a suit alleging that Windstream Services had violated the indenture governing certain distressed debt. Following a bench trial, the Southern District of New York sided with Aurelius on every issue and awarded more than $300 million in damages. Brandon also represented general obligation bondholders in connection with Puerto Rico’s PROMESA (Puerto Rico Oversight, Management, and Economic Stability Act) Title III proceedings. In addition to litigation matters, Brandon counsels financial institutions and other clients on the interpretation of complex commercial documents and financial instruments.
He also represents clients in U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) investigations, and in U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and FINRA (Financial Industry Regulatory Authority) examinations concerning the Bank Secrecy Act and related anti-money laundering rules.
Brandon has briefed appeals in the Second, Third and DC circuits as well as in the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2021, Brandon won a Third Circuit appeal challenging a final removal order entered against a pro bono client by showing that certain convictions were not categorical crimes of violence. Although the Board of Immigration Appeals had twice rejected similar arguments, the DOJ confessed error after reviewing Brandon’s brief, noting that the case concerned “an area of law that is often counter-intuitive and is extraordinarily convoluted.”
Updated Aug 2023
