A significant part of Joseph Bernstein’s practice has been the management of complex litigation.  These cases have involved billions of dollars. Mr. Bernstein has been involved in managing litigation matters relating to governmental, real estate, corporate and personal disputes, often in collaboration with large law firms.  He has managed the activities of other law firms before state, federal, and foreign courts, including appeals to the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, the New York Court of Appeals, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and petitions to the Supreme Courts of the United States, Israel, Philippines, and the Netherlands.  He has been involved in investigations by the United States Congress, the Foreign Relations Committee of the House of Representatives, the United States Department of Justice, the New York Commission on Government Integrity, the Philippine Commission on Good Government, and the State Comptroller in Israel.  Some noteworthy cases are described below and in the "Holdout Case". 

1.   Enforcement of $3 Billion Tribal Court Judgment Against Harrah's Operating Company, Inc.
In the past decade, Joseph Bernstein was actively involved with federal and state procedures for approval of Native American gaming projects, including litigation relating to the status and enforceability of agreements with Indian tribes under federal, state and tribal laws, and enforcement of tribal court judgments in the federal court system.  Mr. Bernstein served as Trustee of the Catskill Litigation Trust, along with Dennis C. Vacco, a former Attorney General of the State of New York. The Trust pursued enforcement of a $3 billion judgment issued by the St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Court in a class action by tribal members against Park Place Entertainment Corporation, predecessor to Harrah's Operating Company, Inc., for derailment of an Indian gaming project at the Monticello Raceway, Sullivan County, NY.  Trust beneficiaries included public shareholders of Empire Resorts, Inc. and 13,000 enrolled members of the St. Regis Mohawk Tribe.  
Litigation Counsel: Frederick D. Holden, Jr., Michael Stolper, Rachel Patience Ragni, Jenna Spring Clemens, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, San Francisco, CA,and Thomas M. Kernan, Crane Parente & Cherubin, Albany, NY 

2.   The Marcos Cases     
ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE - CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS - SUPPORT OF PRESIDENT MARCOS BY PRESIDENT REAGAN: Defense of a congressional investigation before the United States House of Representatives and United States Department of Justice for their refusal to identify a foreign head of state and his wife as law firm clients. The clients were President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his wife, Imelda Marcos. The Bernstein Brothers invoked the attorney-client privilege before the House Foreign Relations Committee. Counsel for the United States House of Representatives took the position that the attorney-client privilege did not apply in Congressional proceedings. Eventually, the brothers received a Congressional commendation for their cooperation for providing their testimony after the Marcoses inadvertently waived the privilege upon their abrupt departure from Malacanang Palace to Hawaii in February 1986. A trust agreement and other documents left behind by the President explained Joseph Bernstein's role as the personal trustee of President Marcos.  After they were initially subpoenaed by Congress, President Ronald Reagan, a staunch supporter of President Marcos, had initially sent  a message to the Bernstein Brothers through the former Ambassador to the Philippines that President Reagan supported President Marcos and would appreciate it if the Bernstein Brothers would defer providing testimony about their relationship with the Marcoses until after a scheduled Presidential election would take place in Manila. After the election, President Reagan acknowledged his support for President Corazon Aquino and sent a second message, that there was now no reason the testimony should not go forward.           
Litigation Counsel: Joseph Bernstein, Philip Carter, and Tina Schechter, Bernstein, Carter & Deyo; Prof. Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School; John Rhodes, Hunton & Williams LLP; Robert Patterson, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP; Michael Silverberg, Phillips Nizer LLP; Stuart Eisenstadt, Powell Goldstein LLP; Edward Bennett Williams, Robert Watkins, and Ellen Huvelle, Williams & Connolly LLP.  

GOLDEN BUDHA - GENERAL YAMASHITA'S TREASURE - PROCEEDS OF TREASURE  INVESTED IN THE UNITED STATES BY PRESIDENT MARCOS: Defense of a claim in federal court seeking 50% ownership of New York real estate held by offshore corporations. The claim was made under the Philippine’s treasure discovery statute, entitling the discoverer to 50% of the treasure. The New York properties were valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The suit was filed by Golden Budha Corporation, based on allegations that the properties were acquired by President Marcos with the proceeds of gold bullion looted by the Japanese Army in Souteast Asia during World War II. The alleged $50+ billion dollar “Yamashita Treasure” consisted of truckloads of gold bullion, art and other valuables, and was purportedly discovered in remote mountain caves in the Philippine Islands by an individual who claimed that he was tortured and his trove confiscated by President Marcos, that the Yamashita Treasure had been shipped by President Marcos to bank vaults in Zurich, and that proceeds of the treasure were used to acquire the New York properties.  The claim was assigned by the discoverer to the Golden Budha Corporation, a Georgia corporation, which alleged its owner had taken a Golden Budha from the cave that was also confiscated by President Marcos.  The action was initially dismissed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York based on the statute of limitations. The District Court decision was reversed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, on the basis that the discoverer could not realistically have sued President Marcos in the Philippines during the period he was a dictator that controlled the country.  For unknown reasons, the plaintiff failed to prosecute the action in New York after winning the appeal.  However, similar proceedings in Hawaii against President Marcos and his wife resulted in the largest judgment ever awarded in United States history: $40 billion. However, the Hawaii Supreme Court remanded the case for a revaluation, due to insufficiency of evidence relating to the makeup and value of the lost treasure.           
Litigation Counsel: Joseph Bernstein and Philip Carter, Bernstein & Carter, and Michael Silverberg, Phillips Nizer LLP. 

MULTINATIONAL LITIGATION OVER OWNERSHIP AND CONTROL OF MARCOS PROPERTIES - ACT OF STATE DOCTRINE - INJUNCTIONS - ATTACHMENT - RECEIVERSHIP - CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST - FRAUD - CORPORATE CONTROL - FORECLOSURE: Defense and prosecution of injunction, attachment, receivership, constructive trust, fraud, corporate control and foreclosure defense actions in the United States, Netherlands Antilles, Panama, the Philippine Islands and The Hague, relating to the ownership and control of the Marcos properties. The properties were claimed by -- The Philippine Government, as the ill-gotten assets of deposed President Ferdinand E. Marcos and his wife, Imelda Marcos; Saudi billionaire and reputed arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, as assets of offshore corporations alleged to be owned by him; and, the Bernstein Brothers, as assets they had previously contracted to purchase from the offshore corporations. The ownership claims were eventually settled by sharing the proceeds of sale of the properties: 55% to the Government of the Philippines, 40% to the Bernstein Brothers, and 5% to Adnan Khashoggi.           
Litigation Counsel:  Joseph Bernstein, Philip Carter, Tina Schechter, Bernstein & Carter; Michael Silverberg and Lawrence Sands, Phillips Nizer LLP; Robert Patterson, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP; Robert Smith, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP;  Johan Kleyn, Lloef & Van der Ploeg.

CIVIL RICO CHARGES FILED AGAINST FERDINAND MARCOS AND  SAUDI BILLIONAIRE AND ARMS DEALER ADNAN KHASHOGGI:  Prosecution of RICO and fraud claims against President Marcos and billionaire arms dealer Adnan Khashoggi, reputedly the world's richest man at the time, for attempting to defraud the Bernstein Brothers and the United States and Philippine Governments, by making Khashoggi appear as owner of the New York properties after the brothers revealed in Congressional testimony that the Marcoses were intimately involved all along and were provided the bearer shares of the companies that owned the properties by Joseph Bernstein.  The facts included threats by a Khashoggi operative to inflict bodily harm when he visited Joseph Bernstein to demand a handover of control of the properties. Mr. Bernstein was warned  that unless he would return to Washington to recant his testimony before Congress regarding the involvment of the Marcoses,  and publicly declare Adnan Khashoggi was the true owner all along, he would discover that "A.K. plays rough" and would be visited by one "Ice pick Willy".  The action led to a subsequent claim  against President Marcos and Adnan Khashoggi for fraudulently backdating documents.  The documents were dicovered by Mr. Bernstein through an investigation of credit card charges of a Marcos crony by Mr. Bernstein that were produced under a subpoena issued to American Express.  Mr. Bernstein found curious a credit card charge for a 28-page fax transmission from the Honk Kong Hilton Business Center to a Panamanian law firm in April 1986.  He called the Hilton Business Center in Hong Kong, and convinced the staff member to fax a copy of the document that had been retained in the hotel's files to Mr. Bernstein's office in New York. The 28-page fax turned out to be a "smoking gun". It was the draft of an agreement to transfer contol of the bearer shares of offshore corporations to Adnan Khashoggi, with mark-ups showing a date on the unexecuted document one year earlier than the transmission date, in August 1985 (to make it appear Khashoggi was the beneficial owner six months before President Marcos was deposed).  The matter was settled by a sharing the proceeds of sale of the properties between the Government of the Phillipines (55%), Adnan Khashoggi (5%), and the Bernsteins (40%). The Marcoses and Adnan Khashoggi were indicted by U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani. Ferdinand Marcos passed away during the proceedings, and Imelda Marcos and Adnan Khashoggi were acquitted of all criminal charges by a New York jury.         
Litigation Counsel:  Joseph Bernstein and Philip Carter, Bernstein & Carter; Michael Silverberg, Phillips Nizer LLP; Robert Patterson, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP; Johan Kleyn, Lloef & Van der Ploeg.            

3.   Antitrust, Arbitration, Commodity Contracts, Eminent Domain, Bankruptcy, Tortious Interference with Contract
ANTITRUST - GREAT NECK REAL ESTATE BOARD - RESTRAINT OF TRADE – COLLABORATION WITH NEW YORK ATTORNEY GENERAL:  Prosecution of an antitrust action in federal court on behalf of a real estate broker who was excluded from the Great Neck Real Estate Board Multiple Listing Service. The defendants were the Real Estate Board and its 33 broker-members. The objective was to eliminate a restraint of trade to the use of the Multiple Listing Service by nonmember brokers. The defendants agreed to settle the action, and subsequently entered into a consent decree with the Attorney General of New York, with whom Mr. Bernstein collaborated on the matter, by initiating an investigation of the alleged antitrust violations by the Attorney General's office, and establishing new rules for the Great Neck Real Estate Board relating to future access to the Multiple Listing Service.
Litigation Counsel: Joseph Bernstein, Michael Dougherty, and Cahill Gordon & Reindel.

ARBITRATION - JAPANESE AND NEW YORK DEVELOPERS BATTLE FOR CONTROL OF 50-STORY, $500 MILLION, MIDTOWN OFFICE TOWER: Prosecution of an arbitration proceeding to determine a New York development partner’s right to auction a partially completed office building and to match the highest bid. At the time, the 50-story building had been topped. The proceedings included a challenge to two bids submitted by parties related to a Japanese partner in the venture, ranging from $175 to $200 million. When these bids were disqualified, the only bid left standing, as the bid to match, was a bid of $37 million.  The matter was settled for a substantial sum as the partner had already invested $200 million in equity in the project and could not afford to be forced to sell the project for $37 million. 
Arbitrator: Robert B. Fisk, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell.  
Litigation Counsel: David Dykhouse, Henry Bubel, Thomas Pippert and Maureen McCarthy, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

COMMODITY CONTRACTS - UCC - MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR DAMAGE CLAIMS FOR BRACH OF CONTRACTS TO  DELIVER PEANUTS DUE TO UNPECEDENTED CROP FAILURE RESULTING FROM UNEXPECTED WEATHER CONDITIONS: Prosecution and settlement of actions in United States courts on behalf of the largest peanut distributor world wide to collect damages for breach of delivery contracts by United States peanut processors and cooperatives due to an unprecedented peanut crop failure in the United states that prompted the United states Government to  suspend a ban on the importation of peanuts.
Litigation counsel: Lewis T. Booker and Virginia Powell, Hunton & Williams LLP; Philip Carter, Bernstein, Carter & Deyo. 

FIFTH AMENDMENT - DUE PROCESS -  CONDEMNATION - TAKING FOR PUBLIC USE - CHALLENGE TO PROPOSED CONDEMNATION OF LAND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE DURST ORGANIZATION IN ITS QUEST TO DEVELOP HEADQUARTER BUILDINGS FOR NASDAQ AND BANK OF AMERICA: Constitutional challenge under the Fifth Amendment to a proposed condemnation by Empire State Development Corporation, an agency of the State of New York, of four parcels of land located at the intersection of Avenue of the Americas and 42nd Street that had been designated for private development by The Durst Organization, first as headquarters for  the NASDAQ, and later for Bank of America. The challenge included arguments that the property was not proposed to be condemned for a "public use."  The dispute was eventualy settled and the properties were sold to a joint venture of the Durst Organization and Bank of America for the highest price per square foot ever obtained for land in New York at that time.        
Litigation Counsel: Joel Sachs, Keane and Beane LLP.   

MISUSE OF UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY CODE BY GENERAL  PARTNER IN AN ATTEMPT TO SEIZE CONTROL OF NEW YORK  DEVELOPMENT PROJECT: Defense of an involuntary chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding filed on Pearl Harbor Day, December 7, 1989, in a surprise attack against its New York partner, by an American subsidiary of a Japanese construction company, Kumagai Gumi. The petitioner, KG Land, was a general partner in a New York development partnership that had no debt, and filed the chapter 11 petition against its own general partnership in an attempt to use the Bankruptcy Code to seize control of a construction project from its local development partner after the local partner had completed its obligations and Sonnenblick Goldman Corp. brought a term sheet from Prudential Insurance Company for $240 million in construction financing.  The rationale given by KG Land for the involuntary filing against its own partnership was that it had to do so to stop  liability for future debts. Bankruptcy Court Judge Prudence Abrams, after hearing the petitioner's arguments, decided she did not need to listen to a defense, and proceeded to say 'no way' to the Japanese partner and its counsel, in half a dozen languages, referring to the petition as a "Mickey Mouse" attempt to dislodge a partner.  Judge Abrams' decision led to state court litigation regarding whether an auction was triggered by the Japanese company's decision to abort further funding of the project that would have completed construction, as it was obligated to do. The matter was eventually settled, after arbitration proceedings, by a sale of the project to the Japanese company.          
Litigation Counsel: David Dykhouse, Henry Bubel, Thomas Pippert, and Maureen McCarthy, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.  

DERAILMENT OF INDIAN GAMING PROJECT - TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACTUAL AND BUSINESS RELATIONS: Prosecution in state and federal courts of a $2 billion claim for intentional interference with contractual and business relations relating to the derailment of an Indian gaming project in the Catskills, including against Park Place Entertainment Corporation (renamed Caesars Entertainment Corporation) and it successor by merger, Harrah’s Operating Company, Inc., the largest casino companies in the world.          
Litigation Counsel: Thomas P. Puccio, Law Office of Thomas P. Puccio; John Gallagher and William Hopson, Troutman & Sanders LLP; Herb Koslov, Reid & Priest LLP. 
Second Circuit: Andrew Frey, Mayer Brown LLP; Sandy Weisburst, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges LLP. Supreme Court of the United States, on Petition for Certiorari: Joseph Bernstein and Dennis C. Vacco.