• Share
  • Email
  • Print

Paul J. Walsen

Fax +1.312.827.8181
Paul J. Walsen focuses his practice on a range of complex and multi-district litigation, including securities and shareholder derivative litigation, contract litigation, business torts, class action defense, probate and trust litigation, real estate litigation and construction litigation. Mr. Walsen also has conducted internal investigations on behalf of boards of directors and special board committees. He has advised clients in a broad variety of industries, including investment management, finance, real estate investment and development, manufacturing, construction, insurance, technology and professional services. He has extensive trial experience, and has obtained and defended against emergency temporary, preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in cases involving corporate acquisitions, real estate transactions, intellectual property and other types of claims.

Professional Background

Before attending law school, Mr. Walsen was a senior consultant within the consulting arm of what was then known as a "Big Eight" accounting firm, where he worked on a variety of mission-critical matters for clients in the automotive, financial and retail industries.

  • Defense of a wide variety of complex national class action suits, including Rule 10b-5 securities fraud claims and suits seeking to enjoin corporate mergers and acquisitions based on allegations of director misconduct or inadequate consideration to shareholders.
  • Successful defense of claims against investment advisers under Section 36(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, and representation of mutual fund directors and trustees in connection with such claims.
  • Successful resolution of investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission of registered investment advisers, directors of mutual funds and other individuals.
  • Successful defense of direct and derivative claims alleging breach of fiduciary duty by corporate and mutual fund directors and trustees.
  • Internal investigations prompted by “whistle blowers,” governmental inquiries and shareholder derivative demands.
  • Defense of many multi-million dollar mechanics lien claims.
  • Successful prosecution of a claim seeking damages on behalf of a publicly traded corporation resulting from termination of a $68 million stock purchase agreement based on the purported occurrence of a material adverse effect.
  • Obtained allowance of claims in excess of $30 million in probate court following remand after successful appeal of the trial court’s previous denial of the claims.
  • Defense of a multi-million dollar mechanics lien claim asserting delay and inefficiency damages. Obtained judgment in favor of the defendants on all counts.
  • Defense of a manufacturer of building products against fraud and breach of contract claims totaling almost $30 million. The plaintiff, a national retail chain, alleged that a single-ply roofing membrane manufactured by the defendant was defective in various ways. The product was installed on over 150 stores in 40 states. After motions for summary judgment narrowed the case substantially in favor of the defense, the case settled for approximately one percent of the amount sought by the plaintiff, leading the client to comment that “this was one of those rare instances where a settlement was tantamount to a major victory.”
  • Prosecution of a claim on behalf of a college against an engineer, general contractor and subcontractors involved in the replacement of an HVAC system in one of the college's dormitories. The college alleged that the design and installation was deficient, resulting in mold and other damage to the building and its contents. Obtained a settlement in which the college received an amount equal to the cost to replace the defective HVAC system, along with all mold remediation and repair costs, all costs of housing the students elsewhere while the remediation and repair work was performed, and a substantial portion of its legal fees.
  • Successful representation of a prominent real estate developer in its suit to obtain specific performance of a multi-million dollar contract to purchase of thorium-contaminated land located in the “Streeterville” neighborhood in downtown Chicago.
  • Defense of a suit filed by the trustee of a now-dissolved law firm seeking to recover $8 million under a contingent fee agreement. Obtained summary judgment on all claims alleged by the trustee. Negotiated a settlement under which the client’s legal fees in defending the claim were paid by the trustee.