OUR PEOPLE
Our People
Our People

Robert L. Hickok

Robert L. Hickok is a partner and co-chair of the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department of Pepper Hamilton LLP. He is a past member of the firm's Executive Committee.

Mr. Hickok focuses his commercial litigation practice on matters involving corporate governance, the antitrust laws, federal securities laws and class action defense.

In his practice, Mr. Hickok is particularly interested in the application of economic analysis to the resolution of legal issues. He has an advanced degree in law and economics and has taught this subject for a number of years. He has used economic analysis in antitrust cases (product and market definition and product pricing), federal securities law cases (the efficient capital market theory), and commercial contract cases (measure of damages). Mr. Hickok, who has served as chairman of the firm’s Technology Committee, also is interested in the application of technology to information and litigation management.

Mr. Hickok is listed in The Best Lawyers in America, is highly rated in Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business for securities litigation and commercial litigation, and was selected for inclusion on the 2014 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers list. Mr. Hickok is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, which is widely viewed as the premier professional trial organization in the country.

The following are representative matters on which Mr. Hickok has worked:

Antitrust Litigation

  • In re: Compensation of Managerial, Professional and Technical Employees Antitrust Litigation, District of New Jersey — representation of oil company in class action alleging violation of antitrust laws based on information exchanges among oil industry group regarding salaries of managerial, professional and technical employees; summary judgment granted in favor of defendants, and case settled during pendency of plaintiffs' appeal
  • Compliance Marketing, Inc., et al. v. Drugtest, Inc., d/b/a DISA, Inc., et al., District of Colorado — representation of oil company in action alleging violation of antitrust laws by drug testing company and group of oil companies regarding selection policies for use of drug testing companies; our client was voluntarily dismissed from the action, and the complaint was subsequently dismissed on defendants' motion to dismiss
  • Smithkline Beecham Corp. v. Eastern Applicators, Inc., et al., Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of contractor in antitrust litigation
  • Arden Architectural Specialties, Inc., et al. v. Washington Mills Electro Minerals Corporation, et al., Western District of New York, and General Refractories Company v. Washington Mills Electro Minerals Corporation, et al., Western District of New York — representation of abrasive grain manufacturer in antitrust class action
  • In re: Tampico Fiber Antitrust Litigation, Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of importer/distributor in antitrust class action
  • Datasat, Inc. v. Unisys Corporation, Southern District of California — representation of computer manufacturer in antitrust litigation
  • Atlass v. Texas Air Corp., Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of airline in antitrust litigation.

Banking and Financial Litigation

  • Oliver Tyrone Pulver Corporation, et al. v. Acorn Four Fall Associates, et al., Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania — representation of bank in dispute over real estate development project
  • Today’s Man, Inc., et al. v. NationsBank, N.A., et al., Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of bank group in lender liability litigation
  • Resolution Trust Corporation v. Calvin D. Baker, et al., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 93-CV-0093 — representation of directors and officers in RTC litigation
  • Resolution Trust Corporation v. Farmer, Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of directors and officers in RTC litigation
  • Constitution Bank v. Painewebber, Inc., Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of investment bank in breach of contract litigation
  • Chapin Group, Inc. v. Perpetual Savings Bank, F.S.B., Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of bank in lender liability litigation.

Business Litigation

  • Advantek Pro, Inc. et al v. ADT Security Services, Inc., Arapahoe County, Colorado District Court – obtained a directed defense verdict following a three-week bench trial in a class action seeking $700 million in damages for alleged breach of contract claims by former and current dealers of ADT Security Services
  • The Republic of Iraq v. ABB AG et al., Southern District of New York – representation of pharmaceutical company in this RICO action involving the company’s participation in the United Nations Oil-for-Food Programme in Iraq during the Saddam Hussein regime
  • In re: Apartheid Reparations Litigation, Southern District of New York — representation of computer company in class action lawsuit seeking relief for wrongs committed by government of South Africa during Apartheid era
  • Larry S. Hyman, et al. v. Riscorp Insurance Company, Circuit Court, Twelfth Judicial Circuit, Sarasota County, Florida — representation of actuarial company in professional liability litigation
  • The Law Society of Upper Canada, et al. v. Ernst & Young, et al., Court of Appeal for Ontario — representation of actuarial company in professional liability litigation
  • Microfibres, Inc. v. SCT Manufacturing & Distribution Systems, Inc., District of Rhode Island — representation of computer company in breach of contract litigation
  • Jerry L. Burton v. Kencrest Services, Inc., et al., Eastern District of Pennsylvania, No. 002-CV-3205 — representation of company in RICO litigation
  • Ceska Sporitelna, a.s. v. Unisys Corporation, Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of computer systems company in breach of contract litigation
  • John E. Abdo, et al. v. Centocor, Inc., et al., Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of pharmaceutical company in breach of contract litigation
  • Rodin Properties – Shore Mall N.V. vs. Cushman & Wakefield of Pennsylvania, Inc., et al., District of New Jersey — representation of real estate development company in breach of contract litigation
  • Israel Travel Advisory Serv. v. Legacy Isr. Travel, Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of travel agency in breach of contract litigation
  • Alvan L. Lichtenstein, et al. v. BDO Seidman, et al., Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania — representation of accounting firm in professional liability litigation
  • Fisher Bros. Sales v. United States, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, Nos. 93-1182; 93-1205; 93-1206; 93-1207; 93-1208; 93-1209 — representation of Chilean fruit growers in Federal Tort Claims Act litigation
  • United States of America v. William Warning, et al., Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of law firm in litigation regarding health care services
  • ATACS Corp. v. Trans World Communications, Inc., Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of radio manufacturer in breach of contract litigation
  • The Abbotts Organization, et al. v. Jack Weisbaum, et al., Court of Common Pleas, Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania — representation of accounting firm in professional liability litigation
  • Boro Developers, Inc. v. School District of Hatboro-Horsham, et al., Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania — representation of school district in RICO litigation
  • Marshall Steel, Ltd. v. Tippins, Inc., Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of steel manufacturer in breach of contract litigation
  • S.T. Hudson Intl, Inc. v. Glennon, Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of company in dispute with former employee. Criminal and Grand Jury Matters
  • In re: Tampico Fiber Grand Jury Investigation, Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of importer/distributor in price fixing investigation
  • State of Rhode Island v. Eklof Marine Corporation, et al., State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Superior Court; United States v. Eklof Marine Corporation, et al., District of Rhode Island — representation of corporate officer in criminal investigations and prosecutions relating to oil spill
  • In re: Plastic Pipe Grand Jury Investigation, Northern District of Illinois — representation of plastic pipe manufacturer in price fixing investigation
  • United States v. Casewell, District of New Jersey — representation of United Kingdom corporate officer in price fixing prosecution
  • United States v. Caleb Brett, Inc., District of New Jersey — representation of corporate officer in criminal investigations and prosecutions relating to fuel calibration standards
  • In re: Mohave County Grand Jury Investigation, District of Arizona — representation of computer systems company in investigation involving state government procurement practices
  • In re: Crude Oil Grand Jury Investigation, Northern District of Oklahoma — representation of oil exploration and development company in price fixing investigation concerning posted price of crude oil
  • In re: Roofing Shingle Grand Jury Investigation, District of New Jersey — representation of roofing shingle manufacturer in price fixing investigation
  • In re: Abrasive Grain Grand Jury Investigation, Western District of New York — representation of abrasive grain manufacturer in price fixing investigation
  • United States of America v. Cohen, Middle District of Pennsylvania — representation of defendant in criminal proceeding
  • United States of America v. DeStefano, District of New Jersey — representation of defendant in criminal proceeding
  • United States of America v. Glick, Western District of Virginia — representation of a manufacturing company in antitrust investigation and prosecution.

ERISA Litigation

  • Dillard’s, Inc. v. Towers Perrin Forster & Crosby, Inc., Southern District of Ohio — following a two-week bench trial obtained judgment in favor of the defendant in a case alleging actuarial malpractice and breach of ERISA duties; the judgment was affirmed by the Sixth Circuit
  • Cohen v. Baker, Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of officers and directors in class action alleging breach of ERISA fiduciary duties
  • Kotrosits v. GATX Corp. Non-Contributory Pension Plan for Salaried Employees, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — representation of ERISA plan in class action alleging ERISA breach of fiduciary duties
  • Painters of Philadelphia Dist. Council No. 21 Welfare Fund v. Price Waterhouse, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit — representation of accounting firm in action alleging ERISA breach of fiduciary duties.

Insurance Litigation

  • URL Financial Group v. Kman & Kman Financial Group, et al., Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania — representation of insurance company in breach of contract litigation
  • John DeSantis v. Dominic Cammarano, et al., Court of Common Pleas, Berks County, Pennsylvania — representation of insurance company in breach of contract litigation
  • Robert J. Friesner v. North American Company for Life and Health Insurance, First Judicial District Court, County of Santa Fe, New Mexico — representation of insurance company in class action alleging improper sales practices
  • Amy D. Fleck v. North American Company for Life and Health Insurance, et al., Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department, Chancery Division — representation of insurance company in class action alleging improper sales practices
  • James Van West v. Midland National Life Insurance Company, District of Rhode Island — representation of insurance company in class action alleging improper sales practices
  • William J. Canady, et al. v. Midland National Life Insurance Company, et al., Circuit Court of Kanawha County, West Virginia — representation of insurance company in breach of contract litigation
  • Edwin Corder v. Midland National Life Insurance Company, et al., Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division — representation of insurance company in class action alleging improper sales practices
  • Oscar H. Krug, et al. v. North American Company for Life and Health Insurance, Eastern District of Pennsylvania — representation of insurance company in class action alleging improper sales practices.

Securities Litigation

  • In re UniTek Global Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (E.D. Pa.) — represent the defendant corporation and two corporate officers in a Rule 10b-5 class action
  • Frater v. Hemispherx BioPharma, Inc. (E.D. Pa.) — represent the defendant corporation and corporate officers in a Rule 10b-5 class action and related derivative actions
  • Anderson v. PolyMedix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (E.D. Pa.) — represent the defendant corporation and corporate officers in a Rule 10b-5 class action
  • In re Cybex International Shareholders Litigation (N.Y. Super. Ct.) — represent corporate officers in lawsuit challenging going private transaction
  • In re Metrologic Instruments, Inc. Shareholder Litigation (N.J. Super. Ct.) — represent corporate officer in lawsuit challenging going private transaction
  • In re Charming Shoppes, Inc. Derivative and Class Action Litigation (Pa. Comm. Pleas Ct.) – represent acquiring corporation in lawsuit challenging going private transaction
  • Angiolillo v. eResearchTechnology, Inc. et al. (Del. Chanc.) — represented defendant corporation and corporate officers in lawsuits filed in Delaware and Pennsylvania challenging going private transaction
  • Building Trades United Pension Trust Fund v. Kenexa Corporation et al. (E.D. Pa.) — represented the defendant corporation and its CEO and CFO in obtaining dismissal of a federal securities class action that alleged the defendants provided materially false information in an earnings forecast.
  • Costa Brava Partnership III, LP v. MedQuist, Inc, et al. District of New Jersey; Kahn, v. MedQuist, Inc., et al., Superior Court for Burlington County, New Jersey; Newcastle Partners, L.P., et al. v. MedQuist, Inc., et al. Superior Court for Burlington County, New Jersey — represented the defendant corporation in two temporary restraining order and three preliminary injunction hearings in federal and state court seeking to enjoin a $400 million stock sale transaction by the corporation’s largest shareholder; all of the plaintiffs’ requested injunctive relief was denied, and the transaction was permitted to proceed
  • Borochoff v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, No. 07-5574 (S.D.N.Y.) — in May 2008 obtained the dismissal of federal securities class action complaint alleging that GSK failed to disclose material information relating to the safety profile of its prescription medicine, Avandia, which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in August 2009
  • In re Eli Lilly and Company Securities Litigation, No. 07-01310 (E.D.N.Y.) — in April 2008 obtained dismissal of federal securities class action complaint that Lilly failed to disclose material safety and marketing information regarding its prescription medicine, Zyprexa
  • In re Discovery Laboratories Securities Litigation, No. 07-2080 (3d Cir.) — in April 2008 obtained affirmance of district court’s 2007 dismissal of federal securities class action complaint against Discovery Labs for allegedly misrepresenting the company’s ability to meet certain requirements for regulatory approval of Surfaxin in the United States and Europe
  • In re Astea International Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 06-1467 (E.D. Pa.) — in August 2007 obtained dismissal of federal securities class action complaint against Astea for alleged material misstatements in interim financial statements that the company restated
  • In re Discovery Laboratories, Inc. Derivative Litigation, No. 06-2058 (E.D. Pa.) — in May 2007 obtained dismissal of derivative action filed against Discovery Labs’ officers and directors for alleged breach of fiduciary duty in allowing the company to allegedly misrepresent the company’s ability to meet certain requirements for regulatory approval of Surfaxin
  • In re ViroPharma Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-1627 (E.D. Pa.) — in April 2003 obtained partial dismissal and in 2004 ultimately favorable settlement of a federal securities class action complaint filed against ViroPharma after an FDA Advisory Committee decided not to recommend approval of Plenconaril
  • In re: Adelphia Communications Corporation, No. 02-CV-1781 (E.D. Pa.) — representation of company and independent directors in federal securities fraud class actions and derivative actions
  • In re: Suprema Specialties, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 02-168 (D.N.J.) — representation of underwriters in federal securities fraud class action
  • In re: U.S. Interactive, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 01-CV-522 (E.D. Pa.) — representation of directors and officers in federal securities fraud class action
  • In re: Unisys Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 99-5333 (E.D. Pa.) — representation of company and directors and officers in federal securities fraud class action
  • John J. Wallace, et al. v. Systems & Computer Technology Corporation, et al., No. 95-CV-6303 (E.D. Pa.) — representation of company and directors and officers in federal securities fraud class action
  • In re: Regal Communications Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 94-179 (E.D. Pa.) — representation of company in federal securities fraud class action
  • In re: Sears, Roebuck & Co. Securities Litigation, No. 91-2878, 91-3210 and 91-3322 (E.D. Pa.) — representation of company in federal securities fraud class action
  • Harriet Lewis v. Chrysler Corp., et al., 90-7963 (E.D. Pa.) — representation of company and directors and officers in federal securities fraud class action
  • Estate of M. Harrison Bohrer v. Western Union Corp., et al., No. 89-8499 (E.D. Pa.) — representation of company and directors and officers in federal securities fraud class action
  • Gruber v. Price Waterhouse, No. 89 1656 (3rd Cir.) — representation of accounting firm in federal securities fraud class action
  • K.B. Equities, Inc. v. Price Waterhouse, No. 86-4295 (E.D. Pa.) — representation of accounting firm in federal securities fraud class action
  • In re: Western Union Securities Litigation, No. 84-5092 (E.D. Pa.) — representation of company and directors and officers in federal securities fraud class action.

Mr. Hickok is a magna cum laude graduate of the Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. He was one of two students in the second year class awarded the Sears Prize for having the highest annual academic average. While at Harvard, he also received a Masters degree in law and economics. After law school, he was a law clerk for the Honorable Leonard I. Garth of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He then worked as a federal prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Philadelphia, where he conducted numerous fraud, corruption and tax prosecutions.

Mr. Hickok is an adjunct professor at Drexel University School of Law where he teaches a course in law and economics. He has been an adjunct professor at the Rutgers-Camden School of Law, where he taught courses in law and economics, and professional responsibility. He has served as a member and chair of Hearing Committee 1.04 of the Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. He also has served as president and is currently a member of the Executive Committee of the Harvard Law School Association of Philadelphia. He is a member of the Pennsylvania, New Jersey and District of Columbia bars.



Education
B.A. 1974, summa cum laude, Lehigh University
A.M. 1978 Harvard University
J.D. 1978, magna cum laude, Harvard Law School; editor, Harvard Law Review; recipient, Sears Prize

Clerkships
1978-79 Law Clerk to Hon. Leonard I. Garth, U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

Bar Admissions
Admitted to practice in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and District of Columbia

Robert L. Hickok
Partner
Phone: 215.981.4583
Fax: 215.981.4750
hickokr@pepperlaw.com
Download VCard

Office(s)
Philadelphia

Hickok, Robert L

American College of Trial Lawyers logo

Practice Area(s)
Antitrust and Competition
Appellate Practice

Class Action Litigation
Commercial Litigation

Corporate Risk Management, Stockholder Litigation, and Special Committee Representation
ERISA Litigation

International and Domestic Arbitration
Professional Responsibility Litigation

Securities and Financial Services Enforcement Group
Securities Enforcement and Litigation

Securities Litigation
White Collar Litigation and Investigations


Articles


Non-U.S. Whistleblower's Dodd-Frank Retaliation Claim Rejected

Halliburton II: Recognizing Costs to Companies, Justices Provide Securities Litigation Defendants New Opportunity to Defeat Class Certification


Gov't Investigations, Suit Spotlight High-Frequency Trading

U.S. Supreme Court to Decide Whether Companies and Directors Can Be Held Liable for False Opinions or Beliefs in Registration Statements Without Knowledge of Falsity


Justices Signal Interest in Middle-Ground Approach to Adjusting Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption

SEC Exposes Teeth of Dodd-Frank Whistleblower Rules


Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption of Reliance May Be Overruled

Rebutting the Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption of Reliance


Round Two of Shareholder Say-on-Pay Litigation

Obtaining Early Dismissal of Shareholder Derivative Actions


Confronting the New Shareholder Strike Suit

Supreme Court to Provide Long-Awaited Guidance on Applicability of Fraud-on-the-Market Presumption


Lower Courts Follow Matrixx's Guidance on Motions to Dismiss

Pa. Appraisal Statute Not an Exclusive Remedy, 3rd Circuit Rules


Supreme Court Resolves Circuit Split on Whether a Securities Fraud Class Can Be Certified Without Proof of Loss Causation

Send Them to Delaware to Inspect Corporate Books


VeriFone Stockholder Plaintiffs Finish Out of the Money in Calif., Win Pyrrhic Victory in Delaware

Confidential Witness Statements Post-Tellabs


Vivendi Trial Verdict: One of Only Nine Since Enactment of the PSLRA in 1995 Based on Post-Reform Act Conduct

To What Extent Do Antifraud Provisions of U.S. Securities Laws Apply to Foreign Securities Transactions? Supreme Court to Give Guidance in Morrison V. National Australia Bank


Two Recent District Court Dismissals of Securities Fraud Complaints Highlight the Difficulty of Pleading Scienter under the Third Circuit’s Avaya Decision

Practical Implications of the Third Circuit’s Decision in Avaya to Eliminate Motive and Opportunity as an Independent Basis for Pleading Scienter


3rd Circuit Decisions Gut Inquiry Notice Standard for Asserting Fraud Claims

Communications with Class Members in the Age of the Internet


Arbitration Developments



Copyright © 2014 Pepper Hamilton LLP | Use of This Site Subject to These Terms & Conditions | PRIVACY POLICY | Contact Us: phinfo@pepperlaw.com or 866.737.7372 | Find Pepper Hamilton LLP on Facebook | Pepper Hamilton LLP on LinkedIn | Follow Pepper Hamilton LLP on Twitter | Pepper Hamilton LLP YouTube Channel | View Pepper Hamilton LLP's documents on JD Supra