Skip to main content

David L. Barres


[email protected]



David practices commercial litigation in federal and state courts, focusing on complex breach-of-contract, securities, insurance, and risk-management matters. His insurance practice includes the litigation of coverage disputes and fraud claims, as well as regulatory investigations and counseling. He has extensive experience representing banks in bankruptcy litigations and other commercial matters, including the defense of fraudulent transfer claims and the litigation of disputes concerning the valuation of businesses and assets. He has arbitrated and mediated numerous international and domestic commercial disputes. He also is a member of the firm's Insurance, Securities, and Privacy Practice Groups.

Before joining Mintz, David was a litigator at another prominent New York law firm and a law clerk to the Honorable Robert E. Cowen of the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He also serves in the New York Family Court Volunteer Attorney Program, and served as a special assistant district attorney for New York County. During law school, he was a member of the New York University Law Review.


  • New York University (JD)
  • Columbia College (BA)


  • Represent a multinational financial services corporation in two FINRA arbitrations related to disputes concerning trades in a canceled security.
  • Represented a major insurer in a series of “Bermuda Form” arbitrations arising out of the insured’s settlement of a dispute commenced by a former high level executive.
  • Represented a major bank/liquidity provider in a dispute over the sequence and priority of payments on student-loan revenue bonds
  • Obtained an arbitration award of over $100 million on behalf of banks and an insurer arising from a Eurobond default, and won related federal trial to pierce the corporate veils of the defaulting corporations.
  • Represented a major bank in trial and appeal of a fraudulent conveyance action arising from the formation of a machine-tool manufacturer.
  • Representing Ruth Madoff in a variety of civil actions.
  • Representing a life insurance premium-financing company in federal regulatory investigation of the legality of its transactions under the insurance, contract, trust, and securities law of multiple states and the United States.


The Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) reflects a strong federal policy in favor of arbitration.  In extraordinary cases, however, a dispute that otherwise would be arbitrable under the FAA could be rendered non-arbitrable by the operation of another federal statute.  The
In a proceeding under the Federal Arbitration Act (“FAA”) to determine if a dispute must be arbitrated, a federal district court performs a more limited function than in a plenary civil action.
The courts undoubtedly have the power to grant provisional remedies in aid of a pending arbitration – including temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and attachments. As a recent Fifth Circuit decision reminds us, the courts also can grant such remedies in aid of an arbitration that has yet to be commenced.
For nearly thirty years, federal and state appellate courts have been split on the issue of whether the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, November 15, 1965 (“Hague Service Convention” or “Convention”), permits service of process by mail.
Federal public policy favors arbitration and the broad interpretation and enforcement of arbitration agreements. So how can an arbitration agreement be held by a court to be void as against public policy? One answer from a state court (in circumstances where the Federal Arbitration Act did not apply) is that toying with a statutory arbitration scheme could do the trick.
In an effort to streamline arbitration proceedings where possible, the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (“ICC”) announced on November 4, 2016 that it would issue new Expedited Procedure Rules, effective March 1, 2017, which will comprise the new Appendix VI of its Rules of Arbitration (“ICC Arb. R.”).
Corporate directors and officers (“D&O’s”) face significant personal exposure whenever their corporation is involved in a dispute or investigation.  For this reason, prudent D&O’s avail themselves of all available legal protections, including charter provisions, insurance, and indemnification agreements.
Earlier this week a federal district court in New Jersey dismissed with prejudice a shareholder derivative suit, Palkon v. Holmes, No. 14-CV-01234 (SRC) (D.N.J.), that tried to blame the directors and officers at hospitality company Wyndham Worldwide Corporation (“Wyndham”) for a series of data breaches.