Filed D.C. Superior Court 04/10/2018 Clerk of the Court SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION INVESTIMENTOS S.A., Av. Marginal Direita do Tiet?, 500 Bloco: 1, Primeiro Andar Vila aguara Sao Paulo, SP 05118-100 Brazil Plaintiff, v. TRENCH, ROSSI WATANABE ADVOGADOS, Rua Arquiteto Olavo Redig De Campos, 105, 310 Andar, Ed. EZ Towers, Torre A, Sao Paulo, SP 04711-904; and BAKER MCKENZIE LLP, 815 Connecticut Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 United States, Defendants. Civil Action No. Jury Demand COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Investimentos S.A. brings this action against Defendants Trench, Rossi Watanabe Advogados (?Trench Rossi?) and Baker McKenzie LLP (??Baker? or ?Baker McKenzie,? and together with Trench Rossi, ??Defendants?). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 2. engaged Baker McKenzie and Trench Rossi, closely af?liated law firms with of?ces in the United States and Brazil, to represent in connection with investigations being pursued by authorities in each country. As a result of gross negligence by the Trench Rossi and Baker attorneys hired to represent the interests of the company and several of its of?cers and directors are now at risk of criminal prosecution and even possibly imprisonment. brings this action to hold Defendants responsible for their malpractice. 3. In early 2017, the same period in which they were representing Defendants Trench Rossi and Baker approved the hiring of a senior prosecutor in Brazil?s Federal Prosecution Service Marcello Miller, to become a partner at Trench Rossi. Defendants began having Mr. Miller participate as a member of the legal team representing working alongside attorneys from Trench Rossi?s of?ce in 8.2710 Paulo and Baker?s of?ce in Washington, DC, before he left his position with the MPF. 4. For several weeks while he was still employed as a prosecutor, Mr. Miller participated with Trench Rossi and Baker attorneys in strategy sessions and meetings with and its personnel, including its general counsel. Mr. Miller also worked with partners from Trench Rossi and Baker on a presentation that he and those partners delivered on behalf of the day after Mr. Miller left the MPF, to of?cials from the United States Department of Justice in Washington, DC. 5. At no time did the responsible attorneys from Trench Rossi or Baker advise that Mr. Miller?s participation in the company?s legal team, while he was still working as a prosecutor, was problematic. Defendants provided no indication that they had failed to take appropriate measures to ensure that Mr. Miller?s participation as counsel to would not be deemed improper and would not otherwise jeopardize &F?s interests. 6. Brazilian authorities are now seeking to tear up agreements entered into between Brazil?s Of?ce of the Prosecutor General and four of &F?s senior of?cers and directors, pursuant to which Brazilian authorities agreed not to prosecute those of?cers in exchange for their cooperation. The Brazilian authorities have also announced that they are investigating whether revelations concerning Mr. Miller?s role will have any impact on an agreement entered into by with the MPF providing for &F?s cooperation. One of the main reasons identi?ed by the Brazilian authorities for taking these steps, and thereby exposing &F?s of?cers and directors to possible criminal prosecution, is the highly irresponsible decision by Trench Rossi and Baker to include Mr. Miller as counsel to the company. 7. relied on Defendants, as &F?s retained counsel, to take all appropriate steps to ensure that Mr. Miller?s participation in the representation would be appropriate, and had no reason to expect that Defendants had failed to do so. Defendants did fail, however, and that failure has resulted in severe harm to the company, including possible criminal exposure for its senior personnel, costs associated with working with Brazilian prosecutors in an effort to maintain previously secured agreements, and extreme damage to its reputation. The harm to and its senior leaders is a direct consequence of Defendants? reckless and ill-advised decision to employ a government prosecutor as part of &F?s defense team, and to do so without advising as to the implications of that decision. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by DC. Code 11-921. 9. Personal jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to the provisions of DC. Code 13- 422 and 13-423 because Defendant Baker maintains an of?ce in the District of Columbia and the claims arise from both Baker and Trench Rossi?s business transactions in the District of Columbia. PARTIES 10. Plaintiff is a Brazilian corporation that, through various af?liates and subsidiaries, is among the world?s largest meat and poultry producers with hundreds of thousands of employees in Brazil and throughout the world. 11. Defendant Baker is a law firm with of?ces at locations throughout the United States, including an office at 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC. 20006. Baker markets itself as an international law ?rm, with of?ces throughout the world, including through its af?liation with Trench Rossi in Brazil. 12. Defendant Trench Rossi is an international law ?rm based in Brazil. At all relevant times, Trench Rossi was af?liated with Baker, which it represented to clients and prospective clients, including in its engagement letter with Defendants here, to be part of its worldwide network of af?liated law ?rms. For a time, the email addresses for Trench Rossi attorneys and other Trench Rossi personnel included, ?@bakermckenzie.? FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Retains Trench Rossi and Baker As Counsel To Handle Investigations in The United States and Brazil 13. In early 2017, authorities in Brazil and the United States were separately investigating various companies in connection with a corruption scandal involving alleged payments to government of?cials in Brazil. sought legal counsel capable of representing it in connection with simultaneous investigations in both countries. 14. Trench Rossi marketed itself as uniquely quali?ed to handle such a cross-border representation, both because of its expertise in corruption-related investigations in Brazil and because of its af?liation with Baker in the United States?an af?liation it features on its website to the present day. Likewise, Baker marketed itself as an international law ?rm, including on its website, where it reports having locations in Brazil based speci?cally on its af?liation with Trench Rossi. 15. selected Trench Rossi as counsel in connection with the corruption investigations, in large part based on Trench Rossi?s af?liation with Baker in the United States. entered into an engagement letter with Trench Rossi dated March 6, 2017. Later, on May 29, 2017, entered into an engagement letter with Baker, though?as discussed below?the ?rm?s attorneys had already been working as part of the Trench Rossi team for two to three months by that time. 16. In its March 6 engagement letter, Trench Rossi con?rmed and highlighted its af?liation with Baker, and Baker?s role in the representation. Trench Rossi emphasized that it operates on a ?global scale,? and advised that it would be working ?in cooperation with? Baker, and that Baker attorneys would be available as part of &F?s legal ?team.? 17. Esther Flesch, the head of Trench Rossi?s white collar practice, signed the engagement letter on behalf of Trench Rossi, and, pursuant to its terms, was designated to serve as lead counsel for Trench Rossi in its representation of Trench Rossi marketed Ms. Flesch as a highly experienced and capable white collar attorney, and Ms. Flesch personally emphasized to that her team would include United States counsel, from Baker, capable of advising in connection with the DOJ investigation. B. Trench Rossi and Baker Hire Marcelo Miller, While He Was Still A Brazilian Prosecutor, To Work As Part Of Legal Team 18. Marcelo Miller was a member of the MPF involved in corruption prosecutions. Mr. Miller delivered a resignation letter to the MPF on or about February 23, 2017, but remained in his position with the MPF until on or about April 5, 2017. 19. At or around the time Mr. Miller gave notice that he was resigning from the MPF, he accepted an offer to join Defendant Trench Rossi as a partner in its white-collar practice, headed by Ms. Flesch. According to Ms. Flesch, as set out in an application she has pending in an action she instituted against Trench Rossi in Brazil in connection with her recent termination from the ?rm, the decision to hire Mr. Miller was a ?joint decision? by the partners of Trench Rossi and Baker. 20. Throughout March 2017, through its of?cers, met regularly with attorneys from Trench Rossi and Baker, whose attorneys participated at least once in person in Sao Paulo and on other occasions by phone from their of?ces in Washington, DC, to discuss strategy surrounding negotiations with authorities in Brazil and the United States, and to plan for &F?s overall legal strategy. Mr. Miller acted as a member of legal team in a number of those meetings, though Ms. Flesch and her colleagues at Trench Rossi and Baker knew or should have known that he had not yet left his position as a prosecutor with the MPF. 21. A large focus of these meetings, and of Mr. Miller?s involvement, concerned efforts to secure a leniency agreement between and the Brazilian government, and to pursue a similar agreement with the DOJ to avoid prosecution in the United States. Defendants never advised that Mr. Miller?s participation as part of &F?s legal team posed any ethical concerns or otherwise jeopardized Defendants? ability to effectively represent &F?s interests. 22. Mr. Miller continued to be employed by the MPF until April 5, 2017. The next day, he delivered a presentation with Ms. Flesch and two partners from Baker?s Washington DC of?ce, Joan Meyer and John Rowley, to DOJ officials in Washington DC. Ms. Meyer and Mr. Rowley are both identified on the Baker website as former prosecutors and specialists in criminal white collar investigations, and both were brought into the legal team to lead negotiations with the DOJ. 23. The presentation to the DOJ by Mr. Miller, Ms. Flesch, Ms. Meyer and Mr. Rowley was substantial and detailed, and included the use of a PowerPoint presentation. All four attorneys had begun preparing for that presentation, and coordinating with one another, in advance of the April 6 meeting, while Mr. Miller was still employed by the MPF. 24. The bills sent to by Trench Rossi con?rm that Baker attorneys, and Mr. Miller, were participating in the representation, including before Mr. Miller left his position with the MPF. Trench Rossi sent an invoice to dated May 17, 2017, that includes more than twenty time entries involving calls or meetings with Mr. Miller and/or Mr. Rowley and Ms. Meyer. For example, on her time entry for March 3, 2017, Ms. Flesch bills time for ?internal and external meetings with Marcelo Miller.? On March 24, 2017, Ms. Flesch and a Trench Rossi colleague, Camila Steinhoff, each billed time to a meeting with Mr. Miller ?about the case.? On her time entry for March 25, 2017, Ms. Flesch billed for conference calls with ?Baker attorneys.? On April 4, 2017, Ms. Flesch reported providing ?Instructions to Baker attorneys in preparation for meeting.? The next day, Ms. Steinhoff reported participating in a conference call with Mr. Rowley and Ms. Meyer ?in preparation for the meetings in the United States,? and conferring with Ms. Flesch and Mr. Miller ?about the case.? C. Brazilian Authorities Act To Rescind Or Renegotiate Agreements With and Its Personnel Based On Defendants? Negligence in Hiring Mr. Miller To Represent the Company 25. On or around May 3, 2017, certain officers and directors of &F?including Joesley Batista, Wesley Batista, Francisco de Assis Silva and Ricardo Saud?entered into agreements with PGR. Mr. Assis was at that time, and remains, &F?s General Counsel. The Batistas were on &F?s Board of Directors. And Mr. Saud was &F?s Director of Government Relations. 26. Pursuant to the terms of the May 3 agreements, the Batistas, Mr. Assis and Mr. Saud agreed to cooperate in the ongoing investigation and to pay fines, and the PGR agreed, in exchange, not to prosecute those individuals. 27. On or around June 5, 2017, itself entered into a ?leniency agreement? with Brazilian authorities pursuant to which it agreed to pay a significant amount in fines, 10.3 billion reais (approximately $3.18 billion), and to cooperate in the ongoing corruption investigation. 28. Defendants? decision to include Mr. Miller on &F?s legal team has now placed the agreements in jeopardy. Brazilian authorities recently announced they have initiated steps to rescind the agreements entered into by Mr. Assis, Mr. Saud and the Batistas, citing Trench Rossi?s conflict of interest in having Mr. Miller represent while simultaneously serving as a prosecutor. Brazilian authorities separately provided notice to that they are investigating Mr. Miller?s role in the company?s representation and whether it would have any impact on own agreement. D. Trench Rossi and Baker Work Together To Try To Limit The Damage From Revelations About Their Decision To Hire Mr. Miller 29. The decision to rescind the agreements was widely reported in Brazil, with Trench Rossi coming under heavy criticism. It was reported, for instance, that Brazil?s President, himself embroiled in the corruption scandal, had criticized Trench Rossi for including Mr. Miller as part of legal team. Defendants? misguided decision to hire Mr. Miller while he was still a prosecutor has also led to speculation in the media that was to blame, which is incorrect, but has been damaging to &F?s reputation. 30. Attorneys for Trench Rossi and Baker went into damage control mode once their error became public. In an application she has pending in Court proceedings that she initiated against Trench Rossi in Brazil, Ms. Flesch describes an incident, in July 2017, in which lawyers from both ?rms met with Ms. Flesch in Miami, for more than ten hours, and ?harassed? and ?pressured? her as part of a larger effort to ?scapegoat? her for hiring Mr. Miller to participate in representing According to Ms. Flesch, as noted above, Trench Rossi and Baker had in fact collaborated in the decision to hire Mr. Miller at Trench Rossi in the ?rst place. 31. Defendants placed Ms. Flesch on leave from Trench Rossi in approximately July 2017, and, in September, removed her from her position with the ?rm. Ms. Flesch has ?led suit against Trench Rossi in connection with her termination. 32. Also during late 2017, a Congressional committee in Brazil recommended that Mr. Miller be indicted in connection with his work at Trench Rossi, as part of the legal team representing while he was still employed as a prosecutor. Mr. Miller has been interviewed by Brazilian authorities and acknowledged meeting with of?cers, and Trench Rossi attorneys, even before he of?cially left his position with the MPF. 33. If the Brazilian government succeeds in rescinding its agreements, which requires approval from the Brazilian Supreme Court, four of?cers or directors?Joesley Batista, Wesley Batista, Mr. Assis and Mr. Saud?will be placed at risk of criminal prosecution and possibly imprisonment. Even if the leniency agreements ultimately survive, is obligated to indemnify oesley Batista and Ricardo Saud for the substantial legal fees they have already incurred, and will continue to incur, attempting to preserve their agreements. Moreover, has incurred costs on its own behalf, and will continue to incur costs, in connection with its ongoing negotiations with Brazilian authorities arising out of the decision to open an investigation into the status of &F?s leniency agreement in light of the revelations concerning Defendants? inclusion of Mr. Miller as part of the company?s legal team. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Professional Malpractice) 34. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation above as if set forth in full herein. 35. engaged Trench Rossi and Baker McKenzie to represent in connection with criminal investigations in Brazil and the United States. 36. In their representation of Defendants were required to exercise the degree of care and skill that a reasonable, competent lawyer, engaged in a similar practice and acting under similar circumstances, would exercise. 37. Defendants failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care and skill by hiring Mr. Miller, before he left his role in the Brazilian prosecutor?s of?ce, to participate with the team of Baker and Trench Rossi attorneys representing in connection with investigations in Brazil and the United States. 38. Because of Defendants? failure to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care in their role counseling has been harmed. Brazilian authorities have initiated actions to rescind agreements entered into with &F?s of?cers and directors, placing them at risk of criminal prosecution and possible imprisonment; and Brazilian authorities have opened an investigation into whether Mr. Miller?s participation in &F?s legal team will have any impact on the status of the company?s agreement, which has required to incur costs negotiating with authorities in connection with that new investigation. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) 39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation above as if set forth in full herein. 40. Defendants owed a ?duciary duty. Trench Rossi and Baker McKenzie had an attorney client relationship with 41. Defendants breached this duty by making Mr. Miller a partner and failing to disclose to that Defendants? decision to include Mr. Miller on the legal team raised ethical concerns that would jeopardize the ability of and its of?cers and directors to maintain leniency agreements entered into with Brazilian authorities, or obtain such an agreement with the DOJ. 42. As a result of their breach of duty, Defendants caused damages to Plaintiffs. If not for Defendants? failure to disclose the implications of their decision to hire Miller, Plaintiffs would have sought representation from a ?rm without the ethical con?icts that now jeopardize the ability of and its of?cers and directors to secure and maintain agreements protecting them from prosecution. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages caused by Defendants? breach of ?duciary duty. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully seek from this Court: a. Damages, compensatory and punitive, in an amount to be determined at trial. b. Attorneys? fees, costs, and expenses the Plaintiff incurred in connection with this matter. c. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. 10 DATED this 10th day of April, 2018 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART SULLIVAN, LLP ,7 . . Eric C. 1300 I Street NW Suite 900 Washington, DC. 20005 (T): 202-538-8000 (F): 202-538-8100 Attorney for Plainti? Michael B. Carlinsky (pro hac vice forthcoming) 51 Madison Avenue, 2211d Floor New York, New York 10010-1601 (T): 212-849-7000 (F): 212-849-7100 11 Superior Court at" the Bistriet 111' Columbia CIVIL- BTVISION Civil Actions Branch 51111 Indiana Avenue. NW Suite 51100 Washington. I) 21311111 Teiephune: (202) 879 1.133 ehsite: dccourts. gov INVESTIMENTOS s. A, Plaintiff VS. Case Number TRENCH, ROSSI WATANABE ADVOGADOS, 11111111111111 SUMM ON To the above named Defendant; You are hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint, either personally or through an attorney. Within twenty one {21) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service It vou are being sued as 111 of?cer or agenev of the United States Government or the District oi Coiumhia Oove 11111111111 you have sixty {60) days after service of this summons to ser 1/e your Answer. A copy oi the Answ er rnust be me iied to the attorney for the who is suing you The attorneys narne anda dd ress appear below If plaintiff has no attorney, a eony ot the Answer must be mailed to the piaintiff at the address stated on this Summons. You are also required to tile the original Answer with the Court in Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, NAM, between 8:30 am. and 5:00 p.111, Mondays through Fridays or between 9:00 am. a1d 12:00 noon on Saturdays. You may fiie the original Answer with the Court either before you serve a copy of the Answer on the 111aintiff or Within seven (7) days after you. ha 11-: served the piaintitt. If you to an Answer. judgmei luv -efault n1a be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Eric C. 171611011112 Name of FIaintist Attorney 1300 I Street NW, Suite 900 By Address Washington, DC. 20005 (202) 538?8000 April 10, 2018 ?I?eienhone aneanaae (202) 87114823 Veuiilez appeler an (2112) 8714828 pour une 1111111111011 at 11111111111 11111111115; goi (21121111114828 111.1% niece 101111 were {2021 879?4828 11.11111 Deputy Clerk IMPORTANT IF YOU FAIL TO FILE AN ANSVIER WITHIN THE TIME STATED ABOVE E, OR IF, AFTER, YOU ANSWER, YOU FAIL TO APPEAR. A ANY IME Til}; (TOUR OT IFIES YOU ENTERED AGATNST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE T. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR WAG ES MAY BE ATTACHED OR WITHHEIJI) OR PERSONAL PROPERTY OR. REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN ANT) SOLD TO PAY JUDGMENT. IF YOU INTENT) TO OFFOSE THIS ACTION, DO TO IVER THE TIME. If you Wish to 11111: to a lawyer and feet that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, contact. one of the offices of the Legal Aid Society {202?628? 1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202?279?5100) for heip or come to Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, NW, for 11 0011: infer 11 atioo coneerr Neg places where you may ask for such help. See reverse side for Spanish translation Vea dorso la 1.111111131111111 al espafioi 10 June 2017] Super. Ct. R. 4 TREBUNAL SUPERIOR DEL BESTRETQ 13E. (31V 11.- Secci?n de Acciones Civiles 5111} 11111121116 13111611116, NASA, 8111116 5111111, W'ashingten, 0.13. 21111111 Tel?femz (2112) Sitio web: {36111611116616 6611112. N171 111616 116 D61116111161610 CETA T013110 A1 611561116116 13166121111121.1111: P111 121 1116861116 36 16 611:1 :1 90111332116031'31' 36 16 16111111'6( 6111160211 111121 (36111613615111 11 121 6111611113. 2111611121 8621 611 663611.111 (6111) 111113: 6611611163 11611111166 11116- 1131811 1121311 16611111166 . 3 1161 6617166 6116 661316 116 111.1 (36111631661611 211 6116;166:316 1:1 1131*6?3 1-11.66. 31116 E1 11611113161 (11.61.6166 1161 111361121116 3})31613611 :11 1111111 {16 6316 11661111161116 S1 61(1611111111111116 116 11611? (11:16ng6 161166111 6116111116 211 116111211111211116 111121 A 1.161611 taimbii?n S6 16 1?6 111111211111 1216 8:30 21.111 5:01) 13 111.116 111111.11 1611 5611111166 1.131611 111116116 1316116111211 1:1. {6616312111611 6111511211 11167 ya 5163 1111165 11116 1181111 16 6111;166:116 211 {16616111161116 11113. 61133111 116 111 6 611 61 p12120 116. S1011. 11166 :16 1111136116 11661111 13. 6111.16g6 :11 (16616111161116 S1 1181611 1116111111316 6611 61666111211 111121 (36111631661611, 13611111 11? 1111 121.116 611 1666111121 66111121 11131611 611111 (3111!? 15611211121 61661116 61 11651111161116 6116. 36 11116621. 611 121 116 111611.111? SECRETA RIO DEL 7211113 N6111br6 1161 21.136 1.36116 1161 12161116111121.1116 E111: D116661611 ?36115661616116 Eecha T61616116 MEWS. 111116 11 (202) 879 4828 I?v?euiilez 2161;131:1216 (202) 1116-4828 13-31% me traduction BE 26 111111 1111 d1811,11?y gm (262;: 616-4626 1111166 112116 11110111 (202) 616?4626 1.61611 S11 1) 11111191. E. 1: ON UNA LGNTESTAL EN EL PL AZO ANTL . E110 DE CONTESTAR, STED NO COMEARECE ANDO LE AVTSE EL JUZUADO, 13013111.: ON TEA. 1-1 S1111) PARA. QL 1.. SE LE CO BEE DANOS EL (I) T111) DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA S1 ESTO OCURRE, PODRTA RETENERSELE SUS TNGRESOS, 0 P1 1DRTA 1 SLS 1311 .NES PE RSONAT ES 0 NLS RA1CE ?1 SE PARA EAGAR .1. EALLO. ST USTED PR1: TENDE OEGNERSE A ESTA ACCTON, NO DEJE DE LON LA DEAITRO DEL PLAZO S1 11611611 COHVB 121211 6611 111121 11161321116 16 11111666 11116 116 [11.16116 11111521116 21 1.1116 11211116 11161116 21 1.1113 1112 11116611213 6116111115 (161 Legal Aid Society (202?628-1161) 0 61 Neighborhood L6g111 S61w1666 1202.- 279? 5100} 621121 1361111 ayuda 6 V611g21 a 16. 011611121 5000 1161 500 111111211111.Avenue, NIW., 1321111 11116111111156 361116 61.165;- 1111;211:231 (1611116 11111116111111.112131111111 11?! 1631516616. al 116180 61 0111;111:1211 6'11 111g1?s S66 1616166 51116 11.111.71.151le 6111;111:111 10 [Rev. June 2017] Super. Ct. R. 4 Superior Court at" the Bistriet 111' Columbia CIVIL- Civil Actions Branch 51111 11111111111111 Avenue. NW Suite 51100 Washington. 21311111 Teiephune: (202) 879 1.133 ehsite: dccourts. gov e? INVESTIMENTOS s. A, Plaintiff VS. Case Number BAKER MCKENZIE LLP, 11111111111111 SUMM (EN To the above named Defendant; You are hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint, either personally or through an attorney. Within twenty one {21) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service it vou are being sued as 111 of?cer or agenev of the United States Government or the District oi Columbia Gave 11111111111 you have sixty {60) days after service of this summons to 31:11 your Answer. A copy oi the Answ er rnust be mailed to the attorney for the who is suing you The attorneys narne anda dd ress appear below If plaintiff has no attorney, a eony ot the Answer must be mailed to the plaintiff at the address stated on this Summons. You are also required to tile the original Answer with the Court in Suite 5000 at 500 lndiana Avenue, NAM, between 8:30 am. and 5:00 p.111, Mondays through Fridays or between 9:00 am. a1d l2200 noon on Saturdays. You may file the original Answer with the Court either before you serve a copy of the Answer on the plaintiff or Within seven (7) days after you. ha it: served the plaintiff. If you fail to ?le an Answer. judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Eric C. 171611011112 Name of Plaintiffs Attorney 1300 I Street NW, Suite 900 By Address Washington, DC 20005 (202) 538?8000 April 10, 2018 ?E?eienhone (202) 87114823 Veuiilez appeler an (2112) 8714828 pour une traciucaon at 11111111111 dieh, say goi (21121111114828 111.1% niece 1mm art-111111 {2021 879?4828 1.11111 Deputy Clerk TMFORTANT TF YOU FAIL TO F1 LE AN ANSWF WITHIN THE TTMF STATED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER, YOU ANSWER, YOU AH. TO APPEAR. A ANY TME Til}; (TOUR 0711171113 YOU TO DO SO, A BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGATNST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED TN THE COMPTATN T. IF THIS OCCURS, YOUR. WAGES MAY BE ATTACHED 0R. WITHHELD 0R FERSUNAL OR. REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN ANT) SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU TNTEND TO OFFOSE THIS ACTION, DO T0 WEE 'i-i?i?i?V THE REQUIRED 2101113. If you Wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, contact. one of the offices of the Legal Aid Society {202?628? 1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202?279?5100) for heip or come to Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., for 11 0011: infer 11 atioo coneerr neg places where you may ask for such help. See reverse side for Spanish translation Vea dorso la 1.111111131111111 al 10 June 2017] Super. Ct. R. 4 TREBUNAL SUPERIOR DEL BESTRETQ 13E. (31V 11.- Secci?n de Acciones Civiles 5111} 11111121116 13111611116, NASA, 8111116 5111111, W'ashingten, 0.13. 21111111 Tel?femz (2112) Sitio web: {36111611116616 6611112. N171 111616 116 D61116111161610 CETA T013110 A1 611561116116 13166121111121.1111: P111 121 1116861116 36 16 611:1 :1 90111332116031'31' 36 16 16111111'6( 6111160211 111121 (36111613615111 11 121 6111611113. 2111611121 8621 611 663611.111 (6111) 111113: 6611611163 11611111166 11116- 1131811 1121311 16611111166 . 3 1161 6617166 6116 661316 116 111.1 (36111631661611 211 6116;166:316 1:1 1131*6?3 1-11.66. 31116 E1 11611113161 (11.61.6166 1161 111361121116 3})31613611 :11 1111111 {16 6316 11661111161116 S1 61(1611111111111116 116 11611? (11:16ng6 161166111 6116111116 211 116111211111211116 111121 A 1.161611 taimbii?n S6 16 1?6 111111211111 1216 8:30 21.111 5:01) 13 111.116 111111.11 1611 5611111166 1.131611 111116116 1316116111211 1:1. {6616312111611 6111511211 11167 ya 5163 1111165 11116 1181111 16 6111;166:116 211 {16616111161116 11113. 61133111 116 111 6 611 61 p12120 116. S1011. 11166 :16 1111136116 11661111 13. 6111.16g6 :11 (16616111161116 S1 1181611 1116111111316 6611 61666111211 111121 (36111631661611, 13611111 11? 1111 121.116 611 1666111121 66111121 11131611 611111 (3111!? 15611211121 61661116 61 11651111161116 6116. 36 11116621. 611 121 116 111611.111? SECRETA RIO DEL 7211113 N6111br6 1161 21.136 1.36116 1161 12161116111121.1116 E111: D116661611 ?36115661616116 Eecha T61616116 MEWS. 111116 11 (202) 879 4828 I?v?euiilez 2161;131:1216 (202) 1116-4828 13-31% me traduction BE 26 111111 1111 d1811,11?y gm (262;: 616-4626 1111166 112116 11110111 (202) 616?4626 1.61611 S11 1) 11111191. E. 1: ON UNA LGNTESTAL EN EL PL AZO ANTL . E110 DE CONTESTAR, STED NO COMEARECE ANDO LE AVTSE EL JUZUADO, 13013111.: ON TEA. 1-1 S1111) PARA. QL 1.. SE LE CO BEE DANOS EL (I) T111) DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA S1 ESTO OCURRE, PODRTA RETENERSELE SUS TNGRESOS, 0 P1 1DRTA 1 SLS 1311 .NES PE RSONAT ES 0 NLS RA1CE ?1 SE PARA EAGAR .1. EALLO. ST USTED PR1: TENDE OEGNERSE A ESTA ACCTON, NO DEJE DE LON LA DEAITRO DEL PLAZO S1 11611611 COHVB 121211 6611 111121 11161321116 16 11111666 11116 116 [11.16116 11111521116 21 1.1116 11211116 11161116 21 1.1113 1112 11116611213 6116111115 (161 Legal Aid Society (202?628-1161) 0 61 Neighborhood L6g111 S61w1666 1202.- 279? 5100} 621121 1361111 ayuda 6 V611g21 a 16. 011611121 5000 1161 500 111111211111.Avenue, NIW., 1321111 11116111111156 361116 61.165;- 1111;211:231 (1611116 11111116111111.112131111111 11?! 1631516616. al 116180 61 0111;111:1211 6'11 111g1?s S66 1616166 51116 11.111.71.151le 6111;111:111 10 [Rev. June 2017] Super. Ct. R. 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION INVESTIMENTOS S.A., Av. Marginal Direita do Tiet?, 500 Bloco: l, Primeiro Andar Vila aguara Sio Paulo, SP 05118-100 Brazil Plaintiff, v. TRENCH, ROSSI WATANABE ADVOGADOS, Rua Arquiteto Olavo Redig De Campos, 105, 310 Andar, Ed. EZ Towers, Torre A, $50 Paulo, SP 04711-904; and BAKER MCKENZIE LLP, 815 Connecticut Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 United States, Defendants. Civil Action No. Jury Demand COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff lnvestimentos S.A. brings this action against Defendants Trench, Rossi 6 Watanabe Advogados (?Trench Rossi?) and Baker McKenzie LLP (??Baker? or ?Baker McKenzie,? and together with Trench Rossi, ??Defendants?). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 2. engaged Baker McKenzie and Trench Rossi, closely af?liated law ?rms with of?ces in the United States and Brazil, to represent in connection with investigations being pursued by authorities in each country. As a result of gross negligence by the Trench Rossi and Baker attorneys hired to represent the interests of the company and several of its of?cers and directors are now at risk of criminal prosecution and even possibly imprisonment. brings this action to hold Defendants responsible for their malpractice. 3. In early 2017, the same period in which they were representing Defendants Trench Rossi and Baker approved the hiring of a senior prosecutor in Brazil?s Federal Prosecution Service Marcello Miller, to become a partner at Trench Rossi. Defendants began having Mr. Miller participate as a member of the legal team representing working alongside attorneys from Trench Rossi?s of?ce in 8.2710 Paulo and Baker?s of?ce in Washington, DC, before he left his position with the MPF. 4. For several weeks while he was still employed as a prosecutor, Mr. Miller participated with Trench Rossi and Baker attorneys in strategy sessions and meetings with and its personnel, including its general counsel. Mr. Miller also worked with partners from Trench Rossi and Baker on a presentation that he and those partners delivered on behalf of the day after Mr. Miller left the MPF, to of?cials from the United States Department of Justice in Washington, DC. 5. At no time did the responsible attorneys from Trench Rossi or Baker advise that Mr. Miller?s participation in the company?s legal team, while he was still working as a prosecutor, was problematic. Defendants provided no indication that they had failed to take appropriate measures to ensure that Mr. Miller?s participation as counsel to would not be deemed improper and would not otherwise jeopardize &F?s interests. 6. Brazilian authorities are now seeking to tear up agreements entered into between Brazil?s Of?ce of the Prosecutor General and four of &F?s senior of?cers and directors, pursuant to which Brazilian authorities agreed not to prosecute those of?cers in exchange for their cooperation. The Brazilian authorities have also announced that they are investigating whether revelations concerning Mr. Miller?s role will have any impact on an agreement entered into by with the MPF providing for &F?s cooperation. One of the main reasons identi?ed by the Brazilian authorities for taking these steps, and thereby exposing &F?s of?cers and directors to possible criminal prosecution, is the highly irresponsible decision by Trench Rossi and Baker to include Mr. Miller as counsel to the company. 7. relied on Defendants, as &F?s retained counsel, to take all appropriate steps to ensure that Mr. Miller?s participation in the representation would be appropriate, and had no reason to expect that Defendants had failed to do so. Defendants did fail, however, and that failure has resulted in severe harm to the company, including possible criminal exposure for its senior personnel, costs associated with working with Brazilian prosecutors in an effort to maintain previously secured agreements, and extreme damage to its reputation. The harm to and its senior leaders is a direct consequence of Defendants? reckless and ill-advised decision to employ a government prosecutor as part of &F?s defense team, and to do so without advising as to the implications of that decision. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by DC. Code 11-921. 9. Personal jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to the provisions of DC. Code 13- 422 and 13-423 because Defendant Baker maintains an of?ce in the District of Columbia and the claims arise from both Baker and Trench Rossi?s business transactions in the District of Columbia. PARTIES 10. Plaintiff is a Brazilian corporation that, through various af?liates and subsidiaries, is among the world?s largest meat and poultry producers with hundreds of thousands of employees in Brazil and throughout the world. 11. Defendant Baker is a law firm with of?ces at locations throughout the United States, including an office at 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC. 20006. Baker markets itself as an international law ?rm, with of?ces throughout the world, including through its af?liation with Trench Rossi in Brazil. 12. Defendant Trench Rossi is an international law ?rm based in Brazil. At all relevant times, Trench Rossi was af?liated with Baker, which it represented to clients and prospective clients, including in its engagement letter with Defendants here, to be part of its worldwide network of af?liated law ?rms. For a time, the email addresses for Trench Rossi attorneys and other Trench Rossi personnel included, ?@bakermckenzie.? FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Retains Trench Rossi and Baker As Counsel To Handle Investigations in The United States and Brazil 13. In early 2017, authorities in Brazil and the United States were separately investigating various companies in connection with a corruption scandal involving alleged payments to government of?cials in Brazil. sought legal counsel capable of representing it in connection with simultaneous investigations in both countries. 14. Trench Rossi marketed itself as uniquely quali?ed to handle such a cross-border representation, both because of its expertise in corruption-related investigations in Brazil and because of its af?liation with Baker in the United States?an af?liation it features on its website to the present day. Likewise, Baker marketed itself as an international law ?rm, including on its website, where it reports having locations in Brazil based speci?cally on its af?liation with Trench Rossi. 15. selected Trench Rossi as counsel in connection with the corruption investigations, in large part based on Trench Rossi?s af?liation with Baker in the United States. entered into an engagement letter with Trench Rossi dated March 6, 2017. Later, on May 29, 2017, entered into an engagement letter with Baker, though?as discussed below?the ?rm?s attorneys had already been working as part of the Trench Rossi team for two to three months by that time. 16. In its March 6 engagement letter, Trench Rossi con?rmed and highlighted its af?liation with Baker, and Baker?s role in the representation. Trench Rossi emphasized that it operates on a ?global scale,? and advised that it would be working ?in cooperation with? Baker, and that Baker attorneys would be available as part of &F?s legal ?team.? 17. Esther Flesch, the head of Trench Rossi?s white collar practice, signed the engagement letter on behalf of Trench Rossi, and, pursuant to its terms, was designated to serve as lead counsel for Trench Rossi in its representation of Trench Rossi marketed Ms. Flesch as a highly experienced and capable white collar attorney, and Ms. Flesch personally emphasized to that her team would include United States counsel, from Baker, capable of advising in connection with the DOJ investigation. B. Trench Rossi and Baker Hire Marcelo Miller, While He Was Still A Brazilian Prosecutor, To Work As Part Of Legal Team 18. Marcelo Miller was a member of the MPF involved in corruption prosecutions. Mr. Miller delivered a resignation letter to the MPF on or about February 23, 2017, but remained in his position with the MPF until on or about April 5, 2017. 19. At or around the time Mr. Miller gave notice that he was resigning from the MPF, he accepted an offer to join Defendant Trench Rossi as a partner in its white-collar practice, headed by Ms. Flesch. According to Ms. Flesch, as set out in an application she has pending in an action she instituted against Trench Rossi in Brazil in connection with her recent termination from the ?rm, the decision to hire Mr. Miller was a ?joint decision? by the partners of Trench Rossi and Baker. 20. Throughout March 2017, through its of?cers, met regularly with attorneys from Trench Rossi and Baker, whose attorneys participated at least once in person in Sao Paulo and on other occasions by phone from their of?ces in Washington, DC, to discuss strategy surrounding negotiations with authorities in Brazil and the United States, and to plan for &F?s overall legal strategy. Mr. Miller acted as a member of legal team in a number of those meetings, though Ms. Flesch and her colleagues at Trench Rossi and Baker knew or should have known that he had not yet left his position as a prosecutor with the MPF. 21. A large focus of these meetings, and of Mr. Miller?s involvement, concerned efforts to secure a leniency agreement between and the Brazilian government, and to pursue a similar agreement with the DOJ to avoid prosecution in the United States. Defendants never advised that Mr. Miller?s participation as part of &F?s legal team posed any ethical concerns or otherwise jeopardized Defendants? ability to effectively represent &F?s interests. 22. Mr. Miller continued to be employed by the MPF until April 5, 2017. The next day, he delivered a presentation with Ms. Flesch and two partners from Baker?s Washington DC of?ce, Joan Meyer and John Rowley, to DOJ officials in Washington DC. Ms. Meyer and Mr. Rowley are both identified on the Baker website as former prosecutors and specialists in criminal white collar investigations, and both were brought into the legal team to lead negotiations with the DOJ. 23. The presentation to the DOJ by Mr. Miller, Ms. Flesch, Ms. Meyer and Mr. Rowley was substantial and detailed, and included the use of a PowerPoint presentation. All four attorneys had begun preparing for that presentation, and coordinating with one another, in advance of the April 6 meeting, while Mr. Miller was still employed by the MPF. 24. The bills sent to by Trench Rossi con?rm that Baker attorneys, and Mr. Miller, were participating in the representation, including before Mr. Miller left his position with the MPF. Trench Rossi sent an invoice to dated May 17, 2017, that includes more than twenty time entries involving calls or meetings with Mr. Miller and/or Mr. Rowley and Ms. Meyer. For example, on her time entry for March 3, 2017, Ms. Flesch bills time for ?internal and external meetings with Marcelo Miller.? On March 24, 2017, Ms. Flesch and a Trench Rossi colleague, Camila Steinhoff, each billed time to a meeting with Mr. Miller ?about the case.? On her time entry for March 25, 2017, Ms. Flesch billed for conference calls with ?Baker attorneys.? On April 4, 2017, Ms. Flesch reported providing ?Instructions to Baker attorneys in preparation for meeting.? The next day, Ms. Steinhoff reported participating in a conference call with Mr. Rowley and Ms. Meyer ?in preparation for the meetings in the United States,? and conferring with Ms. Flesch and Mr. Miller ?about the case.? C. Brazilian Authorities Act To Rescind Or Renegotiate Agreements With and Its Personnel Based On Defendants? Negligence in Hiring Mr. Miller To Represent the Company 25. On or around May 3, 2017, certain officers and directors of &F?including Joesley Batista, Wesley Batista, Francisco de Assis Silva and Ricardo Saud?entered into agreements with PGR. Mr. Assis was at that time, and remains, &F?s General Counsel. The Batistas were on &F?s Board of Directors. And Mr. Saud was &F?s Director of Government Relations. 26. Pursuant to the terms of the May 3 agreements, the Batistas, Mr. Assis and Mr. Saud agreed to cooperate in the ongoing investigation and to pay fines, and the PGR agreed, in exchange, not to prosecute those individuals. 27. On or around June 5, 2017, itself entered into a ?leniency agreement? with Brazilian authorities pursuant to which it agreed to pay a significant amount in fines, 10.3 billion reais (approximately $3.18 billion), and to cooperate in the ongoing corruption investigation. 28. Defendants? decision to include Mr. Miller on &F?s legal team has now placed the agreements in jeopardy. Brazilian authorities recently announced they have initiated steps to rescind the agreements entered into by Mr. Assis, Mr. Saud and the Batistas, citing Trench Rossi?s conflict of interest in having Mr. Miller represent while simultaneously serving as a prosecutor. Brazilian authorities separately provided notice to that they are investigating Mr. Miller?s role in the company?s representation and whether it would have any impact on own agreement. D. Trench Rossi and Baker Work Together To Try To Limit The Damage From Revelations About Their Decision To Hire Mr. Miller 29. The decision to rescind the agreements was widely reported in Brazil, with Trench Rossi coming under heavy criticism. It was reported, for instance, that Brazil?s President, himself embroiled in the corruption scandal, had criticized Trench Rossi for including Mr. Miller as part of legal team. Defendants? misguided decision to hire Mr. Miller while he was still a prosecutor has also led to speculation in the media that was to blame, which is incorrect, but has been damaging to &F?s reputation. 30. Attorneys for Trench Rossi and Baker went into damage control mode once their error became public. In an application she has pending in Court proceedings that she initiated against Trench Rossi in Brazil, Ms. Flesch describes an incident, in July 2017, in which lawyers from both ?rms met with Ms. Flesch in Miami, for more than ten hours, and ?harassed? and ?pressured? her as part of a larger effort to ?scapegoat? her for hiring Mr. Miller to participate in representing According to Ms. Flesch, as noted above, Trench Rossi and Baker had in fact collaborated in the decision to hire Mr. Miller at Trench Rossi in the ?rst place. 31. Defendants placed Ms. Flesch on leave from Trench Rossi in approximately July 2017, and, in September, removed her from her position with the ?rm. Ms. Flesch has ?led suit against Trench Rossi in connection with her termination. 32. Also during late 2017, a Congressional committee in Brazil recommended that Mr. Miller be indicted in connection with his work at Trench Rossi, as part of the legal team representing while he was still employed as a prosecutor. Mr. Miller has been interviewed by Brazilian authorities and acknowledged meeting with of?cers, and Trench Rossi attorneys, even before he of?cially left his position with the MPF. 33. If the Brazilian government succeeds in rescinding its agreements, which requires approval from the Brazilian Supreme Court, four of?cers or directors?Joesley Batista, Wesley Batista, Mr. Assis and Mr. Saud?will be placed at risk of criminal prosecution and possibly imprisonment. Even if the leniency agreements ultimately survive, is obligated to indemnify oesley Batista and Ricardo Saud for the substantial legal fees they have already incurred, and will continue to incur, attempting to preserve their agreements. Moreover, has incurred costs on its own behalf, and will continue to incur costs, in connection with its ongoing negotiations with Brazilian authorities arising out of the decision to open an investigation into the status of &F?s leniency agreement in light of the revelations concerning Defendants? inclusion of Mr. Miller as part of the company?s legal team. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Professional Malpractice) 34. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation above as if set forth in full herein. 35. engaged Trench Rossi and Baker McKenzie to represent in connection with criminal investigations in Brazil and the United States. 36. In their representation of Defendants were required to exercise the degree of care and skill that a reasonable, competent lawyer, engaged in a similar practice and acting under similar circumstances, would exercise. 37. Defendants failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care and skill by hiring Mr. Miller, before he left his role in the Brazilian prosecutor?s of?ce, to participate with the team of Baker and Trench Rossi attorneys representing in connection with investigations in Brazil and the United States. 38. Because of Defendants? failure to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care in their role counseling has been harmed. Brazilian authorities have initiated actions to rescind agreements entered into with &F?s of?cers and directors, placing them at risk of criminal prosecution and possible imprisonment; and Brazilian authorities have opened an investigation into whether Mr. Miller?s participation in &F?s legal team will have any impact on the status of the company?s agreement, which has required to incur costs negotiating with authorities in connection with that new investigation. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) 39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation above as if set forth in full herein. 40. Defendants owed a ?duciary duty. Trench Rossi and Baker McKenzie had an attorney client relationship with 41. Defendants breached this duty by making Mr. Miller a partner and failing to disclose to that Defendants? decision to include Mr. Miller on the legal team raised ethical concerns that would jeopardize the ability of and its of?cers and directors to maintain leniency agreements entered into with Brazilian authorities, or obtain such an agreement with the DOJ. 42. As a result of their breach of duty, Defendants caused damages to Plaintiffs. If not for Defendants? failure to disclose the implications of their decision to hire Miller, Plaintiffs would have sought representation from a ?rm without the ethical con?icts that now jeopardize the ability of and its of?cers and directors to secure and maintain agreements protecting them from prosecution. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages caused by Defendants? breach of ?duciary duty. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully seek from this Court: a. Damages, compensatory and punitive, in an amount to be determined at trial. b. Attorneys? fees, costs, and expenses the Plaintiff incurred in connection with this matter. c. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. 10 DATED this 10th day of April, 2018 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART SULLIVAN, LLP ,7 . . Eric C. 1300 I Street NW Suite 900 Washington, DC. 20005 (T): 202-538-8000 (F): 202-538-8100 Attorney for Plainti? Michael B. Carlinsky (pro hac vice forthcoming) 51 Madison Avenue, 2211d Floor New York, New York 10010-1601 (T): 212-849-7000 (F): 212-849-7100 11 Superior Court of the District of Columbia CIVIL DIVISION- CIVIL ACTIONS BRANCH INFORMATION SHEET INVESTIMENTOS S.A., Case Number: VS Date; April 10, 2018 TRENCH, ROSSI WATANABE ADVOGADOS AND BAKER MCKENZIE LLP. One of the defendants is being sued in their of?cial capacity. Name: (Please Print) Eric C. Firm Name: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, LLP Telephone No.: Six digit Uni?ed Bar No.: 202-538-8000 482856 Relationship to Lawsuit I3 Attorney for Plaintiff i:i Self (Pro Se) El Other: TYPE OF CASE: '3 Non-Jury '3 6 Person Jury Demand: $Damages To Be Determined At Trial Other: El 12 Person Jury PENDING RELATED TO THE ACTION BEING FILED Case No: Judge: Calendar Case No.: Judge: Calendar#: NATURE OF SUIT: (Check One Box Only) A. CONTRACTS COLLECTION CASES El 01 Breach of Contract El 02 Breach of Warranty 06 Negotiable Instrument 07 Personal Property 13 Employment Discrimination El 15 Special Education Fees 27 Insurance/Subrogation 07 Insurance/Subrogation El 28 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (Collection Cases Only) Over $25,000 Pltf. Grants Consent Under $25,000 Pltf. Grants Consent El 14 Under $25,000 Pltf. Grants Consent El 16 Under $25,000 Consent Denied 17 OVER $25,000 Pltf. Grants Consent 18 OVER $25,000 Consent Denied 26 Insurance/Subrogation Over $25,000 Consent Denied El 34 Insurance/Subrogation Under $25,000 Consent Denied B. PROPERTY TORTS El 01 Automobile El 03 Destruction of Private Property El 02 Conversion El 04 Property Damage El 07 Shoplifting, DC. Code 27-102 El 05 Trespass C. PERSONAL TORTS El 01 Abuse of Process El 10 Invasion of Privacy 02 Alienation of Affection El 11 Libel and Slander 03 Assault and Battery El 12 Malicious Interference El 04 Automobile- Personal Injury El 13 Malicious Prosecution 05 Deceit (Misrepresentation) I3 14 Malpractice Legal 06 False Accusation El 15 Malpractice Medical (including Wrongful Death) El 07 False Arrest l6 Negligence- (Not Automobile, i:i17 Personal Injury? (Not Automobile, Not Malpractice) 18Wrongful Death (Not Malpractice) El 19 Wrong?il Eviction El 20 Friendly Suit El 21 Asbestos El 22 Toxic/Mass Torts 08 Fraud Not Malpractice) El 23 Tobacco 24 Lead Paint SEE REVERSE SIDE AND CHECK HERE IF USED CV-49 6/June 2015 Information Sheet, Continued C. OTHERS El 01 Accounting El 17 Merit Personnel Act (OEA) 02 Att. Before Judgment (DC. Code Title 1, Chapter 6) 05 Ejectment 18 Product Liability 09 Special Writ/Warrants (DC Code 11-941) 24 Application to Con?rm, Modify, El 10 Traf?c Adjudication Vacate Arbitration Award (DC Code 16-4401) El 11 Writ of Replevin 1:1 29 Merit Personnel Act (OHR) 1:1 12 Enforce Mechanics Lien 1:1 31 Housing Code Regulations 16 Declaratory Judgment El 32 Qui Tam 33 Whistleblower 11. El 03 Change of Name El 15 Libel of Information El 21 Petition for Subpoena El 06 Foreign Judgment/Domestic El 19 Enter Administrative Order as [Rule 28-1 08 Foreign Judgment/International Judgment DC. Code El 22 Release Mechanics Lien El 13 Correction of Birth Certi?cate 2-1802.03 or 32-151 9 El 23 Rule 27(a)(1) 14 Correction of Marriage El 20 Master Meter (DC. Code (Perpetuate Testimony) Certi?cate 42-3301, et seq.) El 24 Petition for Structured Settlement El 26 Petition for Civil Asset Forfeiture (Vehicle) El 25 Petition for Liquidation 27 Petition for Civil Asset Forfeiture (Currency) :1 28 Petition for Civil Asset Forfeiture (Other) D. REAL PROPERTY El 09 Real Property-Real Estate El 08 Quiet Title 12 Speci?c Performance El 25 Liens: Tax Water Consent Granted 04 Condemnation (Eminent Domain) :1 30 Liens: Tax Water Consent Denied 10 Mortgage Foreclosure/Judicial Sale El 31 Tax Lien Bid Off Certi?cate Consent Granted El 11 Petition for Civil Asset Forfeiture (RP) April 10, 2018 Attorney?s Signature Date June 2015 Filed D.C. Superior Court 04/10/2018 Clerk of the Court SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION INVESTIMENTOS S.A., AV. Marginal Direita do Tiet?, 500 Bloco: 1, Primeiro Andar Vila aguara Sao Paulo, SP 05118-100 Brazil Plaintiff, V. TRENCH, ROSSI WATANABE ADVOGADOS, Rua Arquiteto Olavo Redig De Campos, 105, 310 Andar, Ed. EZ Towers, Torre A, Sao Paulo, SP 04711-904; and BAKER MCKENZIE LLP, 815 Connecticut Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 United States, Defendants. Civil Action No. 2018 CA 002569 Jury Demand COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Investimentos S.A. brings this action against Defendants Trench, Rossi Watanabe Advogados (?Trench Rossi?) and Baker McKenzie LLP (??Baker? or ?Baker McKenzie,? and together with Trench Rossi, ??Defendants?). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 2. engaged Baker McKenzie and Trench Rossi, closely af?liated law firms with of?ces in the United States and Brazil, to represent in connection with investigations being pursued by authorities in each country. As a result of gross negligence by the Trench Rossi and Baker attorneys hired to represent the interests of the company and several of its of?cers and directors are now at risk of criminal prosecution and even possibly imprisonment. brings this action to hold Defendants responsible for their malpractice. 3. In early 2017, the same period in which they were representing Defendants Trench Rossi and Baker approved the hiring of a senior prosecutor in Brazil?s Federal Prosecution Service Marcello Miller, to become a partner at Trench Rossi. Defendants began having Mr. Miller participate as a member of the legal team representing working alongside attorneys from Trench Rossi?s of?ce in 8.2710 Paulo and Baker?s of?ce in Washington, DC, before he left his position with the MPF. 4. For several weeks while he was still employed as a prosecutor, Mr. Miller participated with Trench Rossi and Baker attorneys in strategy sessions and meetings with and its personnel, including its general counsel. Mr. Miller also worked with partners from Trench Rossi and Baker on a presentation that he and those partners delivered on behalf of the day after Mr. Miller left the MPF, to of?cials from the United States Department of Justice in Washington, DC. 5. At no time did the responsible attorneys from Trench Rossi or Baker advise that Mr. Miller?s participation in the company?s legal team, while he was still working as a prosecutor, was problematic. Defendants provided no indication that they had failed to take appropriate measures to ensure that Mr. Miller?s participation as counsel to would not be deemed improper and would not otherwise jeopardize &F?s interests. 6. Brazilian authorities are now seeking to tear up agreements entered into between Brazil?s Of?ce of the Prosecutor General and four of &F?s senior of?cers and directors, pursuant to which Brazilian authorities agreed not to prosecute those of?cers in exchange for their cooperation. The Brazilian authorities have also announced that they are investigating whether revelations concerning Mr. Miller?s role will have any impact on an agreement entered into by with the MPF providing for &F?s cooperation. One of the main reasons identi?ed by the Brazilian authorities for taking these steps, and thereby exposing &F?s of?cers and directors to possible criminal prosecution, is the highly irresponsible decision by Trench Rossi and Baker to include Mr. Miller as counsel to the company. 7. relied on Defendants, as &F?s retained counsel, to take all appropriate steps to ensure that Mr. Miller?s participation in the representation would be appropriate, and had no reason to expect that Defendants had failed to do so. Defendants did fail, however, and that failure has resulted in severe harm to the company, including possible criminal exposure for its senior personnel, costs associated with working with Brazilian prosecutors in an effort to maintain previously secured agreements, and extreme damage to its reputation. The harm to and its senior leaders is a direct consequence of Defendants? reckless and ill-advised decision to employ a government prosecutor as part of &F?s defense team, and to do so without advising as to the implications of that decision. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by DC. Code 11-921. 9. Personal jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to the provisions of DC. Code 13- 422 and 13-423 because Defendant Baker maintains an of?ce in the District of Columbia and the claims arise from both Baker and Trench Rossi?s business transactions in the District of Columbia. PARTIES 10. Plaintiff is a Brazilian corporation that, through various af?liates and subsidiaries, is among the world?s largest meat and poultry producers with hundreds of thousands of employees in Brazil and throughout the world. 11. Defendant Baker is a law firm with of?ces at locations throughout the United States, including an office at 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC. 20006. Baker markets itself as an international law ?rm, with of?ces throughout the world, including through its af?liation with Trench Rossi in Brazil. 12. Defendant Trench Rossi is an international law ?rm based in Brazil. At all relevant times, Trench Rossi was af?liated with Baker, which it represented to clients and prospective clients, including in its engagement letter with Defendants here, to be part of its worldwide network of af?liated law ?rms. For a time, the email addresses for Trench Rossi attorneys and other Trench Rossi personnel included, ?@bakermckenzie.? FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Retains Trench Rossi and Baker As Counsel To Handle Investigations in The United States and Brazil 13. In early 2017, authorities in Brazil and the United States were separately investigating various companies in connection with a corruption scandal involving alleged payments to government of?cials in Brazil. sought legal counsel capable of representing it in connection with simultaneous investigations in both countries. 14. Trench Rossi marketed itself as uniquely quali?ed to handle such a cross-border representation, both because of its expertise in corruption-related investigations in Brazil and because of its af?liation with Baker in the United States?an af?liation it features on its website to the present day. Likewise, Baker marketed itself as an international law ?rm, including on its website, where it reports having locations in Brazil based speci?cally on its af?liation with Trench Rossi. 15. selected Trench Rossi as counsel in connection with the corruption investigations, in large part based on Trench Rossi?s af?liation with Baker in the United States. entered into an engagement letter with Trench Rossi dated March 6, 2017. Later, on May 29, 2017, entered into an engagement letter with Baker, though?as discussed below?the ?rm?s attorneys had already been working as part of the Trench Rossi team for two to three months by that time. 16. In its March 6 engagement letter, Trench Rossi con?rmed and highlighted its af?liation with Baker, and Baker?s role in the representation. Trench Rossi emphasized that it operates on a ?global scale,? and advised that it would be working ?in cooperation with? Baker, and that Baker attorneys would be available as part of &F?s legal ?team.? 17. Esther Flesch, the head of Trench Rossi?s white collar practice, signed the engagement letter on behalf of Trench Rossi, and, pursuant to its terms, was designated to serve as lead counsel for Trench Rossi in its representation of Trench Rossi marketed Ms. Flesch as a highly experienced and capable white collar attorney, and Ms. Flesch personally emphasized to that her team would include United States counsel, from Baker, capable of advising in connection with the DOJ investigation. B. Trench Rossi and Baker Hire Marcelo Miller, While He Was Still A Brazilian Prosecutor, To Work As Part Of Legal Team 18. Marcelo Miller was a member of the MPF involved in corruption prosecutions. Mr. Miller delivered a resignation letter to the MPF on or about February 23, 2017, but remained in his position with the MPF until on or about April 5, 2017. 19. At or around the time Mr. Miller gave notice that he was resigning from the MPF, he accepted an offer to join Defendant Trench Rossi as a partner in its white-collar practice, headed by Ms. Flesch. According to Ms. Flesch, as set out in an application she has pending in an action she instituted against Trench Rossi in Brazil in connection with her recent termination from the ?rm, the decision to hire Mr. Miller was a ?joint decision? by the partners of Trench Rossi and Baker. 20. Throughout March 2017, through its of?cers, met regularly with attorneys from Trench Rossi and Baker, whose attorneys participated at least once in person in Sao Paulo and on other occasions by phone from their of?ces in Washington, DC, to discuss strategy surrounding negotiations with authorities in Brazil and the United States, and to plan for &F?s overall legal strategy. Mr. Miller acted as a member of legal team in a number of those meetings, though Ms. Flesch and her colleagues at Trench Rossi and Baker knew or should have known that he had not yet left his position as a prosecutor with the MPF. 21. A large focus of these meetings, and of Mr. Miller?s involvement, concerned efforts to secure a leniency agreement between and the Brazilian government, and to pursue a similar agreement with the DOJ to avoid prosecution in the United States. Defendants never advised that Mr. Miller?s participation as part of &F?s legal team posed any ethical concerns or otherwise jeopardized Defendants? ability to effectively represent &F?s interests. 22. Mr. Miller continued to be employed by the MPF until April 5, 2017. The next day, he delivered a presentation with Ms. Flesch and two partners from Baker?s Washington DC of?ce, Joan Meyer and John Rowley, to DOJ officials in Washington DC. Ms. Meyer and Mr. Rowley are both identified on the Baker website as former prosecutors and specialists in criminal white collar investigations, and both were brought into the legal team to lead negotiations with the DOJ. 23. The presentation to the DOJ by Mr. Miller, Ms. Flesch, Ms. Meyer and Mr. Rowley was substantial and detailed, and included the use of a PowerPoint presentation. All four attorneys had begun preparing for that presentation, and coordinating with one another, in advance of the April 6 meeting, while Mr. Miller was still employed by the MPF. 24. The bills sent to by Trench Rossi con?rm that Baker attorneys, and Mr. Miller, were participating in the representation, including before Mr. Miller left his position with the MPF. Trench Rossi sent an invoice to dated May 17, 2017, that includes more than twenty time entries involving calls or meetings with Mr. Miller and/or Mr. Rowley and Ms. Meyer. For example, on her time entry for March 3, 2017, Ms. Flesch bills time for ?internal and external meetings with Marcelo Miller.? On March 24, 2017, Ms. Flesch and a Trench Rossi colleague, Camila Steinhoff, each billed time to a meeting with Mr. Miller ?about the case.? On her time entry for March 25, 2017, Ms. Flesch billed for conference calls with ?Baker attorneys.? On April 4, 2017, Ms. Flesch reported providing ?Instructions to Baker attorneys in preparation for meeting.? The next day, Ms. Steinhoff reported participating in a conference call with Mr. Rowley and Ms. Meyer ?in preparation for the meetings in the United States,? and conferring with Ms. Flesch and Mr. Miller ?about the case.? C. Brazilian Authorities Act To Rescind Or Renegotiate Agreements With and Its Personnel Based On Defendants? Negligence in Hiring Mr. Miller To Represent the Company 25. On or around May 3, 2017, certain officers and directors of &F?including Joesley Batista, Wesley Batista, Francisco de Assis Silva and Ricardo Saud?entered into agreements with PGR. Mr. Assis was at that time, and remains, &F?s General Counsel. The Batistas were on &F?s Board of Directors. And Mr. Saud was &F?s Director of Government Relations. 26. Pursuant to the terms of the May 3 agreements, the Batistas, Mr. Assis and Mr. Saud agreed to cooperate in the ongoing investigation and to pay fines, and the PGR agreed, in exchange, not to prosecute those individuals. 27. On or around June 5, 2017, itself entered into a ?leniency agreement? with Brazilian authorities pursuant to which it agreed to pay a significant amount in fines, 10.3 billion reais (approximately $3.18 billion), and to cooperate in the ongoing corruption investigation. 28. Defendants? decision to include Mr. Miller on &F?s legal team has now placed the agreements in jeopardy. Brazilian authorities recently announced they have initiated steps to rescind the agreements entered into by Mr. Assis, Mr. Saud and the Batistas, citing Trench Rossi?s conflict of interest in having Mr. Miller represent while simultaneously serving as a prosecutor. Brazilian authorities separately provided notice to that they are investigating Mr. Miller?s role in the company?s representation and whether it would have any impact on own agreement. D. Trench Rossi and Baker Work Together To Try To Limit The Damage From Revelations About Their Decision To Hire Mr. Miller 29. The decision to rescind the agreements was widely reported in Brazil, with Trench Rossi coming under heavy criticism. It was reported, for instance, that Brazil?s President, himself embroiled in the corruption scandal, had criticized Trench Rossi for including Mr. Miller as part of legal team. Defendants? misguided decision to hire Mr. Miller while he was still a prosecutor has also led to speculation in the media that was to blame, which is incorrect, but has been damaging to &F?s reputation. 30. Attorneys for Trench Rossi and Baker went into damage control mode once their error became public. In an application she has pending in Court proceedings that she initiated against Trench Rossi in Brazil, Ms. Flesch describes an incident, in July 2017, in which lawyers from both ?rms met with Ms. Flesch in Miami, for more than ten hours, and ?harassed? and ?pressured? her as part of a larger effort to ?scapegoat? her for hiring Mr. Miller to participate in representing According to Ms. Flesch, as noted above, Trench Rossi and Baker had in fact collaborated in the decision to hire Mr. Miller at Trench Rossi in the ?rst place. 31. Defendants placed Ms. Flesch on leave from Trench Rossi in approximately July 2017, and, in September, removed her from her position with the ?rm. Ms. Flesch has ?led suit against Trench Rossi in connection with her termination. 32. Also during late 2017, a Congressional committee in Brazil recommended that Mr. Miller be indicted in connection with his work at Trench Rossi, as part of the legal team representing while he was still employed as a prosecutor. Mr. Miller has been interviewed by Brazilian authorities and acknowledged meeting with of?cers, and Trench Rossi attorneys, even before he of?cially left his position with the MPF. 33. If the Brazilian government succeeds in rescinding its agreements, which requires approval from the Brazilian Supreme Court, four of?cers or directors?Joesley Batista, Wesley Batista, Mr. Assis and Mr. Saud?will be placed at risk of criminal prosecution and possibly imprisonment. Even if the leniency agreements ultimately survive, is obligated to indemnify oesley Batista and Ricardo Saud for the substantial legal fees they have already incurred, and will continue to incur, attempting to preserve their agreements. Moreover, has incurred costs on its own behalf, and will continue to incur costs, in connection with its ongoing negotiations with Brazilian authorities arising out of the decision to open an investigation into the status of &F?s leniency agreement in light of the revelations concerning Defendants? inclusion of Mr. Miller as part of the company?s legal team. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Professional Malpractice) 34. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation above as if set forth in full herein. 35. engaged Trench Rossi and Baker McKenzie to represent in connection with criminal investigations in Brazil and the United States. 36. In their representation of Defendants were required to exercise the degree of care and skill that a reasonable, competent lawyer, engaged in a similar practice and acting under similar circumstances, would exercise. 37. Defendants failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care and skill by hiring Mr. Miller, before he left his role in the Brazilian prosecutor?s of?ce, to participate with the team of Baker and Trench Rossi attorneys representing in connection with investigations in Brazil and the United States. 38. Because of Defendants? failure to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care in their role counseling has been harmed. Brazilian authorities have initiated actions to rescind agreements entered into with &F?s of?cers and directors, placing them at risk of criminal prosecution and possible imprisonment; and Brazilian authorities have opened an investigation into whether Mr. Miller?s participation in &F?s legal team will have any impact on the status of the company?s agreement, which has required to incur costs negotiating with authorities in connection with that new investigation. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) 39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation above as if set forth in full herein. 40. Defendants owed a ?duciary duty. Trench Rossi and Baker McKenzie had an attorney client relationship with 41. Defendants breached this duty by making Mr. Miller a partner and failing to disclose to that Defendants? decision to include Mr. Miller on the legal team raised ethical concerns that would jeopardize the ability of and its of?cers and directors to maintain leniency agreements entered into with Brazilian authorities, or obtain such an agreement with the DOJ. 42. As a result of their breach of duty, Defendants caused damages to Plaintiffs. If not for Defendants? failure to disclose the implications of their decision to hire Miller, Plaintiffs would have sought representation from a ?rm without the ethical con?icts that now jeopardize the ability of and its of?cers and directors to secure and maintain agreements protecting them from prosecution. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages caused by Defendants? breach of ?duciary duty. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully seek from this Court: a. Damages, compensatory and punitive, in an amount to be determined at trial. b. Attorneys? fees, costs, and expenses the Plaintiff incurred in connection with this matter. c. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. 10 DATED this 10th day of April, 2018 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART SULLIVAN, LLP ,7 . . Eric C. 1300 I Street NW Suite 900 Washington, DC. 20005 (T): 202-538-8000 (F): 202-538-8100 Attorney for Plainti? Michael B. Carlinsky (pro hac vice forthcoming) 51 Madison Avenue, 2211d Floor New York, New York 10010-1601 (T): 212-849-7000 (F): 212-849-7100 11 Superior Court 111' the Bistriet of Columbia CIVIL- Civil Actions Branch 51111 11111111111111 Avenue. NW Suite 5000 Washington. 21311111 Tetephune: (202) 879 1.133 ehsite: dccourts. gov e1 INVESTIMENTOS s. A, . Plaintiff VS- 2018 CA 002569 Case Number TRENCH, ROSSI WATANABE ADVOGADOS, Defendant SUMM (EN To the above named Defendant; You are hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint, either personally or through an attorney. Within twenty one {21) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service you are being sued as 111 of?cer or agenev of the United States Government or the District of Columbia Gave name?: you have sixty {60) days after service of this summons to 31:31 your Answer. A copy at the Answ at must be mailed to the attorney for the who is suing you The attorneys narne anda dd ress appear below If plaintiff has no attorney, a copy at the Answer must be mailed to the plaintiff at the address stated on this Summons. You are also required to tile the original Answer with the Court in Suite 5000 at 500 lndiana Avenue, NAM, between 8:30 am. and 5:00 p.111, Mondays through Fridays or between 9:00 am. a1d 12:00 noon on Saturdays. You may file the original Answer with the Court either before you serve a copy of the Answer on the plaintiff or Within seven (7) days after you its it: served the plaintiff. If you fail to ?le an Answen judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Name of Plaintiffs Attorney C.Lytt1e Clerk ofrhegga?t $1 . 1300 I Street NW, Suite 900 By Address Washington, DC. 20005 (202) 538?8000 1113 04/18/2018 Telephone hi??t?t?tt 11111 (202) 87114823 \Jeuiilez appeler an (2112) 87148213 pour une traeucaon at at: 1111111311 111111.115; goi (21121111114828 1111611 101111 arr-111111 {2021 879?4828 11.11111 IMPORTANT TF YOU FAIL TO F1 LE AN ANSWF WITHIN THE TTMF STATED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER, YOU ANSWER, YOU AH. TO APPEAR. A ANY THE (TOUR OT IFIES YOU TO DO SO, A BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGATNST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED TN THE COMPTATN T. IF THIS OCCURS, WAG ES 11/1th BE ATTACHED OR. WITHHELD 0R FERSUNAL PROPERTY OR. REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN ANT) SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU TNTEND TO OFFOSE THIS ACTION, DO T0 WEE 'i-i?IN THE REQUIRED TM). 11?. If you Wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannot afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, contact. one of the offices of the Legal Aid Society {202?628? 1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202?279?5100) for heip or come to Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, NW, for 11 0011: 111111111 anon coneerr 11mg places where you may ask for such help. See reverse side for Spanish translation ea 21}. dorso la al 10 June 2017] Super. Ct. R. 4 TREBUNAL SUPERIOR DEL BESTRETQ 13E. (31V 11.- Secci?n de Acciones Civiles 5111} 11111121116 13111611116, NASA, 8111116 5111111, W'ashingten, 0.13. 21111111 Tel?femz (2112) Sitio web: {36111611116616 6611112. N171 111616 116 D61116111161610 CETA T013110 A1 611561116116 13166121111121.1111: P111 121 1116861116 36 16 611:1 :1 90111332116031'31' 36 16 16111111'6( 6111160211 111121 (36111613615111 11 121 6111611113. 2111611121 8621 611 663611.111 (6111) 111113: 6611611163 11611111166 11116- 1131811 1121311 16611111166 . 3 1161 6617166 6116 661316 116 111.1 (36111631661611 211 6116;166:316 1:1 1131*6?3 1-11.66. 31116 E1 11611113161 (11.61.6166 1161 111361121116 3})31613611 :11 1111111 {16 6316 11661111161116 S1 61(1611111111111116 116 11611? (11:16ng6 161166111 6116111116 211 116111211111211116 111121 A 1.161611 taimbii?n S6 16 1?6 111111211111 1216 8:30 21.111 5:01) 13 111.116 111111.11 1611 5611111166 1.131611 111116116 1316116111211 1:1. {6616312111611 6111511211 11167 ya 5163 1111165 11116 1181111 16 6111;166:116 211 {16616111161116 11113. 61133111 116 111 6 611 61 p12120 116. S1011. 11166 :16 1111136116 11661111 13. 6111.16g6 :11 (16616111161116 S1 1181611 1116111111316 6611 61666111211 111121 (36111631661611, 13611111 11? 1111 121.116 611 1666111121 66111121 11131611 611111 (3111!? 15611211121 61661116 61 11651111161116 6116. 36 11116621. 611 121 116 111611.111? SECRETA RIO DEL 7211113 N6111br6 1161 21.136 1.36116 1161 12161116111121.1116 E111: D116661611 ?36115661616116 Eecha T61616116 MEWS. 111116 11 (202) 879 4828 I?v?euiilez 2161;131:1216 (202) 1116-4828 13-31% me traduction BE 26 111111 1111 d1811,11?y gm (262;: 616-4626 1111166 112116 11110111 (202) 616?4626 1.61611 S11 1) 11111191. E. 1: ON UNA LGNTESTAL EN EL PL AZO ANTL . E110 DE CONTESTAR, STED NO COMEARECE ANDO LE AVTSE EL JUZUADO, 13013111.: ON TEA. 1-1 S1111) PARA. QL 1.. SE LE CO BEE DANOS EL (I) T111) DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA S1 ESTO OCURRE, PODRTA RETENERSELE SUS TNGRESOS, 0 P1 1DRTA 1 SLS 1311 .NES PE RSONAT ES 0 NLS RA1CE ?1 SE PARA EAGAR .1. EALLO. ST USTED PR1: TENDE OEGNERSE A ESTA ACCTON, NO DEJE DE LON LA DEAITRO DEL PLAZO S1 11611611 COHVB 121211 6611 111121 11161321116 16 11111666 11116 116 [11.16116 11111521116 21 1.1116 11211116 11161116 21 1.1113 1112 11116611213 6116111115 (161 Legal Aid Society (202?628-1161) 0 61 Neighborhood L6g111 S61w1666 1202.- 279? 5100} 621121 1361111 ayuda 6 V611g21 a 16. 011611121 5000 1161 500 111111211111.Avenue, NIW., 1321111 11116111111156 361116 61.165;- 1111;211:231 (1611116 11111116111111.112131111111 11?! 1631516616. al 116180 61 0111;111:1211 6'11 111g1?s S66 1616166 51116 11.111.71.151le 6111;111:111 10 [Rev. June 2017] Super. Ct. R. 4 Superior Court at" the Bistriet 111' Columbia CIVIL- Civil Actions Branch 51111 indiana Avenue. NW Suite 51100 Washington. 21311111 Teiephune: (202) 879 1.133 ehsite: dccourts. gov e1 INVESTIMENTOS s. A., Plaintiff VS- 2018 CA 002569 Case Number BAKER MCKENZIE LLP, Defendant SUMM (EN To the above named Defendant; You are hereby summoned and required to serve an Answer to the attached Complaint, either personally or through an attorney. Within twenty one {21) days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive ofthe day of service it 11111 are being sued as 111 of?cer or agenev of the United States Government or the District oi Columbia Gave name?: you have sixty {60) (laws after service of this summons to 31:31 your Answer. A copy oi the Answ er rnust be mailed to the attorney for the who is suing you The attorneys narne anda dd ress appear below If plaintiff has no attorney, a copy at the Answer must be mailed to the plaintiff at the address stated on this Summons. You are also required to ?le the original Answer with the Court in Suite 5000 at 500 indiana Avenue, NAM, between 8:30 am. and 5:00 p.111, Mondays through Fridays or between 9:00 am. a1d 12:00 noon on Saturdays. You may file the original Answer with the Court either before you serve a copy of the Answer on the plaintiff or Within seven (7) days after you ha it: served the plaintiff. If you fail to ?le an Answer. judgment by default may be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. Eric lent of?ze ?013,111 Name of Plaintiffs Attorney At? 1300 I Street NW, Suite 900 By Address Washington, DC 20005 (202) 538?8000 04/18/2018 Telephone (202) 87114823 111311111132 appeler an (2112) 8714828 pour une irradiation at e? 1111111111 11111111115; goi (21121111114828 111.1% niece 1mm gin-11111 {2021 879?4828 1.11111 TMFORTANT TF YOU FAIL TO F1 LE AN ANSWF WITHIN THE TTMF STATED ABOVE, OR IF, AFTER, YOU ANSWER, YOU AH. TO APPEAR. A ANY TME T1111 (TOUR 0711171113 YOU TO DO SO, A. BY DEFAULT MAY BE ENTERED AGATNST YOU FOR THE MONEY DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF DEMANDED TN THE T. IF THIS OCCURS, WAGES MAY BE ATTACHED 0R. WITHHELD 0R FERSUNAL PROPERTY OR. REAL ESTATE YOU OWN MAY BE TAKEN ANT) SOLD TO PAY THE JUDGMENT. IF YOU TNTEND TO OFFOSE THIS ACTION, DO TO WEE 1131771va THE REQUIRED TM). 11? . If you Wish to talk to a lawyer and feel that you cannet afford to pay a fee to a lawyer, contact. one of the offices of the Legal Aid Society {202?628? 1161) or the Neighborhood Legal Services (202?279?5100) for heip or come to Suite 5000 at 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., for 11 oote infer 11 atioo coneerr neg places where you may ask for such help. See reverse side for Spanish translation ea 21}. dorso 1a 1.111111131111111 al 10 June 2017] Super. Ct. R. 4 TREBUNAL SUPERIOR DEL BESTRETQ 13E. (31V 11.- Secci?n de Acciones Civiles 5111} 11111121116 13111611116, NASA, 8111116 5111111, W'ashingten, 0.13. 21111111 Tel?femz (2112) Sitio web: {36111611116616 6611112. N171 111616 116 D61116111161610 CETA T013110 A1 611561116116 13166121111121.1111: P111 121 1116861116 36 16 611:1 :1 90111332116031'31' 36 16 16111111'6( 6111160211 111121 (36111613615111 11 121 6111611113. 2111611121 8621 611 663611.111 (6111) 111113: 6611611163 11611111166 11116- 1131811 1121311 16611111166 . 3 1161 6617166 6116 661316 116 111.1 (36111631661611 211 6116;166:316 1:1 1131*6?3 1-11.66. 31116 E1 11611113161 (11.61.6166 1161 111361121116 3})31613611 :11 1111111 {16 6316 11661111161116 S1 61(1611111111111116 116 11611? (11:16ng6 161166111 6116111116 211 116111211111211116 111121 A 1.161611 taimbii?n S6 16 1?6 111111211111 1216 8:30 21.111 5:01) 13 111.116 111111.11 1611 5611111166 1.131611 111116116 1316116111211 1:1. {6616312111611 6111511211 11167 ya 5163 1111165 11116 1181111 16 6111;166:116 211 {16616111161116 11113. 61133111 116 111 6 611 61 p12120 116. S1011. 11166 :16 1111136116 11661111 13. 6111.16g6 :11 (16616111161116 S1 1181611 1116111111316 6611 61666111211 111121 (36111631661611, 13611111 11? 1111 121.116 611 1666111121 66111121 11131611 611111 (3111!? 15611211121 61661116 61 11651111161116 6116. 36 11116621. 611 121 116 111611.111? SECRETA RIO DEL 7211113 N6111br6 1161 21.136 1.36116 1161 12161116111121.1116 E111: D116661611 ?36115661616116 Eecha T61616116 MEWS. 111116 11 (202) 879 4828 I?v?euiilez 2161;131:1216 (202) 1116-4828 13-31% me traduction BE 26 111111 1111 d1811,11?y gm (262;: 616-4626 1111166 112116 11110111 (202) 616?4626 1.61611 S11 1) 11111191. E. 1: ON UNA LGNTESTAL EN EL PL AZO ANTL . E110 DE CONTESTAR, STED NO COMEARECE ANDO LE AVTSE EL JUZUADO, 13013111.: ON TEA. 1-1 S1111) PARA. QL 1.. SE LE CO BEE DANOS EL (I) T111) DESAGRAVIO QUE SE BUSQUE EN LA DEMANDA S1 ESTO OCURRE, PODRTA RETENERSELE SUS TNGRESOS, 0 P1 1DRTA 1 SLS 1311 .NES PE RSONAT ES 0 NLS RA1CE ?1 SE PARA EAGAR .1. EALLO. ST USTED PR1: TENDE OEGNERSE A ESTA ACCTON, NO DEJE DE LON LA DEAITRO DEL PLAZO S1 11611611 COHVB 121211 6611 111121 11161321116 16 11111666 11116 116 [11.16116 11111521116 21 1.1116 11211116 11161116 21 1.1113 1112 11116611213 6116111115 (161 Legal Aid Society (202?628-1161) 0 61 Neighborhood L6g111 S61w1666 1202.- 279? 5100} 621121 1361111 ayuda 6 V611g21 a 16. 011611121 5000 1161 500 111111211111.Avenue, NIW., 1321111 11116111111156 361116 61.165;- 1111;211:231 (1611116 11111116111111.112131111111 11?! 1631516616. al 116180 61 0111;111:1211 6'11 111g1?s S66 1616166 51116 11.111.71.151le 6111;111:111 10 [Rev. June 2017] Super. Ct. R. 4 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION INVESTIMENTOS S.A., AV. Marginal Direita do Tiet?, 500 Bloco: l, Primeiro Andar Vila aguara Sio Paulo, SP 05118-100 Brazil Plaintiff, V. TRENCH, ROSSI WATANABE ADVOGADOS, Rua Arquiteto Olavo Redig De Campos, 105, 310 Andar, Ed. EZ Towers, Torre A, $50 Paulo, SP 04711-904; and BAKER MCKENZIE LLP, 815 Connecticut Ave NW Washington, DC 20006 United States, Defendants. Civil Action No. 2018 CA 002569 Jury Demand COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff lnvestimentos S.A. brings this action against Defendants Trench, Rossi 6 Watanabe Advogados (?Trench Rossi?) and Baker McKenzie LLP (??Baker? or ?Baker McKenzie,? and together with Trench Rossi, ??Defendants?). PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 2. engaged Baker McKenzie and Trench Rossi, closely af?liated law ?rms with of?ces in the United States and Brazil, to represent in connection with investigations being pursued by authorities in each country. As a result of gross negligence by the Trench Rossi and Baker attorneys hired to represent the interests of the company and several of its of?cers and directors are now at risk of criminal prosecution and even possibly imprisonment. brings this action to hold Defendants responsible for their malpractice. 3. In early 2017, the same period in which they were representing Defendants Trench Rossi and Baker approved the hiring of a senior prosecutor in Brazil?s Federal Prosecution Service Marcello Miller, to become a partner at Trench Rossi. Defendants began having Mr. Miller participate as a member of the legal team representing working alongside attorneys from Trench Rossi?s of?ce in 8.2710 Paulo and Baker?s of?ce in Washington, DC, before he left his position with the MPF. 4. For several weeks while he was still employed as a prosecutor, Mr. Miller participated with Trench Rossi and Baker attorneys in strategy sessions and meetings with and its personnel, including its general counsel. Mr. Miller also worked with partners from Trench Rossi and Baker on a presentation that he and those partners delivered on behalf of the day after Mr. Miller left the MPF, to of?cials from the United States Department of Justice in Washington, DC. 5. At no time did the responsible attorneys from Trench Rossi or Baker advise that Mr. Miller?s participation in the company?s legal team, while he was still working as a prosecutor, was problematic. Defendants provided no indication that they had failed to take appropriate measures to ensure that Mr. Miller?s participation as counsel to would not be deemed improper and would not otherwise jeopardize &F?s interests. 6. Brazilian authorities are now seeking to tear up agreements entered into between Brazil?s Of?ce of the Prosecutor General and four of &F?s senior of?cers and directors, pursuant to which Brazilian authorities agreed not to prosecute those of?cers in exchange for their cooperation. The Brazilian authorities have also announced that they are investigating whether revelations concerning Mr. Miller?s role will have any impact on an agreement entered into by with the MPF providing for &F?s cooperation. One of the main reasons identi?ed by the Brazilian authorities for taking these steps, and thereby exposing &F?s of?cers and directors to possible criminal prosecution, is the highly irresponsible decision by Trench Rossi and Baker to include Mr. Miller as counsel to the company. 7. relied on Defendants, as &F?s retained counsel, to take all appropriate steps to ensure that Mr. Miller?s participation in the representation would be appropriate, and had no reason to expect that Defendants had failed to do so. Defendants did fail, however, and that failure has resulted in severe harm to the company, including possible criminal exposure for its senior personnel, costs associated with working with Brazilian prosecutors in an effort to maintain previously secured agreements, and extreme damage to its reputation. The harm to and its senior leaders is a direct consequence of Defendants? reckless and ill-advised decision to employ a government prosecutor as part of &F?s defense team, and to do so without advising as to the implications of that decision. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by DC. Code 11-921. 9. Personal jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to the provisions of DC. Code 13- 422 and 13-423 because Defendant Baker maintains an of?ce in the District of Columbia and the claims arise from both Baker and Trench Rossi?s business transactions in the District of Columbia. PARTIES 10. Plaintiff is a Brazilian corporation that, through various af?liates and subsidiaries, is among the world?s largest meat and poultry producers with hundreds of thousands of employees in Brazil and throughout the world. 11. Defendant Baker is a law firm with of?ces at locations throughout the United States, including an office at 815 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC. 20006. Baker markets itself as an international law ?rm, with of?ces throughout the world, including through its af?liation with Trench Rossi in Brazil. 12. Defendant Trench Rossi is an international law ?rm based in Brazil. At all relevant times, Trench Rossi was af?liated with Baker, which it represented to clients and prospective clients, including in its engagement letter with Defendants here, to be part of its worldwide network of af?liated law ?rms. For a time, the email addresses for Trench Rossi attorneys and other Trench Rossi personnel included, ?@bakermckenzie.? FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Retains Trench Rossi and Baker As Counsel To Handle Investigations in The United States and Brazil 13. In early 2017, authorities in Brazil and the United States were separately investigating various companies in connection with a corruption scandal involving alleged payments to government of?cials in Brazil. sought legal counsel capable of representing it in connection with simultaneous investigations in both countries. 14. Trench Rossi marketed itself as uniquely quali?ed to handle such a cross-border representation, both because of its expertise in corruption-related investigations in Brazil and because of its af?liation with Baker in the United States?an af?liation it features on its website to the present day. Likewise, Baker marketed itself as an international law ?rm, including on its website, where it reports having locations in Brazil based speci?cally on its af?liation with Trench Rossi. 15. selected Trench Rossi as counsel in connection with the corruption investigations, in large part based on Trench Rossi?s af?liation with Baker in the United States. entered into an engagement letter with Trench Rossi dated March 6, 2017. Later, on May 29, 2017, entered into an engagement letter with Baker, though?as discussed below?the ?rm?s attorneys had already been working as part of the Trench Rossi team for two to three months by that time. 16. In its March 6 engagement letter, Trench Rossi con?rmed and highlighted its af?liation with Baker, and Baker?s role in the representation. Trench Rossi emphasized that it operates on a ?global scale,? and advised that it would be working ?in cooperation with? Baker, and that Baker attorneys would be available as part of &F?s legal ?team.? 17. Esther Flesch, the head of Trench Rossi?s white collar practice, signed the engagement letter on behalf of Trench Rossi, and, pursuant to its terms, was designated to serve as lead counsel for Trench Rossi in its representation of Trench Rossi marketed Ms. Flesch as a highly experienced and capable white collar attorney, and Ms. Flesch personally emphasized to that her team would include United States counsel, from Baker, capable of advising in connection with the DOJ investigation. B. Trench Rossi and Baker Hire Marcelo Miller, While He Was Still A Brazilian Prosecutor, To Work As Part Of Legal Team 18. Marcelo Miller was a member of the MPF involved in corruption prosecutions. Mr. Miller delivered a resignation letter to the MPF on or about February 23, 2017, but remained in his position with the MPF until on or about April 5, 2017. 19. At or around the time Mr. Miller gave notice that he was resigning from the MPF, he accepted an offer to join Defendant Trench Rossi as a partner in its white-collar practice, headed by Ms. Flesch. According to Ms. Flesch, as set out in an application she has pending in an action she instituted against Trench Rossi in Brazil in connection with her recent termination from the ?rm, the decision to hire Mr. Miller was a ?joint decision? by the partners of Trench Rossi and Baker. 20. Throughout March 2017, through its of?cers, met regularly with attorneys from Trench Rossi and Baker, whose attorneys participated at least once in person in Sao Paulo and on other occasions by phone from their of?ces in Washington, DC, to discuss strategy surrounding negotiations with authorities in Brazil and the United States, and to plan for &F?s overall legal strategy. Mr. Miller acted as a member of legal team in a number of those meetings, though Ms. Flesch and her colleagues at Trench Rossi and Baker knew or should have known that he had not yet left his position as a prosecutor with the MPF. 21. A large focus of these meetings, and of Mr. Miller?s involvement, concerned efforts to secure a leniency agreement between and the Brazilian government, and to pursue a similar agreement with the DOJ to avoid prosecution in the United States. Defendants never advised that Mr. Miller?s participation as part of &F?s legal team posed any ethical concerns or otherwise jeopardized Defendants? ability to effectively represent &F?s interests. 22. Mr. Miller continued to be employed by the MPF until April 5, 2017. The next day, he delivered a presentation with Ms. Flesch and two partners from Baker?s Washington DC of?ce, Joan Meyer and John Rowley, to DOJ officials in Washington DC. Ms. Meyer and Mr. Rowley are both identified on the Baker website as former prosecutors and specialists in criminal white collar investigations, and both were brought into the legal team to lead negotiations with the DOJ. 23. The presentation to the DOJ by Mr. Miller, Ms. Flesch, Ms. Meyer and Mr. Rowley was substantial and detailed, and included the use of a PowerPoint presentation. All four attorneys had begun preparing for that presentation, and coordinating with one another, in advance of the April 6 meeting, while Mr. Miller was still employed by the MPF. 24. The bills sent to by Trench Rossi con?rm that Baker attorneys, and Mr. Miller, were participating in the representation, including before Mr. Miller left his position with the MPF. Trench Rossi sent an invoice to dated May 17, 2017, that includes more than twenty time entries involving calls or meetings with Mr. Miller and/or Mr. Rowley and Ms. Meyer. For example, on her time entry for March 3, 2017, Ms. Flesch bills time for ?internal and external meetings with Marcelo Miller.? On March 24, 2017, Ms. Flesch and a Trench Rossi colleague, Camila Steinhoff, each billed time to a meeting with Mr. Miller ?about the case.? On her time entry for March 25, 2017, Ms. Flesch billed for conference calls with ?Baker attorneys.? On April 4, 2017, Ms. Flesch reported providing ?Instructions to Baker attorneys in preparation for meeting.? The next day, Ms. Steinhoff reported participating in a conference call with Mr. Rowley and Ms. Meyer ?in preparation for the meetings in the United States,? and conferring with Ms. Flesch and Mr. Miller ?about the case.? C. Brazilian Authorities Act To Rescind Or Renegotiate Agreements With and Its Personnel Based On Defendants? Negligence in Hiring Mr. Miller To Represent the Company 25. On or around May 3, 2017, certain officers and directors of &F?including Joesley Batista, Wesley Batista, Francisco de Assis Silva and Ricardo Saud?entered into agreements with PGR. Mr. Assis was at that time, and remains, &F?s General Counsel. The Batistas were on &F?s Board of Directors. And Mr. Saud was &F?s Director of Government Relations. 26. Pursuant to the terms of the May 3 agreements, the Batistas, Mr. Assis and Mr. Saud agreed to cooperate in the ongoing investigation and to pay fines, and the PGR agreed, in exchange, not to prosecute those individuals. 27. On or around June 5, 2017, itself entered into a ?leniency agreement? with Brazilian authorities pursuant to which it agreed to pay a significant amount in fines, 10.3 billion reais (approximately $3.18 billion), and to cooperate in the ongoing corruption investigation. 28. Defendants? decision to include Mr. Miller on &F?s legal team has now placed the agreements in jeopardy. Brazilian authorities recently announced they have initiated steps to rescind the agreements entered into by Mr. Assis, Mr. Saud and the Batistas, citing Trench Rossi?s conflict of interest in having Mr. Miller represent while simultaneously serving as a prosecutor. Brazilian authorities separately provided notice to that they are investigating Mr. Miller?s role in the company?s representation and whether it would have any impact on own agreement. D. Trench Rossi and Baker Work Together To Try To Limit The Damage From Revelations About Their Decision To Hire Mr. Miller 29. The decision to rescind the agreements was widely reported in Brazil, with Trench Rossi coming under heavy criticism. It was reported, for instance, that Brazil?s President, himself embroiled in the corruption scandal, had criticized Trench Rossi for including Mr. Miller as part of legal team. Defendants? misguided decision to hire Mr. Miller while he was still a prosecutor has also led to speculation in the media that was to blame, which is incorrect, but has been damaging to &F?s reputation. 30. Attorneys for Trench Rossi and Baker went into damage control mode once their error became public. In an application she has pending in Court proceedings that she initiated against Trench Rossi in Brazil, Ms. Flesch describes an incident, in July 2017, in which lawyers from both ?rms met with Ms. Flesch in Miami, for more than ten hours, and ?harassed? and ?pressured? her as part of a larger effort to ?scapegoat? her for hiring Mr. Miller to participate in representing According to Ms. Flesch, as noted above, Trench Rossi and Baker had in fact collaborated in the decision to hire Mr. Miller at Trench Rossi in the ?rst place. 31. Defendants placed Ms. Flesch on leave from Trench Rossi in approximately July 2017, and, in September, removed her from her position with the ?rm. Ms. Flesch has ?led suit against Trench Rossi in connection with her termination. 32. Also during late 2017, a Congressional committee in Brazil recommended that Mr. Miller be indicted in connection with his work at Trench Rossi, as part of the legal team representing while he was still employed as a prosecutor. Mr. Miller has been interviewed by Brazilian authorities and acknowledged meeting with of?cers, and Trench Rossi attorneys, even before he of?cially left his position with the MPF. 33. If the Brazilian government succeeds in rescinding its agreements, which requires approval from the Brazilian Supreme Court, four of?cers or directors?Joesley Batista, Wesley Batista, Mr. Assis and Mr. Saud?will be placed at risk of criminal prosecution and possibly imprisonment. Even if the leniency agreements ultimately survive, is obligated to indemnify oesley Batista and Ricardo Saud for the substantial legal fees they have already incurred, and will continue to incur, attempting to preserve their agreements. Moreover, has incurred costs on its own behalf, and will continue to incur costs, in connection with its ongoing negotiations with Brazilian authorities arising out of the decision to open an investigation into the status of &F?s leniency agreement in light of the revelations concerning Defendants? inclusion of Mr. Miller as part of the company?s legal team. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Professional Malpractice) 34. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation above as if set forth in full herein. 35. engaged Trench Rossi and Baker McKenzie to represent in connection with criminal investigations in Brazil and the United States. 36. In their representation of Defendants were required to exercise the degree of care and skill that a reasonable, competent lawyer, engaged in a similar practice and acting under similar circumstances, would exercise. 37. Defendants failed to exercise a reasonable degree of care and skill by hiring Mr. Miller, before he left his role in the Brazilian prosecutor?s of?ce, to participate with the team of Baker and Trench Rossi attorneys representing in connection with investigations in Brazil and the United States. 38. Because of Defendants? failure to exercise a reasonable degree of skill and care in their role counseling has been harmed. Brazilian authorities have initiated actions to rescind agreements entered into with &F?s of?cers and directors, placing them at risk of criminal prosecution and possible imprisonment; and Brazilian authorities have opened an investigation into whether Mr. Miller?s participation in &F?s legal team will have any impact on the status of the company?s agreement, which has required to incur costs negotiating with authorities in connection with that new investigation. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Breach of Fiduciary Duty) 39. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and every allegation above as if set forth in full herein. 40. Defendants owed a ?duciary duty. Trench Rossi and Baker McKenzie had an attorney client relationship with 41. Defendants breached this duty by making Mr. Miller a partner and failing to disclose to that Defendants? decision to include Mr. Miller on the legal team raised ethical concerns that would jeopardize the ability of and its of?cers and directors to maintain leniency agreements entered into with Brazilian authorities, or obtain such an agreement with the DOJ. 42. As a result of their breach of duty, Defendants caused damages to Plaintiffs. If not for Defendants? failure to disclose the implications of their decision to hire Miller, Plaintiffs would have sought representation from a ?rm without the ethical con?icts that now jeopardize the ability of and its of?cers and directors to secure and maintain agreements protecting them from prosecution. Plaintiffs are entitled to damages caused by Defendants? breach of ?duciary duty. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully seek from this Court: a. Damages, compensatory and punitive, in an amount to be determined at trial. b. Attorneys? fees, costs, and expenses the Plaintiff incurred in connection with this matter. c. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate. 10 DATED this 10th day of April, 2018 QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART SULLIVAN, LLP ,7 . . Eric C. 1300 I Street NW Suite 900 Washington, DC. 20005 (T): 202-538-8000 (F): 202-538-8100 Attorney for Plainti? Michael B. Carlinsky (pro hac vice forthcoming) 51 Madison Avenue, 2211d Floor New York, New York 10010-1601 (T): 212-849-7000 (F): 212-849-7100 11 Superior Court of the District of Columbia CIVIL DIVISION- CIVIL ACTIONS BRANCH INFORMATION SHEET INVESTIMENTOS S.A., Case Number: 2018 CA 002569 VS Date; April 10, 2018 TRENCH, ROSSI WATANABE ADVOGADOS AND BAKER MCKENZIE LLP. One of the defendants is being sued in their of?cial capacity. Name: (Please Print) Eric C. Firm Name: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Sullivan, LLP Telephone No.: Six digit Uni?ed Bar No.: 202-538-8000 482856 Relationship to Lawsuit I3 Attorney for Plaintiff i:i Self (Pro Se) El Other: TYPE OF CASE: '3 Non-Jury '3 6 Person Jury Demand: $Damages To Be Determined At Trial Other: El 12 Person Jury PENDING RELATED TO THE ACTION BEING FILED Case No: Judge: Calendar Case No.: Judge: Calendar#: NATURE OF SUIT: (Check One Box Only) A. CONTRACTS COLLECTION CASES El 01 Breach of Contract El 02 Breach of Warranty 06 Negotiable Instrument 07 Personal Property 13 Employment Discrimination El 15 Special Education Fees 27 Insurance/Subrogation 07 Insurance/Subrogation El 28 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Award (Collection Cases Only) Over $25,000 Pltf. Grants Consent Under $25,000 Pltf. Grants Consent El 14 Under $25,000 Pltf. Grants Consent El 16 Under $25,000 Consent Denied 17 OVER $25,000 Pltf. Grants Consent 18 OVER $25,000 Consent Denied 26 Insurance/Subrogation Over $25,000 Consent Denied El 34 Insurance/Subrogation Under $25,000 Consent Denied B. PROPERTY TORTS El 01 Automobile El 03 Destruction of Private Property El 02 Conversion El 04 Property Damage El 07 Shoplifting, DC. Code 27-102 El 05 Trespass C. PERSONAL TORTS El 01 Abuse of Process El 10 Invasion of Privacy 02 Alienation of Affection El 11 Libel and Slander 03 Assault and Battery El 12 Malicious Interference El 04 Automobile- Personal Injury El 13 Malicious Prosecution 05 Deceit (Misrepresentation) I3 14 Malpractice Legal 06 False Accusation El 15 Malpractice Medical (including Wrongful Death) El 07 False Arrest l6 Negligence- (Not Automobile, i:i17 Personal Injury? (Not Automobile, Not Malpractice) 18Wrongful Death (Not Malpractice) El 19 Wrong?il Eviction El 20 Friendly Suit El 21 Asbestos El 22 Toxic/Mass Torts 08 Fraud Not Malpractice) El 23 Tobacco 24 Lead Paint SEE REVERSE SIDE AND CHECK HERE IF USED CV-49 6/June 2015 Information Sheet, Continued C. OTHERS El 01 Accounting El 17 Merit Personnel Act (OEA) 02 Att. Before Judgment (DC. Code Title 1, Chapter 6) 05 Ejectment 18 Product Liability 09 Special Writ/Warrants (DC Code 11-941) 24 Application to Con?rm, Modify, El 10 Traf?c Adjudication Vacate Arbitration Award (DC Code 16-4401) El 11 Writ of Replevin 1:1 29 Merit Personnel Act (OHR) 1:1 12 Enforce Mechanics Lien 1:1 31 Housing Code Regulations 16 Declaratory Judgment El 32 Qui Tam 33 Whistleblower 11. El 03 Change of Name El 15 Libel of Information El 21 Petition for Subpoena El 06 Foreign Judgment/Domestic El 19 Enter Administrative Order as [Rule 28-1 08 Foreign Judgment/International Judgment DC. Code El 22 Release Mechanics Lien El 13 Correction of Birth Certi?cate 2-1802.03 or 32-151 9 El 23 Rule 27(a)(1) 14 Correction of Marriage El 20 Master Meter (DC. Code (Perpetuate Testimony) Certi?cate 42-3301, et seq.) El 24 Petition for Structured Settlement El 26 Petition for Civil Asset Forfeiture (Vehicle) El 25 Petition for Liquidation 27 Petition for Civil Asset Forfeiture (Currency) :1 28 Petition for Civil Asset Forfeiture (Other) D. REAL PROPERTY El 09 Real Property-Real Estate El 08 Quiet Title 12 Speci?c Performance El 25 Liens: Tax Water Consent Granted 04 Condemnation (Eminent Domain) :1 30 Liens: Tax Water Consent Denied 10 Mortgage Foreclosure/Judicial Sale El 31 Tax Lien Bid Off Certi?cate Consent Granted El 11 Petition for Civil Asset Forfeiture (RP) April 10, 2018 Attorney?s Signature Date June 2015 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION Civil Actions Branch 500 Indiana Avenue, N.W., Suite 5000, Washington, D.C. 20001 Telephone: (202) 879-1133 - Website: INVESTMENTOS, SA. Vs. CA. No. 2018 CA 002569 BAKER MCKENZIE, LLP et al INITIAL ORDER AND ADDENDUM Pursuant to D.C. Code 11-906 and District of Columbia Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure (?Super Ct. Civ. 40-I, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: (1) Effective this date, this case has assigned to the individual calendar designated below. All future ?lings in this case shall bear the calendar number and the judge?s name beneath the case number in the caption. On ?ling any motion or paper related thereto, one copy (for the judge) must be delivered to the Clerk along with the original. (2) Within 60 days of the ?ling of the complaint, plaintiff must ?le proof of serving on each defendant: copies of the summons, the complaint, and this Initial Order and Addendum. As to any defendant for whom such proof of service has not been ?led, the Complaint will be dismissed without prejudice for want of prosecution unless the time for serving the defendant has been extended as provided in Super. Ct. Civ. R. (3) Within 21 days of service as described above, except as otherwise noted in Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12, each defendant must respond to the complaint by ?ling an answer or other responsive pleading. As to the defendant who has failed to respond, a default and judgment will be entered unless the time to respond has been extended as provided in Super. Ct. Civ. R. 55(a). (4) At the time and place noted below, all counsel and unrepresented parties shall appear before the assigned judge at an initial scheduling and settlement conference to discuss the possibilities of settlement and to establish a schedule for the completion of all proceedings, including, normally, either mediation, case evaluation, or arbitration. Counsel shall discuss with their clients prii to the conference whether the clients are agreeable to binding or non-binding arbitration. This order is the only notice that parties and counsel will receive concerning this Conference. (5) Upon advice that the date noted below is inconvenient for any party or counsel, the Quality Review Branch (202) 879-1750 may continue the Conference once, with the consent of all parties, to either of the two succeeding Fridays. Request must be made not less than seven business days before the scheduling conference date. No other continuance of the conference will be granted except upon motion for good cause shown. (6) Parties are responsible for obtaining and complying with all requirements of the General Order for Civil cases, each judge?s Supplement to the General Order and the General Mediation Order. Copies of these orders are available in the Courtroom and on the Court?s website Chief Judge Robert E. Morin Case Assigned to: Judge BRIAN HOLEMAN Date: April 18, 2018 Initial Conference: 9:30 am, Friday, July 13, 2018 Location: Courtroom 516 500 Indiana Avenue NW. WASHINGTON, DC 20001 CAIO-60 ADDEHDCM TU INITIAL ALL MED ICAL IMALPRACTJ CASE 111 0000101011077 071111 11710 M001001 M01p7000100 A01. 013000 C. C000 {3 173801 0: 000.1200? 131111107 Supp "[7111107 0:11 7701:1011 10 111011. 111 1110 001171: 0.30.1001 7.1 1100111107170 3110311101 01.10gmg 1110111001 10011111001100 1110: 001171 011011 70311110 1110 [3071103 10 011101: 11110 100111311311 17711110111 11100017013 01:11 0.11 0011100 0g1'00[] with 011137 1111111011 7110007 7013 11:10.1: 071111101; m101f070 1771111. 11.10 0011130101100. '01. .m..11101:1011 0711:1110. 30 (1030 0:1. 1.110 111111711 3011011111110 and 7301110010111; C00f01'01100 1:11.101 11:1 01137 1117111107 "11113011011 :10 011 0000 1:0 1700020. 0 00111011107111; 0g7'00m001. T110 007137 11110111011011 00h0cI11'l0 0h011 110' 1110131171001 171 "1110- 80110011111133 37.0 101100711133 [11.11000 0.1.1 001100 71g1'00 100 01037 0:1 171100030137 01.1011. .001: 00.10010 1117111 :10 110370 01107 1110 1881" a DC. C0710 73 1672.17.31 T0 01101110 00111101101100. 1771111 this .10gi010110713 011.. 1:11: b0f010:'1110 1101.0 01?11101?3?3123 1:110: (3.0001237111. 7111 0110111030 011113770 0'0 377711107, 0? 111.0 11010 17.1.1110 01?1110 00113: 11101151011011 000000. 71:11:11 1110: 00.1110 0151110 0001011001. 11107110101. 11111701111015.1011 0110111. 1.110 001137 md10?011 07110- 0100 10 0.7701101310 0307' 1110 1111011101; 01?; 1111310 7573770177: 0100011110. 3301733007. T0 f00?11010 11110 13700000 011 0011110017111d 37770 00 10071100 1.11 07.7013 11101111. 01 11101311001100 0000 01:0 1001117071. to 7.00101 1011:1113 00111311010 01101 Sign 0.1.1 EARLS: MEDJATICE FDRM 177111011 0.111. 01 1110 11.10.01 110 171101: 1:110:71 1011 (10) 0010711101: 110373 1:11:10: ?10 1.110 ISSC. D. C0010 T127701 0031711010 1770:1010 0.11:0 07701101710 13101.11 T011110 1117137 1:70 01710111011 01. C110 101117.10 1:0 '00 110071 101 07:17:13- 11101117011011.0111). 0. .010d10101' 1310171. 1:110 11111111311001? 1110111001. 0101311001100 media'tm: 10010731110 00001111 10711110110 00113071.;f01i 00713 11107110111011.1711}: 0 07177010 11100110107 B0111 1011110 71100 0.70 07701101110 131001.110 13.00011111011 Iffi00 S0110 2.900 711.1.0 S0000 001111001 1.0 10031011011110.1111: ?F'Ihjjg 1.110 ?01111 011111 10 1001111011 10 00110511 001171003 ?00173 1:0 00113111061110.1{6311030 g0'7 P70 00 131011711110 07110: 01001110110 0Fil0 11103715110 1131101171. 1110311110 CiiI'?00 A 7:001:01: 01.010.111.001 11101131001100 11100101000 03711101110 11170113311 1:110 131311111313007 1310111110 ZB000011111011 Divigfimg 071111 hi?gapl?gal 11110110011011 0111:7111 00011 111001011173 00111. 110- .101.0111 01: All 71110117771011.1010 011.1110 10.77100 1110 judg00 1:11: 1017737070 0711.11 01 1.00101 10 370070 01" signi?cant 003107101100: 1711. 1110711001 1001311001100 111ig011011. DC. C0010 3 .1 11" 1110 0071:1500 00.111101: 03700 0.11. 0: 0101110107; "1110 C0011 177111 app-01111: 0.110. DC C000 73 T110 1111111177ng 00100710 7170 10011111001 1:737 01011110 '10 011011111. 1301001171113 M0111011011 C011f?0101100: (13 71]] 31011160 (S3 1701' 0011160 1117.11 010 11:01: 11101131110010 3.: 70070000101130 071111 001110010111: 011111011133. (33.1.11 00..- .1113'017710g 01:1: 111011700077 00111310033 0 70117000101130 of. 11110 00111310037 00111 1011110111 01111101113; 011d (71) 51110111030 70111000111103, 00011 13017137 071111 31111110737 10000110111111.1737 1:01: 11:10 0000. C0110 167-28271. .1710 1.0101" 11171.11 1011 (1.03. 11030 311071110 0031137 11110111011011 00001011 11710 10711110010013. Plai?ti? 1111101 0F1I0 101111 1110 C0001 0 101.1071: 037' 1110 0101110100100100110 7. 311177710 1110010107 3030711013. (1) 31101111711100 0711011101: 0 0011101110111 0700 1:00 011011; 0.1: (3311? 0 001110010111. 17710 1101. 01' 7100011 711137 0570011101110 10 710110177 111.0 7.00110 01' 1110 11100010 1111111: (11000770733. 1001111010 111111170 71011101110111: 1101012 011011101 17101111011011 00051011 01' 0111011077100 110111.100 1.110 0001: 7.1.1111 111710 01 171011 11701301011011 iD. 167-25321? A1137 P1110113 37110 10 p70 .00 11171.37 01011.0 10 1110 1110 1011011113 110.1101 1771111 1110 A0110I10 31011011. T110 1011115 10' 170 .0000 107 00713 11100110110111 10310110 0.10 0770110010 711'. Chi0f llildg0 1131017011: 15771101111 CATO-62C)