Robert “Bob” Hackett is a Member of Sherman & Howard’s Commercial Litigation department. Bob has over 45 years of trial practice focused on complex multi-party litigation, with emphasis on trials in securities and business fraud, antitrust, real estate, contract, intellectual property, business dissolutions, corporate governance/director and officer liability, and other fiduciary duty disputes.
- Defense of developer/promoter of sports arena facility and its directors against class action litigation brought by bondholders against clients, underwriters, law firms and others.
- Representation of trustee acting on behalf of investors who lost money in a securities fraud “Ponzi” scheme of over $100 million.
- Regularly retained as a consultant and testifying expert witness in legal malpractice litigation.
- Representation of one of the country’s largest homebuilders and its chief executive officer/board chairman in multi-district class action securities fraud litigation resulting from the collapse of Lincoln Savings and Loan Association/the Charles Keating group of companies wherein depositors and investors sought several billions of dollars.
- Representation of former Major League Baseball and National Football League players in NASD (now FINRA) arbitrations against the broker-dealer subsidiary of the country’s second largest life insurer, and recovery of millions of dollars as a result of the sale of unsuitable investments.
- Representation of international cereal grain seed breeder in enforcement of client’s intellectual property rights and in negotiation of licensing agreements and joint ventures with other seed breeders, food product companies and other agribusinesses.
- Real property litigation, including representation of general contractors, subcontractors, sureties, property owners/developers and others in construction and land use disputes relating to the planning and building of colleges, schools, resorts, shopping centers, apartments and other commercial buildings; representation of marina in dispute over purchase price after purchase option exercise; representation of Arizona’s largest supermarket chain in month long jury trial involving disputes over shopping center development; representation of owner/developer of a major Arizona resort in one month jury trial seeking damages for lender liability against the resort’s commercial lender; jury trial representation of landowners whose properties were condemned for a variety of public uses, including highways, parks, parking areas, transportation facilities and construction of public buildings.
- Defense of the country’s largest do-it-yourself moving company in takeover litigation and in defense of director claims for indemnification after a judgment in excess of one billion dollars was entered against the directors in shareholder derivative litigation.
- Antitrust litigation, including national representation in defense of the country’s second largest motion picture theatre exhibitor.
- Representation of life insurance companies, including defense of the chief executive officer of the largest Arizona domiciled life insurance company in litigation filed by the Arizona Department of Insurance seeking damages for claimed breaches of fiduciary duties, mismanagement and fraud, and defense of bad faith claims after denial of benefits to insureds under life and disability policies.
- Securities and Corporate Governance – Sell v. Gama/Sewell, _Ariz._, 295 P.3d 421 (2013); Allstate Life Insurance Company v. Robert W. Baird & Co., Inc., 756 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (D. Ariz. 2010); In re American Continental Corp./Lincoln Sav. and Loan Sec. Lit., MDL Docket 834 (D. Ariz. 1992); United Bank of Ariz. v. Sun Mesa Corp., 119 F.R.D. 430 (D. Ariz. 1988); Tonnemacher v. Sasak, 838 F. Supp. 445 (D. Ariz. 1993); Herstam v. Deloitte & Touche, LLP, 186 Ariz. 110, 919 P.2d 1381 (App. 1996); In re Shoen, 193 B.R. 302 (Bkrtcy. Ariz. 1996); Shoen v. Shoen, 167 Ariz. 58, 804 P.2d 787 (App. 1990)
- General Litigation – Protect Lake Pleasant, LLC v. McDonald, 609 F.Supp.2d 895 (D. Ariz. 2009); Firstar Metropolitan Bank v. F.D.I.C., 964 F. Supp. 1353 (D. Ariz. 1997); State ex rel. Miller v. Beardsley Industrial Property, 173 Ariz. 19, 839 P.2d 439 (App. 1992); U.S. Life Title Co. of Ariz. v. Bliss, 150 Ariz. 188, 722 P.2d 356 (App. 1986); Cal Fed Partners v. Heers, 156 Ariz. 245, 751 P.2d 561 (App. 1987); Mann v. New York Life Ins. & Annuity Corp., 222 F. Supp. 2d 1151 (D. Ariz. 2002); Castiglione v. United States Life Ins. Co., 262 F.Supp.2d 1025 (D. Ariz. 2003); Alloco v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 256 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (D. Ariz. 2003); Twin City Construction Co. v. Cantor, 22 Ariz. App. 133, 524 P.2d 967 (1974); Spector v. Spector, 23 Ariz. App. 131, 531 P.2d 176 (1975).
- Antitrust – Albani M.D. v. Southern Arizona Anesthesia, P.C., 1997-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 71,927 (D. Ariz. 1997); Syufy Enter. v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 694 F. Supp. 725 (N.D. Cal. 1988); 602 F. Supp. 1466 (N.D. Cal. 1983), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 793 F.2d 990 (9th Cir. 1986), cert. denied 479 U.S. 1031 (1987) and 479 U.S. 1034 (1987); 575 F. Supp. 431 (N.D. Cal. 1983); 1983-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 65,740 (N.D. Cal. 1983); 555 F. Supp. 418 (N.D. Cal. 1982); Exhibitors’ Service, Inc. v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 583 F. Supp. 1186 (C.D. Cal. 1984), rev’d 788 F.2d 574 (9th Cir. 1986); Dial Mfg. Int’l, Inc. v. McGraw-Edison Co., 657 F. Supp. 248 (D. Ariz. 1987); El Cajon Cinemas, Inc. v. American Multi-Cinema, Inc., 832 F. Supp. 1395 (S.D. Cal. 1993); 1993-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,158 (S.D. Cal. 1993); 1992-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 70,038 (S.D. Cal. 1992); Kerasotes Michigan Theater, Inc. v. National Amusements, Inc., 139 F.R.D. 102 (E.D. Mich. 1991); Harkins Amusement Enter., Inc. v. General Cinema Corp., 132 F.R.D. 523 (D. Ariz. 1990); 748 F. Supp. 1389 (D. Ariz. 1990); 748 F. Supp. 1395 (D. Ariz. 1990); 748 F. Supp. 1399 (D. Ariz. 1990); 748 F. Supp. 1413 (D. Ariz. 1990); 748 F. Supp. 1414 (D. Ariz. 1990); 1990-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 69,131 (9th Cir. 1990); 850 F.2d 477 (9th Cir. 1988), cert. denied 488 U.S. 1019 (1989); 657 F. Supp. 1037 (D. Ariz. 1987); 648 F. Supp. 1212 (D. Ariz. 1986); In re Motion Picture Licensing Antitrust Litigation, 479 F.Supp. 581 (J.P.M.L. 1979); In re Ariz. Dairy Prod. Litig., 1975-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) 60,395 (D. Ariz. 1975); In re Cement and Concrete Antitrust Litigation, 1980-81 Trade Cas. (CCH) 63,797 (D. Ariz. 1980); Maricopa County v. American Pipe & Constr. Co., 303 F. Supp. 77 (D. Ariz. 1969); Continental Oil Co. v. United States, 330 F.2d 347 (9th Cir. 1964);
- Supreme Court of the State of Arizona
- U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
- U.S. Supreme Court
- U.S. Court of Appeals 9th Circuit
- State Bar of Arizona, Antitrust, Securities Regulation and Trial Practice Sections
- Maricopa County Bar Association
- Arizona Bar Foundation
- Best Lawyers in America, Commercial Litigation (2013-2020); Litigation: Antitrust (2012-2020); Litigation: Real Estate (2012-2020); and Litigation: Securities (2013-2020)
- Super Lawyers, Business Litigation, Southwest (2007 – Present)