Brad Gatehouse’s practice is focused primarily on litigation, with an emphasis on complex business litigation of all types, including appeals, securities litigation and arbitration, debtor-creditor disputes and workouts, personal guaranty litigation, corporate dissolution and receivership, class and derivative lawsuits and other shareholder disputes, independent investigations and special representations for boards of directors and special board committees, construction and real estate litigation, antitrust matters, non-competition and/or non-solicitation agreements, trade secrets, unfair trade practices, fiduciary duty, business torts, and all manner of contract disputes.
His practice has also included the representation of clients in connection with investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and by other government entities.
Outside of litigation, he assists clients in general, corporate, and business law matters and counsels his clients on legal compliance within the foregoing areas of substantive law, with an eye toward avoiding future litigation.
Mr. Gatehouse was recently recognized for his work in Business Litigation by North Carolina Super Lawyers magazine (2016) and for Business Law in Business North Carolina magazine’s “Legal Elite” (2015). He is rated “AV® Preeminent™” by Martindale Hubbell Peer Review Ratings.
North Carolina, 1996
New York, 1992
West Virginia, 1992
U.S. District Court Western District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court Middle District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court Eastern District of North Carolina
U.S. District Court Eastern District of New York
U.S. District Court Southern District of New York
U.S. District Court Western District of New York
U.S. District Court Southern District of West Virginia
U.S. Court of Appeals 4th Circuit
U.S. Supreme Court
University of Virginia School of Law, J.D., 1991
West Virginia University, B.A. summa cum laude, 1988
Honors and Awards
Associations and Memberships
American Inns of Court, Justice William Bobbitt Chapter
Federal Bar Association
Mecklenburg County Bar
North Carolina Bar Association
New York City Bar Association
Skookum, Inc. v. BlueCotton, Inc., Case No. 15-CVS-1277 (N.C. Business Court) — Software development dispute.
Taylor v. Protection Sys. Technologies, Inc. et al., Case No. 11-CVS-7126 (Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina) — Represented minority shareholder in successful corporate dissolution and fiduciary breach case against close corporation and two controlling shareholders; in 2013 after two-week bench trial, dissolution and fair value payout awarded plaintiff, along with damages for breach of fiduciary duty claim, with corporate counterclaim dismissed.
Beacon Development Company d/b/a Beacon Partners v. Beacon Investment Properties, LLC, Case No. 12-CVS-18397 (N.C. Business Court) — North Carolina state law trademark infringement action.
McCullough v. Terminal Trucking Company, LLC et al., Case No. 1:12-CV-11 (U.S. District Court, M.D.N.C.) — Successful defense in WARN Act lawsuit and putative class action; plaintiff voluntarily dismissed case after defendants’ motion to dismiss.
Signature Development, LLC v. Sandler Commercial at Union, LLC et al., Case No. 08-CVS-2835 (Superior Court, Union County, North Carolina) and Case No. COA09-646 (N.C. Court of Appeals) — Reversing trial court dismissal and clarifying that N.C. licensing statute does not require real estate development manager to hold general contractor license; settled after remand to trial court.
Redtail Capital Partners One, LLC v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. et al., Cause No. 09-00527 (District Court of Dallas County, Texas) — Co-counsel representation of financial services company enforcing rights under mortgage-backed securities participation agreement and pooling and servicing agreement, including right to be controlling holder thereunder, against competing holder and special servicer.
UNEX Corporation v. Industrial Bolting Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-CV-6027 (U.S. District Court, D.N.J.) — Co-counsel defense representation in intellectual property dispute (patent, trademark, trade dress, and related unfair trade claims) arising from manufacture and distribution of industrial hydraulic wrench products.
Wachovia Bank, N.A. et al. v. Harbinger Capital Partners & Master Fund I, Ltd., et al., Case No. 07-CVS-5097 (N.C. Business Court) and Case No. COA08-629 (N.C. Court of Appeals) — Co-counsel representation of hedge funds in litigation arising from loan syndication.
Young et al. v. Golf Trust of America, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:04-902-25 (U.S. District Court, D.S.C.) — Successful co-counsel representation of defendants in complex contract and business tort matter, winning summary judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims and obtaining $3.7 million-plus verdict on counterclaims after five-day jury trial.
Dellinger v. Pfizer Inc, and Parke-Davis, Case No. 5:03-CV-95 (U.S. District Court, W.D.N.C.) — Successful defense in off-label drug marketing case; disposition of products liability, personal injury, and unfair trade practices case on Daubert and summary judgment motions.
Tactical Support Equipment, Inc. v. Tricom Research, Inc., Case No. 5:08-CV-159 (U.S. District Court, E.D.N.C.) — Co-counsel representation in contract and intellectual property dispute concerning military-use radio amplifier equipment manufacture and distribution; opposing party’s competing federal action in California dismissed in favor of client’s prior pending action in North Carolina.
Allen et al. v. Burch Company, Case No. 02-CVS-1516 (Superior Court, Wilkes County, North Carolina) — Successful bench trial to secure the appointment of receiver for technology company.
Aerolator Systems, Inc. et al. v. Poston, Case No. 3:00-CV-277H (U.S. District Court, W.D.N.C.) — Four-day complex business tort jury trial.
Robbins v. Tweetsie Railroad, Inc. et al., Case No. 95-CVS-437 (Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina) and Case No. COA96-587 (N.C. Court of Appeals) — Successfully defended corporation in derivative action at trial court level and appellate court level; affirmed on appeal in the first published decision fully setting forth North Carolina requirement that a derivative plaintiff be a fair and adequate representative of the corporate interest.
Tweetsie Railroad, Inc. v. Young Realty Investment et al., Case No. 98-CVS-116 (Superior Court, Watauga County, North Carolina) and Young Realty Investment, LLC v. Tweetsie Railroad, Inc., Case No. 97-CVS-9245 (Superior Court, Guilford County, North Carolina) — Represented Tweetsie Railroad in litigation and related matters in connection with the hostile attempt of an outside investor group to take control of the corporation; Guilford County suit voluntarily dismissed; settlement reached in Watauga County case after discovery and favorable rulings on preliminary injunction and dismissal motions.
Bell, Seltzer, Park & Gibson, P.A. v. Myers et al., Case No. 97-CVS-9957 (N.C. Business Court) — Represented plaintiff in business tort suit involving law firm split-up; settlement achieved following mediation.
Nicholson v. Lonza AG et al., Case No. 99-CVS-3592 (Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina) and Picos et al. v. Lonza AG, Case No. 99-CVS-5035 (Superior Court, Cumberland County, North Carolina) — Local counsel for domestic and international pharmaceutical corporations defending antitrust claims by class of indirect purchasers.
Harry v. Crescent Resources et al., Case No. 97-CVS-14726 (Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina) and Case No. COA98-1598 (N.C. Court of Appeals) — Represented individual defendant in real property lawsuit and on appeal; affirmance of lower court summary judgment against plaintiff; directed verdict for defendants after Superior Court jury trial.
Harry v. Mecklenburg County et al., Case No. 98-CVS-10187 (Superior Court, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina) — Successfully represented individual landowner defendant before zoning board and before Superior Court on plaintiffs’ petition for writ of certiorari.
The cases mentioned above are illustrative of the matters handled. Case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Not all results are provided, and prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.